Monday, June 28, 2021

Mary Shelley and the Bomb

 

Mary Shelley and the Bomb

Peter Schultz

 

            “It’s a boy!” This was the code General Groves, head of the US program to build an atomic weapon, used to tell President Truman that the Trinity test had been successful.

 

            So interesting that, as James Carroll wrote in his book House of War, the image conveyed by this code had “men conceiving and delivering” the bomb as if they had conceived and delivered or birthed a baby boy. [72] It’s interesting too that in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein undertook to both conceive and deliver or birth a human being, a male human being, scientifically.

 

            Apparently then, modern science allows men to rise beyond their natural limits, to do what they cannot do naturally, conceive and deliver or birth “babies,” either human babies or nuclear “babies.” No wonder then that Truman, upon being informed of the successful test, felt “tremendously pepped up” and that he later called the bomb “the greatest thing in history.” Imagine how exhilarating it was to shed nature’s limits by creating something that “grants [its creators] control of Mother Nature.” [72] And, not surprisingly, Truman and his Secretary of State, Jimmy Byrnes, as well as others, just assumed that this creation would allow the United States to control the post-war world and especially the Soviet Union. Victor Frankenstein has similar dreams about his power once he had “discovered the secret of life.”

 

            Shelley’s Frankenstein ends with horrific bloodshed as the creature, left uncared for by Victor who was shocked by the ugliness of his creation, turns on Victor and kills his lover and wife, as well as his niece. Is this so different from what the world has experienced since the end of World War II, viz., endless wars, genocides, pandemics and other raging viruses? Is this what happens when men overpower nature, when they successfully try to “control Mother Nature?” Mother Nature, and perhaps other mothers as well, has conceived and has tried to birth an order, one that is sustaining and even nurturing. And so perhaps the human quest should be discovering and caring for that order as that is preferable to controlling, managing, and overpowering it. And remember, as an old commercial had it: It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.

Saturday, June 26, 2021

Homeland v. Republican Politics: Part Three

 

Homeland v. Republican Politics: Part Three

Peter Schultz

 

            Homeland politics are or degenerate into tribal politics. Tribes are connected to places, places that are treated as sacred because they are and have been populated by multiple generations and, often, even by past generations who still “reside” there in burial grounds.

 

            Republican politics aren’t tribal. Republican politics are connected not to places but to political principles, such as representation, free elections, free speech, due process, and trials by juries of one’s peers. Republican politics are also characterized by political parties, i.e., groups that define themselves not by places but as defenders of certain political principles. In a republic, political parties are in no way like the Apache, the Comanche, or the Cherokee tribes.

 

            As many have noticed, tribes have formed in the United States political arena. As a result, dissent is confused with disloyalty because loyalty is a prerequisite of tribal life. Moreover, in the homeland, patriotism is often confused with loyalty, so that patriots are those who salute when flags are flown and who don’t take a knee when the national anthem is played. In the homeland, public officials are thanked for their service, while in republics public officials are questioned, challenged, even arrested and tried for their service.

 

            The extent to which our politics have become tribal is attested to, illustrated by the lack of any substantive debate about political principles. Politicians attack each other rather than debating each other, just as, say, the Apaches might attack another tribe but would never debate that tribe. A debate about whether being an Apache or a Cherokee is better makes no sense, just as these days a debate about being a Republican or a Democrat seems senseless. Republicans attack Democrats while Democrats attack Republicans because they both think there is nothing to debate. These parties have become tribes, contending for control of the homeland, not for persuading the people to adopt the proper political principles. In republics, disagreements don’t lead to attacks bot to debates, at times even to debates over basic principles. And after the debates, the people get to decide which principles will have their consent. And that is the key to republics: They are political arrangements that function according to “the consent of the governed.”

Homeland v. Republican Politics, Part Two

Homeland v. Republican Politics, Part Two

Peter Schultz

 

            The following includes two quotes from Thomas Jefferson, in letters written to James Madison and another to Abigail Adams, concerning what is called “Shays’ Rebellion, which occurred in Massachusetts and by which Daniel Shays and a few thousand followers tried to take over the government in Massachusetts.

 

“In a letter to Madison on January 30, 1787, Jefferson wrote “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical… It is medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”[1] In another letter Jefferson expressed to Abigail Adams, “The spirit of the resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.” [2] Jefferson saw the people as the ultimate way to protect liberty and their rights. He felt so strongly about this idea that he did not think the rebels should be punished.”

 

            Jefferson also wrote that the motives of the Shaysites were “founded in ignorance not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion….And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?....The remedy is to is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.”

 

            Jefferson’s arguments seem radical to us these days, when we are in the midst of “protecting the homeland” from enemies, foreign and domestic. Homeland politics cannot allow or abide by “a little rebellion,” whereas according to Jefferson, republican politics requires and benefits from “a little rebellion,” at least every twenty years. Take note that Jefferson did not consider the Shaysites to be “enemies” and did not call for a war on domestic terrorism. Set them straight and pardon the rebels.

 

            Homeland politics is a distinctly anti-republican kind of politics. It’s the kind of politics that prioritizes “domestic tranquility” and treats those who disturb that tranquility as enemies, even these days “terrorists.” But if you think about it, in the United States, those who have subverted domestic tranquility have changed for the better our political and social arrangements. Recall the peace movement during the Vietnam War, recall the Stonewall rebellion when gays and lesbians rebelled against the police, recall MLK and the civil rights marches that led, eventually, to the end of de jure segregation, etc., etc., etc. As Jefferson pointed out, if there aren’t disruptions, rebellions every so often, the people’s liberties will be lost.

 

            But homeland politics doesn’t take its bearings from preserving liberty. Rather, it takes its bearings from “protecting the homeland,” and whatever liberties are left over after that is done – and it is never done – are all the people are entitled to, but only so long as “domestic tranquility” isn’t disturbed.


Friday, June 25, 2021

Homeland Politics v. Republican Politics

 

Homeland Politics v. Republican Politics

Peter Schultz

 

            “The Homeland” seems like such an innocuous phrase, without political implications. But in fact it isn’t innocuous at all, which can be illustrated by contrasting it with the phrase “the republic.”

 

            In the Pledge of Allegiance, we pledge our allegiance, strictly speaking, not to the flag but to “the republic for which it stands.” A republic, whatever its details, is something that can be lost. Ben Franklin is reputed to have said upon leaving the constitutional convention when he was asked what the proposed constitution established, “A republic, if you can keep it.” A republic is a particular political arrangement, one that may be lost, one that needs to be maintained, one whose future existence is not guaranteed. Whatever its details, a republic is not a homeland and a homeland need not be a republic.

 

            In fact, “the homeland” has nothing to do with any particular political arrangement. Were the United States a monarchy or a national security state, it could not be a republic; but it would still be “the homeland.” A homeland is a place, not a political arrangement. But although not a particular political order, calling a place “the homeland” has political implications, even significant political implications.

 

            One implication, already alluded to, is that in the homeland, political arrangements are of peripheral importance, secondary, even subservient to “protecting the homeland” against enemies, foreign and domestic. In protecting the homeland, the creation of “czars,” like “drug czars” or “intelligence czars,” is not controversial. Whether such offices can be grafted on to a republic without subverting the republic is not a question that need be raised. Similarly with what is called “mass incarceration.” Whether a republic can survive mass incarceration isn’t a concern when the goal is “protecting the homeland.” In fact, if “protecting the homeland” requires subverting the republic, then so be it. The homeland is to be protected even at the expense of republican political arrangements, which means that at times republican arrangements get in the way of “protecting the homeland.”

 

            It is obvious then that “homeland politics” and “republican politics” need not co-exist. In fact, homeland politics – a politics unconstrained by principled political arrangements – and republican politics – a politics bound by principled political arrangements – cannot co-exist. Homeland politics will, when push comes to shove as it always does, undermine, subvert republican politics – which is one reason the elites most interested in acquiring, maintaining, and using their power are quite taken with “protecting the homeland,” as opposed to “protecting the republic.”

Saturday, June 12, 2021

"End Racism?" Wrong

 

“End Racism?” Wrong

Peter Schultz

 

            The signs say “End Racism,” but that’s wrong. They should read “End Race,” because racism is a byproduct of the idea that human beings should be categorized, divided up into different “races.” They shouldn’t be. The concept of race is a complete construction, a complete fabrication, a figment of our imaginations, as the differences between those designated “whites” and those designated “blacks” are for all practical purposes non-existent.

 

            Any attempt to end racism, if not accompanied by an end to race thinking, will not only fail but it will fortify racism, make it stronger because such attempts imply that race is real. In other words, having made up a way to categorize human beings by race, then we set about to solve a problem we have created and that can only exist if racial categorizations make sense, are real. But because race isn’t real, if it isn’t constantly reinforced it will disappear, as it does when human beings are living in communities together without a history of being categorized by race. As has been said, “There are no black people in Africa!”

 

            All of the current focus on ending racism merely serves to reinforce the idea that human beings are significantly different racially because some are “black” and others are “white.” The idea of race is fortified and then people wonder, “Gee, why is there so much racism around?” Racism follows race as night follows day. Once you embrace the idea of race, the result is racism, as should be obvious. There might be “good racism,” that is, helping the “black race,” or there might be bad racism, that is, dehumanizing the “black race.” You’ll probably discover, however, that you have both kinds of racism. But good or bad, it is still racism. And it won’t go away until the idea of race goes away.