At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Neocons, “Isolationism,” and Martin Luther King, Jr.

posted by Jack Kerwick

As the mess in Iraq—a mess predicted by the likes of such “isolationists” as Patrick J. Buchanan and Ilana Mercer a dozen years ago—deepens, it is with renewed gusto that the Iraq War’s most impassioned neoconservative supporters argue for a robust “interventionist” American foreign policy.

At the same time, they never waver in heaping praise upon praise upon Martin Luther King, Jr.

But when rhetorical exhibitionism collides with ideological fervor, the inconsistency promises to be explosive.

King, you see, is every bit as much of an “isolationist” as are any of the so-called “isolationists” who neoconservatives have lambasted.

On April 30, 1967 King gave a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church titled, “It’s A Dark Day in Our Nation.”  He cautioned his audience against being deceived into thinking that “God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world.”  Just the opposite, in fact, is the case.  King said that he “can hear God saying to America, ‘You’re too arrogant!  And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name.”

King, obviously, was no fan of “American Exceptionalism.”

He continued, referring to the war in Vietnam not just as “unjust,” but as “futile” and “evil.

Had King been alive to make these remarks today about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it goes without saying that their neoconservative supporters in the GOP, talk radio, and Fox News would have eviscerated him for both his lack of “moral clarity” as well as his disregard—and perhaps even disdain—for “the troops” and their families.

In the first place, King would be convicted of either characteristic left-wing moral idiocy or characteristic libertarian “amorality” for charging, not the “Islamists” (or communist North Vietnamese) with evil doing, but America, the only superpower ever willing to fight the globe over for “liberty.”

And for his description of the war as “evil,” King would render himself vulnerable to the allegation that he is contemptuous of “the troops,” for there would be no evil war if not for the evil-doing soldiers waging it.

Yet King would also be accused of being disrespectful of “the troops” and their families for claiming that the war(s) were “futile.”  How dare he suggest that American soldiers sacrificed life and limb “in vain?”

Of course, if the neoconservative opponents of “isolationism” were consistent, then they should be saying these things of King now for his comments then.  After all, the Red Menace of North Vietnam was much more formidable a force for evil than anything with which we’ve had to reckon in Iraq or Afghanistan, and exponentially more Americans lost their lives fighting in Vietnam than have lost their lives fighting in the Middle East.

There is the additional consideration that, to the present day, neoconservatives continue to blame “the left” for having lost Vietnam, being particularly relentless in their criticism of that emblem of left-wing “anti-Americanism,” Jane Fonda.

Yet MLK was every bit as outspoken a critic of the war in Vietnam as was Fonda.

For all of the resources invested in it, King characterized the Vietnam War as a “demonic, destructive suction tube” (emphasis mine).  The war entailed “cruel manipulation of the poor” and made America into “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” a country mired in its own “deadly arrogance,” hubris “that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years.”  America, King declared, tried “to sabotage the Geneva Accord.”

But it gets even worse, as King starts to sound like John Kerry sounded when he testified in 1971 to the evils allegedly perpetrated by American soldiers in Vietnam.  Not only are Americans guilty of placing Vietnamese in “concentration camps;” not only do Americans “poison their water” and “kill a million acres of their crops.”  The Vietnamese see their children “degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.” America, King insists, “destroyed” the “two most cherished institutions” of the Vietnamese: “the family and the village.”

The Vietnam War embodies “the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation [.]”

Whether King was correct in his analysis is neither here nor there.  The point is that if, as neoconservatives insist, “isolationism” is an intellectually and morally impoverished position, then King deserves not the reverence that they show him, but unqualified condemnation, for King was an “isolationist.” Worse, King—a Nobel Peace Prize winner and world figure—did far more, by neoconservatives’ reasoning, to undermine America’s cause during war than anything of which a Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan could be said to be guilty.  In fact, given his stature, King was even more harmful than “Hanoi Jane.”

Conclusion: Disdain for “isolationism” is radically incompatible with praise for Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

The Neocon Left: The “Deputized” Right

posted by Jack Kerwick

What is commonly referred to as “the right” by the so-called “mainstream media” is actually what I prefer to call “the Deputized Right”—a faux right-wing that takes its marching orders from the left.

More specifically, the Deputized Right is actually nothing other than the neoconservative left that the recognizable left permits to exist.

Anyone with any doubts on this score should consider that neither domestically nor internationally do the recognizable left and the Deputized Right fundamentally disagree on a single issue. Rhetorical nods to “limited government” and the like aside, its positions on immigration, the NSA’s massive surveillance apparatus, military adventurism, “gay rights,” “anti-discrimination” laws, government-run health care, government-run education, and every other conceivable topic differ—when they differ—from those of the recognizable left only in degree, never in kind.

The Deputized Right is every bit as invested in preserving and expanding the power and reach of the federal government as is the recognizable left.  The self-appointed neocon guardians of the counterfeit right are permitted to complain of government “overreach” when it comes to such government-run healthcare programs as the woefully unpopular “Obamacare,” but they wouldn’t think to even remotely suggest rolling back Medicare and Medicaid—government-run healthcare programs whose hold over the medical industry in America they’ve actually helped to strengthen.

Those on the Deputized Right can blast government-run schools when talking of “public education”—as long as they never come even close to recommending anything like a complete “separation of state and education.”  And, of course, they never do.  Instead, Deputized Rightists rattle on about “school choice”—a set of arrangements according to which government still pulls the strings.

Deputized right-wingers are as much in favor of “comprehensive immigration reform”—i.e. amnesty—as are recognizable leftists.

Deputized rightists burst apart with pride in reminding Americans that their party, the Republican Party, was instrumental in helping Lyndon Banes Johnson enact such historically unprecedented “civil rights” legislation as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Such legislation—agitated for, mind you, by the author of the Great Society, an American president who the Deputized Right routinely decries as among the worst of “liberal” politicians to ever occupy the White House—expanded exponentially the federal government’s stranglehold over the states and its citizens.  And yet the Deputized Right not only relishes in its (alleged) role in making it all happen, but spares no occasion to remind Americans of this.

The Deputized Right excoriates President Obama for being a socialist, a hard leftist, etc., while lavishing praise upon Martin Luther King, Jr.—a man who was at least as far to the left as Obama.  At the same time, it demonizes as “anti-American” and even “treasonous” a young American soldier who enlisted in the military to fight in Afghanistan, a prisoner of war who eventually expressed disgust with America for its involvement in the Islamic, Middle Eastern world, while adoring King—even though the latter referred to America as the planet’s greatest “purveyor” of violence during the height of the Vietnam War.

The Deputized Right talks of “limited government” while simultaneously calling for an ever larger, ever more intrusive, military.  But Big Military is Big Government.

The Deputized Right insists that we are in a “War on Terror”—a war against either an abstraction or a bottomless supply of Islamic terrorists. Either way, it is a “war” without end, a war that can never be won.

The “right” is the Deputized Right, which is to say a counterfeit right, a neoconservative left that differs, if at all, only negligibly from the recognizable left.  If only those with eyes would dare to see past the rhetoric of talk radio and the cable news networks, they would realize that the conflicts on display in these media boil down to internecine conflicts between leftists of not so different stripes.

Walter Jones vs. the Neocons: Is the Tide of GOP Politics Shifting?

posted by Jack Kerwick

On Tuesday, the overwhelmingly outspent ten-term North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones defeated his neoconservative, establishment-backed opponent and former Bush II official, Taylor Griffin.

Griffin was endorsed by Sarah Palin and heavily subsidized by Sheldon Adelson—but to no avail.

This is huge news, for it signals a potential change of the tides in both the GOP and the “conservative” movement.

Jones, you see, is very much a man of the old right, a conservative, not a neoconservative. 

Though a one-time supporter of the Iraq War, he has since become not only one of its staunchest critics; Jones has become an impassioned opponent of the entire missionary foreign policy vision that informed the decision to invade Iraq and for which the GOP became known—notorious—during George W. Bush’s tenure in office.

On Jones’ website, there appears a rapidly changing ticker calculating the costs of America’s wars since 2001.  Visitors are informed that to subsidize the 1.5 trillion dollars that have been spent on our foreign adventurism over the course of the last 13 years, American taxpayers pay on an hourly basis well over 10 million dollars!

Jones makes his position on this issue clear:

“Our Constitution, a document I have sworn to protect and defend, explicitly states that our nation does not go to war without Congressional approval.  I believe in our Constitution, and I will continue the fight to prevent the president from waging war unilaterally.”

Jones has taken President Obama to court for violating “the Constitution and the War Powers Clause” in launching “war against the Libyan regime without authorization from the U.S. Congress.”  He has also proposed legislation “expressing the sense of Congress that it is an impeachable offense for any president to wage offensive war without prior Congressional approval” (italics original).

In addition to the exorbitant costs of sophistically redefining the “national interest” to justify military activism anywhere on the globe, the newly re-elected incumbent identifies another fatal objection to this utopian enterprise: it is inimical to liberty.  Jones declares his intentions to “continue the fight to reign in the executive branch and restore power [liberty] to the citizens of our nation” (emphasis added).

Jones maintains that since our policy objectives in Afghanistan—the killing of Osama bin Laden and the dismantling of Al Qaeda—have long since been accomplished, it is a fool’s errand to keep American troops there.  He also vehemently opposed intervening in Syria, calling such action “unconstitutional.”

More recently, Jones has refused to endorse any foreign aid to the Ukraine, a position in keeping with his refusal to endorse any and all foreign aid that’s been proposed over the last 16 years.  “It makes no sense,” Jones states, “to borrow money from countries like China only to then transfer that money to other foreign countries and the United Nations (UN).”

It is doubtless his stance against all foreign aid—which, obviously, includes foreign aid to Israel—that invited the slur from his opponents that Jones is “anti-Israel.” Thankfully, however, the leftist smear tactics to which establishment Republican types routinely resort when going up against those to their right failed in this case.

Of 435 members of Congress, the pro-immigration enforcement organization, NumbersUSA, locates Jones among an elite group of ten—ten!—that can be trusted to combat illegal immigration.   Jones has co-sponsored legislation designed to eliminate birthright citizenship, “chain migration,” and promote English as America’s official language.

Yet Jones isn’t just an opponent of Unlimited Government now that his party is in the minority.  He as well voted against President Bush’s No Child Left Behind act, which Jones (rightly) refers to as a “federal takeover of our education system.”  Moreover, Jones would not support Bush’s “massive expansion of the entitlement system through the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill,” his “pork-filled Highway Bill that included the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’” and the former President’s “Wall Street bank bailout also known as ‘TARP.’”

Jones is also the sole member of the House of Representatives “to have voted against every single increase in the federal debt limit over the past nine years.”

Does Walter Jones’ victory portend a reversal of fortunes for the neoconservatives that have dominated the GOP for decades?  It’s anyone’s guess at this moment.  Yet that his establishment opponent lost despite having far bigger names (like Palin) and far bigger bucks (like those of Adelson) behind him, suggests that, at the very least, the neocon halcyon days of Bush II are far behind us.

Jones’ victory also might serve as a wake-up call to the Republican Party that it is at its own peril that it refuses to recognize that a not insignificant segment of its base will no longer tolerate being ignored or mocked.

Condi, Rutgers, and Academia

posted by Jack Kerwick

Condi Rice will not be this year’s commencement speaker at Rutgers University after all.

Due to the controversy generated by some students and faculty over Rutgers’ decision to invite the former Secretary of State, Rice decided to back out, explaining that she didn’t want to be “a distraction” at a college graduation.

This whole ugly affair is revealing, not just of the atmosphere of this one institution of higher learning, but of the atmosphere of the contemporary academic world.

It’s true that President Robert Barchi did not succumb to the students’ and faculty’s demands that the school disinvite Rice due to her involvement in the Iraq War. But neither did he utter a syllable’s worth of condemnation of their tactics, proving that, as always, the lion’s share of grease always goes to the leftist squeaky wheel in the world of higher education.

Beyond this, Barchi passed the buck, and actually encouraged the notion that the anti-Rice forces were in the right.  Barchi insisted that he hadn’t “the power” to rescind the invitation to Rice—implying, of course, that had he the power, he would’ve done so. Only the Board of Governors, Barchi continued, has that power.  “If you want to discuss ways of how we can (choose a commencement speaker) going forward, where we can guarantee that the Board has more input when they arrive at the discussion,” he told protestors, then “I think we can do that.”

Translation: We won’t make the mistake of inviting a Republican ever again.

The notion that, as Barchi suggests, the controversy over Rice reveals that the Rutgers community welcomes a marketplace of ideas, a vigorous exchange over contentious issues, is more than a fiction; it is a lie. 

And that is the real scandal that the Rice affair unveils, the dirty secret that academia, the one place in American life where it should be possible to discuss, genuinely discuss, all manner of disputable topics, is nothing of the kind.

The faculty and students of Rutgers didn’t disagree with their school’s decision to invite Rice.  They refused it.  Between the one and the other lies the difference between civilization and barbarism.

There was no spirited discussion over the administration’s selection of Rice for commencement speaker. Rather, the invitee’s enemies employed the kinds of strong-arm tactics for which leftist student and faculty activists have become known.  To see that this is so, we need only consult those of Rutgers’ students who wanted for Rice to speak at Rutgers.

The Rutgers College Republicans, the Eagleton Undergraduate Associates, and Greek Life at Rutgers University were among those student groups that petitioned Barchi to denounce the anti-Rice forces for having engendered a “hostile campus environment” on campus.  Speaking on their behalf, Donald Coughlan, chairman of the New Jersey College Republicans, wrote that all it took was a “small minority of the student body and intolerant faculty members” to frustrate the desires of an “overwhelming” majority of students that had looked forward to hearing Rice speak.

Not only had Rice’s detractors “protested loudly” from the time that it was announced that she would be the commencement speaker.  Not only did dozens of them hold a “sit in” at Barchi’s office.  Disgruntled faculty fired off an email to all students urging them to participate in a “teach-in” to rally against Rice.

Coughlan notes that “most students…who do not share the opinions of” these professors and who know them well were “intimidated” by the emails.

A college education is, or is supposed to be, an education into the best of what students’ civilization has to offer, an inheritance, comprised as it is of millennia worth of achievements both intellectual and moral, at once encourages and requires for its appreciation the cultivation of the virtues of head and heart, mind and character.

As the situation at Rutgers clarifies for all with eyes to see, this civilizing mission has been radically turned on its head.  Coercion and intimidation, after all, are the tried and true methods of choice of the savage, the barbarian.  Infinitely worse, though, is that it is faculty—those entrusted with taming the beast that is the next generation—that have instructed their students in the art of wielding these weapons as they crusade for one cause after the other.

And university administrators cower.

This is the academic world today.

 

Previous Posts

Against the "Militarization" of the Police II
There’s a notion, popular among self-avowed “libertarians,” that among the largest threats facing our nation is that of “the militarization” of the police.  This idea has been expressed quite a bit as of late, particularly in the wake of the police shooting death of Michael Brown in Fergu

posted 10:43:11am Aug. 29, 2014 | read full post »

Libertarianism and "The Militarization" of the Police
A line that has become all too common in some libertarian circles is that the key problem, or even a problem, in Ferguson, Missouri is a problem facing the rest of the nation. This problem is what these libertarians have taken to calling “the militarization” of the police. The charge that

posted 2:20:30pm Aug. 24, 2014 | read full post »

"Libertarians" and "Racism"
In the wake of the shooting death of a young black man by a white Ferguson, Missouri police officer, it is to no one’s surprise that the usual suspects on the left are screaming “racism” from the rooftops. Infinitely more disturbing for the lover of liberty is that ever growing legions of

posted 9:25:48am Aug. 24, 2014 | read full post »

A Tale of Two Fatal Police Shootings
As if the happenings in Ferguson, Missouri aren’t bad enough, now we have the situation in Salt Lake City, Utah with which to contend. As the whole country knows, for the last week or so, large groups of blacks have taken to the streets of Ferguson in order to express their outrage over the sho

posted 8:34:16pm Aug. 21, 2014 | read full post »

Food for Thought on Ferguson
To the proliferation of articles on the shooting death of black Missourian Michael Brown via white police officer, Darren Wilson, I register the following considerations. Firstly, at this time when black underclass thugs are ruining the quality of life in but another once- decent town while their

posted 5:31:07pm Aug. 20, 2014 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.