Tea Party: Silent No More

Continued from here.

Let's return to the 1960's, when Richard Nixon famously courted what he called America's Silent Majority. He insisted that there was a vast swath of the American electorate that was center-right in its proclivities that was largely ignored in political circles in favor of a more vocal minority.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and so too did the loud trumpeters of the Left get the media coverage. 

Richard Nixon attempted to give voice to these heretofore undetected voters, but met with mixed success. Ultimately, it was his Southern Strategy (attracting an entirely different type of voter) which bagged him the White House in 1968. The Silent Majority itself never really fell for Mr. Nixon's dubious charms, nor for Gerald Ford in 1976. But it existed, and a good case can be made that the Christian Right was a major part of it, finally coming out of the closet in the late 1970's. 

In my opinion, the Tea Partiers are the remainder of the Silent Majority, finally awakened from their slumbers by the political seismic shocks visited on America by President Obama.

Continue post ......

Tea Party: Silent No More

Click the title for all posts in this series.

Despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party and the national media, it seems the Tea Partiers will not don the racist-militia-angry-white clown suits their betters have made for them. The latest obstacle to the Democrat's pr machinations? A survey by Gallup placing the TP'ers solidly in the demographic mainstream of America. That's right; on income, education, sex, race, et al., these people mirror the broad middle of America itself.

Only on party affiliation do the results skew towards Republicans, but this is by no means a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. Independents are just as likely to be Tea Partiers, and are represented in this movement in about the same proportion as they are in the general population.

So, Tea Partiers are not the fringe of American society; they are Everyman. But that something is everything tells you exactly nothing about what it is. Who are these people, really? And what does this movement mean for the politics of America?

Continue......

Objectively Subjective

In the Introduction to Authorship and Authority in Kierkegaard's Writings (2018 Bloomsbury Academic), the editor Joseph Westfall says this:

[James] Conant - following the early Wittgenstein, and relying heavily upon both Witgenstein's and Keirkegaard/Climacus's uses of revocation in these particular works - argues that language, as an instrument for the communication of objective concepts, cannot accommodate meaningful (i.e., "sensical") discussion of those aspects of human existence capable of being approached or apprehended only subjectively, such as faith or morality. Because subjective moods and passions cannot be objectively communicated, and because language is a medium suited only to the communication of objectivity, all language about things like faith and morality ultimately must be shipwrecked on silence, whether by ceasing communication altogether (as in the famous final line of the Tractatus) or in nonsense (as, Conant argues, in Climacus's "objective" account of faith or of truth "as subjectivity").

To those of you not in the circle of Wittgenstein's fame, the final line of the Tractatus is "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Except, of course, when the unspeakable steps forth you may speak to tell others to be silent. Other than that, Ludwig would ask you to keep your mouth shut.

Actually, don't get me wrong, no one has more admiration for Wittgenstein than I do. Both his early and late philosophies are manifestly brilliant, and there is much to be learned from him. But the notions Conant explicates have seeped into the intellectual culture over the last century and spawned a vast network of philosophical and "academic" studies known as post-modernism, resulting in a fatuousness not seen since Socrates had to stay up late a couple of nights to help Philebus and Thrasymachus. And like many before him, Conant simply misunderstands Kierkegaard (and Wittgenstein). I must respond.

Things like 'faith and morality' denote actions in the real, empirical, material world, and as such I certainly agree with Conant that they call for something other than speech. But this is an obvious observation, bordering on the banal. The chief modern exponent of this view can reliably be traced to John Wayne, who often said, "Talk is cheap." Before him you can go all the way back to the blessed St. James in his Epistle written somewhere in the first century, A.D., wherein he proclaimed that faith without works - action - was dead.

So these 'subjective … aspects of human existence' most certainly do not involve speechifying of any kind, and in that sense are sub specie silence. One may talk while practicing faith, but such is irrelevant to the essence of the practice; the practice at its core is a non-verbal action - even when the act of faith is to encourage others in a sermon to have faith - and therefore Conant can safely describe these things as demanding silence.

So far, I am with him all the way. Where I cannot go … Continue

The Sound of Silence

With the ruling Junta's, excuse me, Mullahs' suppression of the news media in Iran, about the only source of real-time information on events in that country are bloggers and citizen journalists. As such, it's difficult to assess what is going on, because as Michael Totten of Commentary says, "blogging and other forms of 'citizen journalism' are prone to sensationalism..."

That said, there is one report of a street demonstration yesterday that, if true, deserves wider attention. I quote portions of an eye witness account below, but it's important to note that the unique nature of the protest is verified by a separate blogger here (see the 4th sentence of the 1st paragraph of the email quoted therein).  H/t for all of this to Michael Totten of Commentary Contentions.

"What I saw today was the most elegant scene I had ever witnessed in my life. The huge number of people were marching hand in hand in full peace. Silence. Silence was everywhere. There was no slogan. No violence. Hands were up in victory sign with green ribbons. People carried placards which read: Silence. Old and young, man and woman of all social groups were marching cheerfully. This was a magnificent show of solidarity. Enghelab Street which is the widest avenue in Tehran was full of people ... The estimate is about 2 million people."

Even if 2 million is an overstatement, there was clearly a huge mass of people, all marching in complete silence. I cannot imagine any more powerful display of protest. It is no wonder, as the witness states, that in the face of the sheer seriousness exhibited by the protestors that the armed thugs of the Mullahs, the riot police and Basij militia, cowered behind closed doors, watching the silent protestors walk by.

I am reminded of the story of Elijah, a prophet of Israel, being chased and hunted, pleading for God to save him. On a lonely cliff face he looks for God in Nature's acts of power and might, first in a great wind that splits mountains, then in an earthquake, and then a furious fire. And yet he does not find God in any of them, but only in what is described next: the "sound of sheer silence (1 Kings 19:12)."

It is unclear at this point what will result from this unexpected revolution in the streets of Iran. But if God is in the sound of sheer silence, then this brave demonstration in Iran was most certainly of God, which ought to concern the Mullahs a great deal. A Polish Pope had no need of armies to help bring down a communist regime, and Iran's fascistic leaders might find their own brutal purposes and heavily armed minions insufficient to the occasion.

The witness quoted above also remarked how surprised he was that these demonstrators were so politically mature and reasonable in their protest. They were, but more important they were also deeply religious, in the best sense of that word, and we can only hope, and pray, that Allah will in fact be merciful to them in this hour of need.

A Sip of Sherry

The sun sets, darkening the trees and graying the shadows that cross the meadow. Upstairs, I sit and sip my sherry aperitif. My mind wanders.

A rectangular flat face set in front of a bulky body, sleek skin like a scale-less snake, all held on four oddly stiff legs. No neck to speak of. Not exactly a sight for sore eyes; more like a sore sight for eyes.

This bears investigation. Arching my back in a languorous stretch, I pretend indifference and then approach the unknown. Smelling the air cloaking the creature, I find nothing that indicates anything. I step closer, stretch my neck forward, and squint hard. Grays, half-blacks, blacks and whites make uncertain shapes across its face. I move a bit closer as I try to discern a recognizable pattern, and can now see … there is no pattern. It moves. Undulating, sinuous motions across, up and down, as if its face is obscured by shadows of things moving in front of it. But there is nothing in front of it except me. I sit as the hairs on the back of my neck stand.

Suddenly, I hear the sounds. As good as the smell of this earth is, it is the sounds that hold my gratitude the most. Subtle tones, loud cries, almost silent flutters in the night, carefree flapping in the day, exuberant songs, mournful groans, the rustle of trees, the hollow whoosh of wind, all these and more form a constant background. I don't understand all of the sounds, but I love them and the life they represent.

I don't understand these sounds either, but I don't love them. For I realize it is IT that speaks and I know not what it intends. I retreat to safety beside the chair. I lie down quietly. When I awake, things will be better. They always are.

Suddenly, my sherry glass is empty. I check the clock, and raise the remote control to turn off my newly installed TV. I am not sure a TV fits in this house, but I am willing to give it a try. Frederick (pronounced Froderick), mostly Labrador, sleeps quietly beside me.

I wake him and ask, "I don't suppose you have an opinion about this TV thing, do you?" Pause. I sigh heavily. "I didn't think so."

Posted by: Longfellow, via email.