Unrecognized Allies
In two major domains of society, religion and economics, traditional enemies are now natural allies, but are yet to recognize their common cause and join forces. It is hard to describe, but simpler to call the new divide as the sophisticates versus the barbarians. The barbarians are predators and their dupes.
This new divide, and potential for new alliances has received little, if any, attention in the press, apart from flippant labels about "doctor’s wives".
Consider religion. The sophisticates are the secular humanists and those with a progressive theology, who see the common utilitarian ground of theist (Abrahamist, Zoroastrian, etc) and atheist (Hellenic, Buddhist, Confucian, etc) moral philosophies.
The religious barbarians are the fundamentalists, as well as the non-believers who spend little time thinking about the social implications of individual actions. The predators gain power over their followers or money from collection plates. Prosperity Gospel peddlars fast become millionaires. Dupes among Moslems are made into suicide bombers.
Consider economics. The sophisticates believe in the objective of a fair allocation of resources, good governance, the urgency for action on environmental issues and have worries about the way markets are operating out of balance. Greens and socialists share many of the same concerns and ends as The Economist and Harvard Business School, even though they will disagree on means.
The economic barbarians don’t care about the big picture, but merely compete to accumulate resources. Long term thinking merely involves increasing existing disparities to gain future leverage. The new capitalist predators exploit not only workers and consumers, but their new prey of the mass of small investors sucked into the market.
Regardless of domain, sophisticates hate the ignorance that allows predatory barbarians to flourish. The sophisticates look for common ground and common interest.
Strange times indeed. Mal Fraser, arch-conservative ex-PM, with his Phillipics against Howard’s subversion of justice and architected intolerance, is almost a darling of the left. The Economist rails against the "inverted pyramid" of derivative markets, the lack of action on climate change and "psycological tics… a reason why markets are ultimately inefficient". (2007-05-05 p75)
We must rally behind the catchry of Cicero (my all-time favorite politician): "Concord of the orders", which called for people of good-will, whether patrician, knight or pleb, to join together against self-serving demagogues and corruption.
How many West Wing fans cheered when Democrat Matt Santos asked Republican Arnold Vinnick to be his Vice President? How many wanted this after the unorthodox and inspiring (but unfortunately fictional) presidential debate? This need not be fantasy. It is a parable for what those people with good hearts and educated minds must do now, even though we come from opposing schools of thought.
Long ago in China, philosophers of the three schools (Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist) would drink together, exclaiming "One truth, three ways of saying it". If we were to sit "natural enemies" Mohammed and Voltaire, Bob Brown and the editor of The Economist at a table, there would be polite disagreement about recommended policy details, but unity about aims (one end, thirty strategies), and all would condemn John Howard.
We need to give the predatory barbarians with power, those who hate the sophisticated elite, the left-right combination punch. It’s the only way we can knock them out. The ignoscenti are unlikely to grasp the arguments, but will perceive the significance of bipartisan criticism.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We might not meet face to face, but we can read each other’s literature for ammunition.
Stories the server thinks are related:
Posted: by David Bath May 7th, 2007 under Society.
Comments: 13
Comments
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 7, 2007, 8:36 pm
I think it is important that the left consider sacrificing a little doctrinal purity, where necessary, if it helps to get the current self-srving Tories out of power. Pragmatism can be as important as ideology.
I’m not sure that this should lead people to the other extreme, or embracing my enemy’s enemy as my friend. The barbarians, as you call them, are constantly making idiotic references to some monolithic entity called ‘the Left’ being in cahoots with the so-called ‘Islamo-fascists’. Surely there is a need to choose one’s allies wisely, or risk being sold out down the track.
And, just to nit-pick a little, was Cicero actually a politican, or a lawyer?
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 7, 2007, 8:43 pm
Just to add one last point - it must be said that politicians like Howard have been extremely successful in pursuing a divide and conquer approach to their many political enemies. This fragmentation of the opposition has helped keep progressive forces out of power, with a range of politicial groups often being ’single-issue’ organisations. Arguably, union, feminist, enironmental, and refugee advocate groups fall into this category. They should be natural allies, but I’m not sure that they undertake the requisite communication.
We’ve seen something roughly similar in the recent French elections, where the right were able to galvanise support, and the left were apparently unable to get enough votes from the centre. The initial poll (to determine who would run in the two-horse race of the subsequent poll) had about 4-5 communist, socialist and other leftist candidates running. It is possible that a bit of unity might have improved the outcome.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 8, 2007, 2:09 pm
HappyRevolutionary: Totally agree that choosing friends wisely (among the thinking right and theists who actually want a better life for all) is critical.
“‘the Left’ being in cahoots with the so-called ‘Islamo-fascists’” is, IMHO, a wedging furphy of the unthinking right.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 8, 2007, 2:32 pm
HappyRevolutionary: Cicero /was/ a politician, and pretty much a cross between Rumpole and Gough Whitlam. IMHO he was the prototype of the modern EU politician.
(a) He was elected consul (as a compromise candidate rather than the radical candidates of right and left), and probably the only important consul who didn’t know one end of a sword from another.
(b) He political achievements included (1): Stopping the politically and financially motivated executions of Sulla by damning the lackey Chrysogonus (Pro Roscio), (2): limiting rapacious governors (Against Verres, his only prosecution), (3): governing provinces well by stopping “trimming” by tax collectors, increasing efficiency, etc: few governors of those times were popular with the governed - he was, (4): quelling a rebellion (Catiline) with only a handful of deaths - and those were sanctioned by the senate.
(c) Although an enemy, Big Juli praised him for “enlarging the roman mind, more important than enlarging the borders”. He also refused the offer to be a fourth in the first triumvirate (too unconstitutional). He wasn’t invited into the conspiracy to kill Julius (too uncivilized).
(d) He wrote a series of “Greek philosophy for dummies who only read Latin”, published the “Nature of the Universe” after Lucretius suicided (even though he disagreed with the atheist and atomist views), developed dactylic hexameter (later used by Virgil), and increased Latin vocabulary so it became suitable for philosophy and church over subsequent centuries (rather than only good for farming, building, and warring). His works were very influential during the renaissance and enlightment.
(e) He was eventually killed for his political diatribes (the Phillipics) against the bibulous Marcus Antonius.
(f) He damned rip-off merchants with perhaps the most serious accusation a Roman could make: “The person who cheats a fellow citizen is as damaging to the state as a soldier who leaves his post during a battle”. (rough quote from memory - De Finibus I think or possibly the Tusculan Disputations).
Can you see why I like the guy?
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 8, 2007, 4:01 pm
Your clearly a fan of the guy! I think it’s unfortunate that he is as studied as often as he could be - he rarely gts a mention in the literature or philosophy courses that I’ve seen.
I attempted to read his oration against Verres once, in the original - but Latin verbs are for serious masochists…
Comment from Verity
Time: May 8, 2007, 4:43 pm
I just can’t go past this discussion, I’ve spent the past few months translating Cicero’s prosecution speech against Verres and the man sure could speak. We’ve now moved onto Sallust’s description of the Catiline conspiracy out of which Cicero emerges looking pretty rosy, but then history’s always written by the winners, isn’t it?
One significant fact about Cicero was that he was a “homo nouus” or new man, not from one of the Roman aristocratic families. He was certainly very charismatic as a politician, makes you think how little charisma any of our lot have got.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 8, 2007, 4:48 pm
HR: “(Cicero) he rarely gets a mention in the literature or philosophy courses that I’ve seen.”
Yeah, but he didn’t do much original work - much like popular science writers have rarely been published in Nature.
“but Latin verbs are for serious masochists…” - you betcha - I never could get the endings - and the subjunctive mood so oft used by Cicero is darn tricky. Nevertheless, rolling your tongue around his work is nice - his prose almost parses. Verity - will you back me up on this?
Comment from Verity
Time: May 8, 2007, 5:05 pm
Sure, he writes a smooth speech. And, after all, if you’re not a masochist why are reading anything in Latin?
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 8, 2007, 5:08 pm
I agree that his work is definitely worth reading, based on the little that I’ve read. His letters are also worth a look, for a few biographical glimpses of the guy. His prose definitely has a discernible rythym and flow to it, and must have sounded very impressive when he read it aloud.
Whilst I think he did more work along the lines of commentary rather than original philosophy, I believe he was a huge influence on the early Christian tradition (i.e. St Augustine), as well as influencing works on rhetoric and philosophical commentary.
I would love to hear a modern pollie adapt a few lines from Cicero’s speech against Catiline, and direct them, say, against the likes of Abbot or Howard - “How long will that madness of yours make mock of us? How long will your unbridled audacity continue to vaunt itself?…’
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 8, 2007, 6:03 pm
Wow! A hotbed of uber-conservative education among the lefties!
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 10, 2007, 5:04 pm
The classical bent of some readers has prompted me to create a follow-on post wondering whether an education (include self-education) in classics makes one a wet, and that Howard and co are ANTI traditional western values.
Pingback from Club Troppo » Missing Link - Budget Edition
Time: May 10, 2007, 8:01 pm
[…] Bath at the Dead Roo has devised an ingenious unified theory of contemporary ideoligies; it cuts across religion and economics. It is hard to describe, but simpler to call the new divide […]
Write a comment