It would seem that a previous post, in which I have criticized Time Magazine for choosing George Bush as 2004's Person of the Year, has become the vehicle for an argument in which the author is citing (as being exemplary) my entry as the "...unintelligible hatred of everything Bush connotes..." This could easily be forgotten, but I must clarify a few things first, and the author does not have commenting enabled.
Let me begin by stating that while the author is missing the bulls-eye, I do partially agree with the argument. Firstly, the overly-religious factor presiding in our current government is, indeed, dangerous for both American society and the US political system. The sharp distinctions drawn when society seeks to define people by labels is creating a titanic rift within the American culture. It's easy to seek out blame within those who draw an opposing viewpoint, and given the attitude within the media (fortified by the recent campaign), it's okay for us to do that. When it isn't very clear where the problems are coming from, people can feel better by fingering the opposition. Which is where I will also agree with the author, in that there exists a clime whose citizens feel more free to express their rage at the opposition. Both liberal and conservative are guilty, it doesn't merely exist in one circle -- mainly because if it was as one-sided as the author would like to believe, the resistance could easily be brushed off and would likely not exist to the degree that it does now.
However, the author also makes quite a few assertions, and fails to present an example to his argument. The biggest and most important point here is that the purpose of the post was not to criticize Bush, or his policies, or the "atrocities of the administration." I have remained relatively silent when it comes to excoriating the Bush administration, mainly because it allows others to easily apply labels that don't actually apply, as the author has done here. (i.e.): in most cases, no matter what I say, no matter what I actually believe to be true, my statements can be misinterpreted as being liberal or conservative or what have you. When I made the statement regarding my relatively mild level of objectivity, the point was that despite whether I disagree with Bush's intentions, I still give him the benefit of the doubt, because there is some good in the man, and I realize he is working from a very difficult angle; I was not purporting that in every situation I am exactly right and that the truth that I speak is the ultimate truth. It would be inhuman of me to believe as such.
Being that I was criticizing not Bush, but the choice of Bush as Person of the Year, and being that the remainder of the piece is written as otherwise, most of the points being made are incorrect. The critic has come into the discussion with a vastly distorted prejudgment, especially in the argument that I am from the left. This is a label which can be applied easily to those who would offer a viewpoint seeking to unseat the current mode of thinking. It is "radical," or "progressive," or whatever... From when I was very young, learning civics from a schoolbook, I remember vaguely the definitions of these labels: conservatives like things to remain the same, and liberals embrace change. Seems simple enough. Today, the distinction is much different to the point of clashing and gnashing of teeth. There are extremely negative visions invoked on both sides of the fence; most of them a product of a poor political system and unprofessional politicians. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... As it turns out, if I were to be applied with labels, I am NOT from the left. And I definitely do not seek to make martyrs out of Islamic terrorists, for Islam is also a religious entity guilty of harming society, not unlike Christianity. This, in reference to a Slate article, which the author invokes to justify his point. The article (written by Christopher Hitchens) more or less states that the Administration is more successful at promoting secularism than the liberal "smug" attitude, by defeating radical Islam. It fails to mention, however, that the fight, in part, coincidentally boasts the moral strength of mighty Christianity. This is only reinforced by the supposed "moral mandate" that came out in record numbers on Nov. 2nd. (Whose number was misrepresented, btw.)
Not to mention the fact that if someone can't tell what is biased and what isn't, they probably shouldn't be assuming information is objective.
While I admit that I was using the comment about destroying America as a hyperbole, it still is what it is. Again, the political climate is hyper-charging the ego of society, creating an enormous rift that will take a long time to mend. Moreover, this rift is slowly unraveling the fabric of American ideals, and reassembling to create America 2.0. What it will be like, I can only speculate at this point. While I have taken issue with Bush policies, the ideals and methods that I would seek as solutions are typically "out of the mainstream," and don't often share them without proper context.
Again, this was not about Bush. My opinion of him doesn't matter -- there is no such requirement for myself to care about what others think. My interests are not in how the policies of this administration affect myself, but rather how they affect society. It is wholly selfish to assume that I was only spouting generalized opinion.
Aside from the major issues, there are some syntax errors in the critique, as the author seems to have missed the entire article.
More: Bush is "channeling" the "policy" of the "Christian meta-God," whatever that means. (What is a God, if not inherently meta? I suppose ancient Greek polytheists might deny that, but I haven't heard from them lately.)
The reference to the "Christian meta-God" is a reflection on how Christianity represents its deity, as an all-powerful, all-seeing (etc.) existence. Consequently, if the beliefs seek to define God as inherently meta, the argument is self-defeating as there can be no limit to the also-inherent levels of "meta" that can proceed or succeed God. So as an aside, God is not inherently meta. There is no system which cannot be considered as the subset of some other system. Because God cannot exist, God does not exist. Christianity is partially myth, partially historical. As for the statement, which was cynical in nature, it came from incidents such as the one where (in this instance) an attendee to a Bush campaign locale said they were pleased that "God is in the White House." I won't bother explaining the correlation, it should be fairly evident. If the critical author feels it is in his ability to extract that I am a "liberal," then he also should be able to follow inferences, especially with a knack for political punditry. As such that the statement was misinterpreted, the assumption following, claiming a contradiction, is incorrect. As an addendum, here is a well-written article further explaining why religion + democracy = bad idea:
Using My Religion: How Faith-Based Politicking Degrades Democracy and Christianity [by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst]
Back to the original article:
It isn't just that he's doing the orders of the meta-God, though. He also thinks he is God-two things which seem contradictory. Worse, he has "[got] a large number of people to support him." Oh, the horror! That a politician would seek to encourage people to support his decisions! Will humanity ever recover? Well, America won't-after all, it's been destroyed.
The original intention, even if it were as the author assumes, is misstated anyhow. The author re-assembles the wording to change the original information from Bush channeling God, to now following the orders of God. Two different things. This is exactly the point, the actions of
channeling God and of
having a God complex are one in the same in this instance. Following that, again, the author misunderstands the cynicism, most likely from the pre-judgment distortion. However, there is significant exaggeration here, and presumably the author understands it well, and so can make no excuse for lack of understanding for my original post. Of COURSE a political leader is going to have a following; this is not shocking. The point was to speculate why they would award Bush POTY: surely not because he has a following! This is a given, and so is nothing extraordinary. Which is why it would be absurd to give the award for that reason. The assertion was that there is little real reason to honor him with such an award, and Time is clearly politicizing (as they did in 2000, when he received the same award.) More interjection:
(well, I suppose Bush has "got me to support" him, apparently by deluding and manipulating me)
Nowhere did I make the conjecture or suggest that there was manipulation or delusion involved. The author clearly adds this panache of his own volition, though with an air of defense, as though these were things that I had said -- when they were not.
The clever inclusion of a Wikipedia entry: "Psychological Projection" is a class maneuver. Unfortunately, it is an empty assertion. Here is a better application: Harangue
Or how about transference?
...this blogger is all too typical of a fanatical, almost unintelligible hatred of everything Bush connotes-a hatred so intense that it does not bother to give reasons for opposing Bush, or intelligent alternatives to his policies;
Once again, the purpose was not to criticize Bush himself, and as a matter of correction, I never said I hated Bush. He is a very simple person, one who requires patience and occasional humor. His decisions are not solely his, and I realize this. I am not here to be a political head; It would be arrogant of me to believe that any "intelligent alternatives to his policies," are worth stating so matter-of-factly, and therefore, I do not. The author paints with a very broad brush. There is some humor to the entry, however, in this:
It is simply impossible to converse with people who are so blinded by rage.
Which is humorous simply because the author made no attempt to have a conversation with me before making these assumptions, notwithstanding the fact that in my original post, I made the statement that
"I'm not that outraged, really. I think it's kind of humorous, actually." Where is the rage? Barring the quoted statement, there are no indications that I was at any point enraged.
This is becoming a problem, and only contributing to the much larger problem of societal difference, where rather than take the extra five minutes to write a comment to my post, to get further clarification, this author chose to instead bloviate. Netizens are already seeking out opinions that mirror their own, when they surf the blogosphere for news. Why would one want to contribute to the misinformation? The difference here is that I was stating opinion that made no attempt to be understood as fact, where the author of the rebuttal was stating opinion which he presented as factual information.
Doesn't truth have to be true anymore?
Recent Comments