Saturday, January 28, 2006

Republicans, Jesus, the King of Sweden, and Me.

It seems that we have the unfortunate luck to live in the "interesting times" from the oft quoted, double-edged ancient Chinese saying. More apocalyptic thinkers would say that we have the unfortunate luck (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) of living in the "End Times" of the more literal and eschatological minded forms of Christianity. It is, without doubt, a time of wars and rumours of wars. In any event, and whatever worldview you subscribe to, there is one thing we can probably all agree on: things are seriously fucked up.

That's where the agreement will likely end. How and why things are fucked up is still a huge source of contention and will continue to be for some time. There is one particular aspect of our fucked up times that I would like to focus on today though, and I think it's a biggie. In fact, I would say that it is at the very heart of our problems, both national and global. It is possibly the most dangerous force in our world today, all the more so because of its seeming innocuosness: subjectivity.

First, a definition: Subjective: "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision." (via dictionary.com) Subjectivity pervades our culture, that is, our decisions and perceptions of the world are increasingly based upon preconceived notions, ideas, and ideologies, and less so on what happens outside of our heads in the real world. The "reality based community" is shrinking every day. Facts, observable concrete facts, have become devalued in our culture as blind faith has jumped from the realm of religion into every realm of human knowledge. It no longer matters what you can prove, now it only matters what you believe. Any more, Americans are unwilling to look at evidence that contradicts what they think they already know, or evidence that contradicts what they desperately want to believe (or what someone powerful wants them to believe).

Now let's get a little more specific. For the past thirty or more years the Republican party has tried to paint itself as the defender of morality, "values", and traditional culture. (Don't forget racism--though they're slightly more subtle about that one). This tactic has brought them a phenomenal degree of electoral success, especially since once in office they have managed to accomplish nothing of note and repeatedly prove that their policies simply do not work. But they are masters of P.R. George W. Bush is the apotheosis of this triumph of image over substance.

You all know the memes that have taken root with the Right and the media: George W. Bush is a good Christian man, he's a regular guy, the average American would love to have a beer or barbecue with him, and on and on ad nauseum. The general public accepts this characterization of the man, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out why. Because they want to apparently, for there is no evidence that it is even remotely true. It must be that if something is repeated enough times, it's accepted as true. George Bush reminds us again and again that he has deep Christian faith and that Jesus is his favorite philosopher, but does very little to show us the truth of these assertions. I can say that I'm the King of Sweden a million times, but that still won't make it true.

But there I go again, looking for evidence, that is sooo twentieth century of me. In this Brave New World we have no need of the facts, we need only believe what we're told. I for one, think I'll stick to the old ways. If you say you're a good Christian I'd like to see some behavior that's, oh I don't know,... Christ-like? to back it up. Of course, maybe I'm just defining Christian morality in a completely different way than Georgie and his supporters. Maybe he is a good Christian by the conventional evangelical American definition. That definition would include: an obsession with sexuality as the end all be all of morality (especially the condemnation of any sexuality seen as deviant), fervent nationalism-- in fact an exclusionary Messianic nationalism bordering on idolatry (did I say bordering on?), the belief that enough violence directed against others will solve all of our problems, the condemnation of the poor and fetishization of laissez-faire capitalism, anti-intellectualism, and a healthy hatred of the progressive income tax. It's hard to see how any of that has any relation to the morality that Jesus taught. In fact, a lot of it seems to be in direct opposition to his teachings. Can you say "apostasy"?

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because apparently, Jesus likes it that way. He's also all about rampant dishonesty, meaningless (and illegal) war, torture, and corruption out the yin-yang. Of course, I could be wrong about all of this, being as I am an outsider looking in at American culture and politics. I'm sorry, did I not introduce myself? I'm the King of Sweden.

4 comments:

asdfasdfadfasd said...

You seem to be ignoring some of the lesser known teachings of Hey Seuss. I mean, the bible DID say that torture was fun and healthy. "Thou shalt shock some balls".

Subtle racism? I'm pretty sure that painting Air Force One to look like the General Lee isn't subtle.

W just follows a different form of Christianity, you know, the one where you get to blow shit up.

It sounds to me that we could just fix all of this if we just plugged up Bush's Yin-Yang since that seems to be where it's coming from.

Leelu said...

Good afternoon, your Majesty. I'm the Queen of Finland.

Leelu said...

It's funny because it's true: http://libraryosis.blogspot.com/2006/01/one-more-thing-before-i-go.html

Degolar said...

I'm with you for the most part, especially your criticism about the approach of the Republican party. I'm just not sure that it's really a new thing. Now I'm not the history major here, but it seems like spin has always been a big part of perceived reality. Thus phrases like, "History is written by the winners," and, "There are two sides to every story," carrying enough weight to become cliche. FDR got the media to help him hide the extent of his disability so he would always seem strong in the public eye. Wasn't that one of the goals of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, to stop being so subjective and start being more objective? I don't know, I'm being kind of random here. It just seems the subjectivity you have defined seems as much a part of the human condition as a recent political trend.

(Of course, I only feel safe questioning you since we are in the U.S. If we were in Sweden, though . . . )