Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Mercy Not Sacrifice

Home
About
My Book
Archives
More
- Theology
- Culture
- Politics
- Sermons
- Bible
- Devotions
- Daily Office
- Podcast

Home
Progressive Christian
Democracy will save the brown people except when it doesn’t and then it’s Obama’s fault

Democracy will save the brown people except when it doesn’t and then it’s Obama’s fault

Last updated on: July 17, 2014 at 2:05 pm by Morgan Guyton

Democracy will save the brown people except when it doesn’t and then it’s Obama’s fault 2014-07-17T14:05:15-05:00 Morgan Guyton

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

David Brooks really fired me up today with this zinger about how Egypt’s turmoil proves that “Islamists… lack the mental equipment to govern.” America’s moralistic self-justification for every time we have invaded a country of brown people (the last white country we invaded was Germany) is that we are bringing them the democracy that will save them. Except that it never works, at least not as we planned. Inevitably they elect “socialist radicals” or “religious fundamentalists” so the CIA has to fix the problem by finding some Contras or a Pinochet to pull off a coup, which David Brooks officially approves in his column if it removes people unfit for democracy (who are presumably comparable to our 7% approval rating Congress?). In any case, it’s all Obama’s fault just like it was all Bush’s fault, because it’s the responsibility of the US president to support the freedom fighters except when they’re terrorists unless the dictator has used chemical weapons, and whatever happens, it can be pinned on the US president because a democracy means one person is in charge and responsible for everything… Wait!

The Republicans aren’t the problem with our democracy; neither are the Democrats. They’re just the crack whores who are behaving like predictable addicts. It is the pundits, the analysts, the PR consultants, and the stephanopoloi who have poisoned our democracy with their sweet crack, so that every foreign crisis is an opportunity to score points in cynical press releases and conference calls which the outrage profiteers slurp up and vomit out into their respective echo chambers. It’s remarkable to watch how rapidly and cynically mutually exclusive ideologies are swapped out like baseball caps.

We need to be pro-democracy because if we say something like democracy doesn’t work for everybody, then we’ve cut off the legs of American exceptionalism and we have to admit that it’s always only been about oil (I’m just teasing; I don’t believe that… entirely). To claim that democracy works for everybody means that you can’t officially say that brown people are unfit for it whether they live on the sand or in the jungle.

Yet at the same time, it’s very juicy to score some hits against the political correctness that says all cultures are just different and we just need to celebrate diversity and be open to other people’s differences which can never be held up to any standard of ethics or truth. Of course, you have to be careful to use adjectives like “radical” when you’re making the case that Islam is the enemy of modern civilization, and sometimes your copy editor throws you under the bus like must have happened to David Brooks when the word “Islamists” was left naked without an adjective in saying they are too stupid to run Egypt.

Incidentally, I wonder if democracy has only worked for America because we’ve always had an enemy of civilization to channel our righteous cause against. Has the availability of a reliable scapegoat in every season of our history been the essential feature that prevented massive street protests that would have made our country ungovernable and forced a reset button? Was a critical mass of otherwise Tahrir Square patriots held in hypnosis by the bogeymen of our history (those communists, Yankee carpet-baggers, Negroes, Indians, Paddies, Guidos, wetbacks, etc)?

What we call “democracy” is really a republic (following Plato’s definition) in which we pick between two flavors of enlightened political elites to make decisions on our behalf. Our “democracy” paradoxically depends upon the absence of a truly active demos (mob) that “rules” chaotically from its Tahrir Square. A democracy runs smoothly as a republic as long as the demos plays along, which most people will do, given the right bones to gnaw on.

Maybe it was the frontier that allowed the American experiment to work for so long. Did the poor people who might have built street barricades in a few major Eastern seaboard cities to bring everything to a standstill in the harder years of the 1800’s decide to get on a covered wagon and head to Kansas instead? Did the otherwise rabble rousers take off with Billy the Kid to make the west wild and let the east stay tame? Of course when the frontier closed decisively in the dustbowl of the Great Depression, we needed new frontiers (like southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East).

In any case, with the technology of our era, we don’t really need scapegoats or frontiers to keep us in line since the whole world is just a gameshow anyway. Spectator sports and pop culture keep enough of us obese, anesthetized, and glued to our couches so the prospect of a Tahrir square that sticks in America seems inconceivable.

You know, I’m actually not unsympathetic to David Brooks. Like me, he’s a poet and not a historian. It makes his level of meaning-making a naturally easy target for critique. I don’t have any more time than he does to read thousand page books on the history of American democracy in order to develop a legitimate theory about it for a single blog post. Poets look for generalizations and textures at the metanarrative level that construct a credible meme rather than committing ourselves to an exhaustive search for “what really happened,” which we postmoderns know better than to waste our time doing.

In any case, for the sake of saying something constructive after getting the snark out, I see three basic fallacies that the commentator class make when they shoot from the hip with their writing. These fallacies are a major component of the poison that we are constantly excreting into our political discourse. So here they are:

1) Results are reproducible.

This first fallacy is derived in a legitimate premise of the scientific method. The way that you confirm a scientific hypothesis through experimentation is when multiple scientists can reproduce the same results by isolating the essential components of the experiment. But this is not transferable to analyzing the social context of human civilizations.

July 4, 1776 will never happen again. There will never be another mother country isolated by an ocean from a rebel colony that was big enough to include a Virginia for its Episcopalians, a Pennsylvania for its Quakers, and a New England for its Puritans. There is not a core set of integral elements that can be distilled from 1776 and transplanted into today to produce the same results.

We will never know if Patrick Henry would have said, “Dying for the sake of God is more sublime than anything” instead of “Give me liberty or give me death” were he a 21st century Muslim instead of an 18th century Deist (?), which is why it is imbecilic of David Brooks to parade the Muslim version of the “liberty or death” quote as a proof-text of the Muslim “fascination with the culture of death” and “absolutist apocalyptic mindset.”

What Brooks is subtly channeling here is the secular appraisal that dying for God is something only the barbaric brown people talk about doing. When people are in social upheaval over the nature of their government, death happens and everyone thinks God is on their side (c.f. US Civil War), except for enlightened secular commentators like David Brooks. It’s the same secular snobbery whether you use it against Islam or Christianity.

Whatever the end results are in Egypt, its context cannot be “played right” to reproduce 1776. Muslim democracy will always look different than Catholic mestizo democracy which will always look different than formerly Protestant, newly secularizing democracy. To say that a particular ideology cannot be allowed into power for democracy to exist means that democracy is ultimately always contingent upon the wisdom of an elite intelligentsia (like David Brooks) who can be entrusted with this assessment.

Maybe the US military should go down to the Capitol and White House and send everybody home to start over since they can’t get anything accomplished. Except the rule is that coups are only tolerable in wild desert and jungle countries where barbaric mobs burn buildings down and storm embassies and shut everything down. The relative domesticity of political protest in our country is not proof of our moral superiority, but the product of a very particular historical combination of factors both positive and negative that cannot ever be replicated.

2) If we can talk about it, we can fix it.

This is a very asinine fallacy that I often fall into myself. Bloggers thinking lazily will write sentences about “world problems” that start with “We should…” knowing good and well that there is no real “we” who can enact simple common sense solutions for humanity by speaking them into cyberspace.

This is what David Brooks is doing when he says about the Muslim Brotherhood: “It is necessary to investigate the core of a party’s beliefs, not just accept anybody who happens to emerge from a democratic process.” Who does the investigating and accepting? We do, of course! Who’s we? The editorial staff of the New York Times?

We cannot fix Egypt, whether the “we” we’re talking about is the world as a whole, United States voters, our government representatives, or the blogosphere. Egyptians have to solve Egypt’s problems, regardless of the bloodshed. And the imbecilic stephanopoloi who scream “Why doesn’t Obama do something?” are projecting their own unacknowledged sense of impotence onto him.

It sucks to be bombarded by information about tragic events that we are helpless to do anything about. The problem-solving ethos of frontier-seeking Americans is both commendable and arrogantly presumptuous. There are of course real levers that can be pulled or not pulled in tinkering with other countries, but I don’t blame Ron Paul for promoting a more hands-off approach. Al Qaeda exists because of the frontier adventuring that America did in Soviet Afghanistan in the 80’s. Who knows what will be the future of those we are arming today in Syria? In any case, bloggers cannot “fix” Egypt by writing a “We should…” blog about Egypt.

3) All phenomena can be quantifiably measured and compared.

Anytime we compare two historical events to decide which is “better” than the other, we are making the fallacious assumption that every event can be reduced to a number that is more or less than the number for an analogous event. Otherwise, there is no basis for saying “better” or “worse.” This again has its origin in the scientific worldview in its zeal to replace the opaque superstitious traditions of prior eras with measurements and explanations.

We don’t say overtly that we are quantifying things, but in effect we are. The “number” for the “Arab Spring” can be derived by assigning positive and negative points to the surrounding circumstances that are then compared with the point tallies for other analogous revolutions or social movements in history to say which is “better” and “worse.” Our belief in this reductionist quantitative comparison is manifested in the phrase “talking points.” Whichever side has a longer list of credible “talking points” gets the higher score and wins.

This is complete bullshit for the same reason that the first fallacy is. Every historical context is irreducibly different than every other. But the fact that we can’t reduce events to quantifiable “better” or “worse” rankings doesn’t signify absolute moral relativism because it doesn’t mean that discrete individual ethical observations cannot be made.

So when you’re shooting from the hip in your writing, like we all do in this post-journalistic, amateur space that we all inhabit together (wordpress bloggers and NY Times columnists alike), try to avoid these fallacies. You can only sculpt so deep, but don’t dis a whole religion of people.

Previous Post

July 5, 2013

Property and the pursuit of happiness

Next Post

July 6, 2013 Pinochet was the midwife of Chilean democracy?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advent Beauty Will Save the World Bible Big Picture: Ephesians Bloggers Book Christian salvation and the Beautitudes Culture Daily Office Danceable Homiletics Deadly Sins Deep Roots: Genesis Devotions Dominican Republic May 2011 El Principio Misericordia (The Mercy Principle) Five verses God tattooed on my heart Fundraising FutureGospel Good Biblical Words Henri Nouwen Interview Jennings' Christian Imagination Jesus inside the beltway Jesus Is My Candidate Jesus vs the Pharisees Jesus vs. Plato Journey to Eternity Looking Back on 2012 Love Actually Monday Merton Monday Merton Music Occupy the manger On Earth As It Is In Heaven Original Sin Podcast Poetry Politics Prayer Psalm 119 Radical Jesus 101 Reviews Sermon on the Mount Sermons Spanish Bible study Special Series Spiritual but not religious Synchroblog Theology Things that made me think Thomas a Kempis Ugliness Into Beauty Uncategorized Viaje Dominicano 2013 Walking in the Valley (Lent) Welcome: It's More than a Mat Wild Goose 2013 Wrestling

Select a Month March 2022 January 2022 December 2021 September 2021 April 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Gospel emphasizes Jesus as the Son of Man?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Mark Luke John Matthew