Posted on 04/02/2005 6:13:25 PM PST by Davis
The Word is out. Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman and Robert Reich and a vast Left wing chorus agree. "Oh my God. We are living in a theocracy."
What's the proof of this proposition? Where is the evidence of theocratic rule? Do you mean the stoning of fornicators on the Library steps in Little Rock? The branding of adulterers in Beverly Hills? The ceaseless up and down of blasphemers in Bronx River ducking stools?
None of the above, obviously. You rely for proof upon an aura emanating from a penumbra in the Red state heartland. It's the zeitgeist's terrible swift sword. Evidence isn't needed; metaphors will suffice.
Or, in lieu of evidence, adopt the Hinchey Principle, you know, the rule that permitted Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-Mars) to discover that Karl Rove was the guy who forged the Rathergate memos. It's true if you believe it to be true. Perception is all. There is no objective reality. Everyone has his own truth. And the Left shares a truth all its own. We are now a theocracy. Is that what you mean?
Whoa, there, are you backing away from the charge of theocracy? All you meant is that the US government is being run by religious Bible-thumpers who pretend to be Christians and are preparing to push the country down the slippery slope of theocracy, rule by priests, religious leaders. Like the late Taliban, the Mad Mullahs of Iran, and Ariel Sharon and his fanatical Talmud-spouting, prayer-shawl wearing, beard-tugging Likudniks. Is that what you mean?
Speak up, I can't hear you.
Oh, you really mean that George W. Bush is a pawn of the Christian religious right to whom he will be beholden when he runs for re-election in 2008. Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, and the rabidly religious neocons are preparing a Hitler-style putsch to bypass Congress and legislate from the Oval Office. Have I got it straight now? Is that what you mean?
Oh, you really mean that the President is pandering to the religious right, paying them off for their support in 2004. And how is that distinguishable from delivering on his campaign promises, tending to the concerns of his constituents? Is there anything shameful in that?
Okay, I see what you're saying—I think—that it's a goddam shame that idiot-rube Bible thumpers who let their religion-derived values inform their politics should each have one vote, the same as people like yourselves.
You, on the contrary, are the apostles of reason, unlike the religious lumpen whom you despise. Yes, you vote, you're proud to say, on the issues whereas the religious right and their allies cling with dogmatic fervor to antique concepts like justice, freedom, consent—not imputed consent, mind you, but real, individual consent—decency, honesty, work, modesty, charity, patriotism, civility.
You profess no faith but politics itself. ("Liberalism, a fighting faith," per Peter Beinart.) Let me offer a few examples.
It is you who have faith that the route to Heaven on earth lies in legislating racial quotas, gender quotas, and God knows what other quotas which occur to you in the future, despite all the evidence that quotas are corrupting, unjust, and impoverishing. It is you who have faith that public housing projects are ennobling way stations on the road to Utopia rather than the cesspits every honest person knows them to be. What is it but faith, a perverse faith, to be sure, that sustains your odd belief that public schools should enjoy a virtual monopoly and be rewarded for failure? And you might try questioning your quaint faith that it is best to turn over our lives to the tender care of government, that is to say, bureaucrats great and small, public masters, superior folk like yourselves.
*********
But it summed it up quite nicely.
Sure sounds like the "critical theory of society" that defines progressive methodology and also explains why they can make such pathetically moronic statements and yet seem so comfortable with them. It just doesn't matter what truth is as long as you can get enough sheeple to believe it.
And the States legislate damned few of them?
Freedom anyone?
So9
Robert Reich... small man, small mind.
Robert Reich sounds more like the Third Reich.
Robert Reich said that? Oh well, I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day ...
(Although I think he is a bit harsh on religious people who also embrace the modern world.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.