Lest ensuing attacks on the Bush Debacle appear too "liberal:" consider my MANIFESTO as an old-fashioned Republican disgruntled with the mess neo-ideologues have made of the Grand Ole Party by turning foundational ideas into dogma. They sound like Ayn Rand trying--rather comically as observed by Studs Turkel--to define everything academically in words. They distort Americana into a mind-closing belief system squeezing the life out of authentic values like Jeffersonian self-government.

Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Defense

Ensuing queries about the Bush brand of "conservatism" are designed accordingly to demonstrate an older methodology for vindicating foundational ideas. It extends back to the Greek observation that reality unfolds from the pervading rationality of Natural Law. This line of classical thought has facilitated the actual development of international law and civilization over the centuries.

It is also a neglected mainstream of Americana. Frontier pioneers were forced by harsh circumstance into thinking in accordance with nature. It was formulated by yankee "transcendentalists" as American Pragmatism. Again though, it is tempting to get bogged down in definitions. I am simply recommending an old tough-minded "style" of thinking realistically.

I also share the traditional perspective of American voters lacking "inside" information from the Beltway. Although full disclosure of these "details" might alter our views somewhat, they can also be likened to "trees" among which insiders get lost. We voters are equipped by representative democracy with an approximating appreciation for the archetypal "forest" appearing out here in hinterlands.

BUSH AND THE BELIEF TRAP

A PBS "Frontline" presentation in April, 2004 exposed some disturbing incompatibilities between the President's "Christian" fundamentalism and his international responsibility. His right-wing religious constituency is cursed, notably, by soft-minded assumptions which are perpetuated via common vagaries of hearsay.

They suppose, first off, that religious sentences formulated in their heads are dictated by a "personal" God. "He" allegedly manipulates everyday life--rather whimsically in their favor--as chosen survivors "saved" by blind belief from eternal damnation ordained for the rest of humanity. This kind of "revealed" truth carries a simplistic singularity.

Author's Note (Columbus Day, 2004): The concept of a "personal" God enables resolution of semantic confusion about Divinity throughout western religions. Consider a story by Joseph Campbell told to Bill Moyers during their PBS-TV discussions about religion and mythology ("The Power of Myth" ((1988).) A Catholic priest once asked Campbell if he believed in a "personal" God? The answer was "no" to the intriguing way this was asked. The priest thereupon acknowledged that empirical evidence was lacking for this kind of God.

Implications of the episode are pursued through ensuing essays and spelled out in the one on America's "tilt toward Israel:" The "personal" God, derived from mythological description in ancient times, is a primitive basis for western fundamentalism. Campbell has significantly suggested that the descriptive verbalization itself constitutes a confusing "mask" for the real Divinity prevailing obviously beyond the reach of words.

Contrast now the more universal multiplicity of truth (observable empirically) under a classical notion that reality unfolds from the spiritual rationality of Natural Law. Consider notably the Jeffersonian marketplace of ideas. Nuances naturally derived therein from collective compromise of differing ideas are dreadfully lacking under fundamentalists' assumption that "one truth" flows untrammeled from their "personal" God.

Bush is consequently slow in listening to differing viewpoints.

That is the nub of a mind-closing "belief trap." Humans start learning in infancy though that we cannot always have our own way. Intellectual maturity demands broad-minded compromise.

Human populations are divided into "us versus them." That attitude prevails over whatever lip service is belatedly accorded to a glaring need for global compromise. A desperate Bush has begun speaking this spring (2004) in somewhat more universally humanistic terms; with late appeals to the United Nations for help with the Iraq debacle. Does he really mean it? Fundamentalists believe that only their peculiar brand of "Christianity" can save humanity. Bush too?

© Jim McCord
June 2, 2004

Email Jim McCord
mac@jimmccord.com

Return to
JimMcCord.com Home Page