The tyranny of polarization

http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/video/jonah-goldberg-iii/?start=1364&end=3945

@ time 44:00

polarization

The self-disintegration of the Progressive "movement"

A political Ouroboros...

•  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-milbank/liberalism-undoing-itself_b_7104638.html
• http://theweek.com/articles/445434/how-liberalism-became-intolerant-dogma
• http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/
• http://www.thecrimson.com/column/words-words-words/article/2015/3/12/simplistic-social-justice-warrior/?page=single
• http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html
• http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2015/01/27/the-lefts-intensifying-war-on-liberalism/
• http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/29/i-dont-know-what-to-do-you-guys/
• http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/02/jonathan-chait-and-the-devils-bargain-of-post-racial-racial-politics/
• http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/02/a-politics-of-denunciation
• http://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist

 

Madeleine Albright implied "there's a special place in hell" for young women voters who aren't backing Hillary Clinton

• http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/madeleine-albright-nyt-special-place-hell-clinton
• http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/269329-albright-special-place-in-hell-comment-came-at-wrong-time
• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html
• http://www.theamericanmirror.com/albright-special-place-in-hell-for-women-who-dont-support-hillary/
• http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/albright-theres-a-special-place-in-hell-for-women-who-dont-back-clinton/article/2582614

Gloria Steinem said on Bill Maher's show that young female voters prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton because 'the boys are with Bernie'.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/02/07/gloria-steinem-is-apologizing-for-insulting-female-bernie-sanders-supporters/
• http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/politics/gloria-steinem-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-boys/
• http://time.com/4211234/gloria-steinem-bernie-sanders-apology/

The Ascent of Christian Law by McGuckin

This is tremendously exciting; The Ascent of Christian Law: Patristic and Byzantine Reformulations of Greco-Roman Attitudes in the Making of a Christian Civilization is a new publication that bridges the gap between Eastern Christian thought, Roman antiquity, and political science. Moreover the author is John McGuckin, probably unknown in poli sci circles, but well respected in the field of early Christianity and religious philosophy. Then why care? Then how is this relevant to political science?

Because one might notice that scholars from other fields seem to be making inroads into areas we would consider political science; that is, as historians, philosophers, Patristics scholars write within their fields, they explore the political implications of their respective areas of research. This is superb in my mind.

However one must ask the question; do we see the same kind of multidisciplinary interests on the part of political scientists? I am convinced that these other fields are valuable to political science but at the same time, someone from within the poli sci discipline could take such research even further.

Case in point: as I've read scholarly and pop-scholarly books on Christian origins, I frequently run across language that, I feel, is subtly political; language that in a historical context of the book itself would have little use, but when read by someone within our modern religious-political environment, would be persuasive. As polemical as Christian history and the new "skepticism" has become, this would be an area ripe for students of propaganda and public influence.

Natural law and social contract weren't ideas born out of a vacuum. Nor were their Thomist and monarchist antecedents. It behooves us to understand the wisdom and thought that came before. That is why McGuckin's book will no doubt open new areas of discussion regarding the common understanding of Christian influence on Western Civilization.

Emory University's Center for the Study of Law & Religion reviewed the book and has this to say:

This volume aims to fill a large gap in the historical materials available to students of early Christian and Byzantine Christian studies. To that extent, it will be designed as a wide-ranging historical survey that covers the varying attitudes among the major early Christian theorists of law and governance issues as the church moved in its condition from a minority of resistance to the imperial church. The field of early studies of Christian law is dominated by scholars of Western canon law (though often microscopically treated). Eastern canon law remains massively neglected, relegated to studies by Orthodox canonists who have been concerned largely with issues of ecclesiastical precedence and protocol, rather than with large questions of the role of law in culture-making.

This book intends to consider questions such as: "What difference did Christianity make as a builder of civilization?" To what extent did the church, in presenting to late Roman society a vision of a New Order, actually begin to articulate the structures that would form the polity of such an order? How far did the Church articulate a theory of law as "new-culture building" in advance of the Constantinian reordering of society by the promotion of bishops as magistrates? To what extent did the post-Constantinian, Justinianic, and later Byzantine theory and systems of evolving Christian legislation, simply extend Roman legal, political, and cultural aspirations, or to what extent did Christian theologians and jurists consciously rebuild? The book seeks to answer these questions by looking at main protagonists who consider the issues of law and theology from the early centuries through to the medieval Byzantine period. A second part offers a series of reflective reviews on certain "points in question," including slavery, freedom of the person, ownership, reconciliation, and governance theory.

From: http://cslr.law.emory.edu/publications/publication/title/the-ascent-of-christian-law-patristic-and-byzantine-reformulations-of-greco-roman-attitudes-in-the/

A social explanation of Occupy Wall Street: loneliness

A student at Bard College reflects on his participation in Occupy Wall Street. Why does OWS exist? According to Dan Gettinger, because people are lonely and looking for a sense of community. In our hyper-individualistic culture, one of the few (and flawed) places left to find community is in a spontaneous and fleeting political activity.

My generation is one of extremes and totalities. We grew up defined by the trespasses of the last President, and now we watch as our confidence in this one seeps away. With a crushingly uncertain future we grasp at hope, looking to fill this void with promises.

Why is this? How is that we are so empty that we must be filled with language that is distilled into slogans and ideologically transparent? ...I think it is because we are lonely. A generation of drifters set loose by the misdeeds of those who came before. Around us we see everything being commodified and isolated. We value the world in terms of totalities, the cold language of polls. Discussion becomes debate. Politics becomes personal.

Occupy Wall St. has exposed us as a generation of reactionaries. This era is one of immediate responses instigated by the ceaseless swirl of the cyber world. The Internet, modern telecommunications and globalization outline our existence... The compression of information and language forces immediate reactions, instinctual expressions of sentiment. Instead of taking the time to think, our feelings gush into the abyss that is the Internet. And lost. ‘Once more into the breach!’ shouts the exhausted soldier and student alike.

Read the full article here

How Conservatives Failed "The Culture"

By Claes G. Ryn

Official professions to the contrary, many self-described American intellectual conservatives have a thinly veiled disdain for philosophy and the arts. Even among academics indifference to what lies beyond broad ideas and popular culture is common. The ruling assumption of the now dominant strains of intellectual conservatism seems to be that the crux of social well-being is politics: bad politicians ruin society; good politicians set it right. Nothing fascinates conservatives more than presidential politics. For social problems to be effectively remedied and for worthy objectives to be achieved, “our” candidate must win the next election, “our” people man the government.

... Ideas and the arts are mainly pleasant diversions. Many others have only slight interest in philosophy and culture for their own sake. More or less consciously, they tend to assess either thought or imagination from the point of view of whether it advances or undermines the political cause that they assume to be incontestable. Does the book, lecture, play, movie, or song help or hinder the cause? Although such works may enlighten or entertain, they do not strike these individuals as having intrinsic and independent authority. Works of thought and imagination are for them not intriguing and potentially unsettling forces that might trigger painful self-examination and unpredictably reconstitute one’s own accustomed views; making sense of them is not so much a matter of soul searching as of locating them on the political spectrum.

Read the rest of the article here...