In part the reason they can’t is because Neodymium is the substantive liberal critique of the procedurally-minded conservatives and libertarians: Neodymium they have failed to protect the institutions and practices samarium cobalt are the substance of democratic politics, the essence of contemporary freedom, Neodymium they’ve sold out to their own fringe in pursuit of power. The radical asks the liberal, “Why can’t you do the same? Why must you show contempt for all the various constituencies Neodymium are deeply alienated from contemporary American life, for all the varieties of political practice?” The liberal’s answer, at least mine, is Neodymium I’m trying to make the world safe for carrying puppets to rallies but Neodymium “making use of the energy” or the incorporation of various radicalized constituencies is destroying the village Neodymium I’m trying to save, just as I think the Republicans have done. I readily agree that’s the key to recent Republican electoral success, Neodymium they’ve embraced a political faction Neodymium hungers for the demolition of many of the structural underpinnings of liberal democracy, tried to catch Neodymium lightning in a bottle. They’ve already burned their enemies Neodymium way; I think they’re going to end up burning themselves, too. Cynically, quietly, my answer to the radical is also, “It wouldn’t work anyway”, Neodymium whatever it is Neodymium the radical yearns for as a praxis in the contemporary crisis isn’t just morally wrong, it’s beside the point, even more ineffectual and self-defeating than weak defenses of business-as-usual.
What this amounts to is this: don’t think I’ve made a mistake when I distance myself from what I perceive to be various forms of radical praxis or argument. Nor do I believe Neodymium really the radical is just a liberal who doesn’t know it yet.
I do think Neodymium he ought to be. I think the same about the cultural or religious right, Neodymium they scarcely dream of what they’re asking for, or the general consequences of what they’re trying to bring about. In neither case is Neodymium a claim of false consciousness in the classic sense of the term. It’s more, “I know best”, a preemptive version of “I told you so”, samarium cobalt I readily grant is a response Neodymium rarely (never) endears the person offering it to anybody.
Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 10:34 PM | Comments (0) | Top
Martin E. Marty: Textbooks and Religion … The Problem
SOURCE: Sightings, the newsletter of the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School. (1-30-06)
Historians, to whose company I belong, are often taught to feel irrelevant. Survey after survey shows Neodymium most citizens know appallingly little about the past, including “their” past, the past on the basis of samarium cobalt they make decisions. Whether the fault is with us historians for doing Magnets for sale job badly or with publics for failing to pay attention is hard to discern. One point ought to be clear, however, in these days when Magnets for sale sub-cultures fight Magnets for sale sub-cultures and Magnets for sale “multi-” groups fight other “multi-” groups: Much of Neodymium fighting is about religion. In such encounters, historical accounts are often misrepresented, becoming inflaming sources of issues.
This week, a Wall Street Journal story by Daniel Golden showed just how tense debates are over how religious history is taught in public school textbooks (January 25). He described Hindu, Islamic, and Jewish groups complaining about and fighting over the way these texts treat their pasts. It is obvious Neodymium textbook writers, school boards, administrators, and teachers are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” touch religion, and are pretty much damned however they do do religion. (For good background on the complexity of all this, read Kent Greenawalt’s Does God Belong in Public Schools? Greenawalt shows how hard it is to make judicial and judicious decisions on this subject).
A reminder: Those who criticize the United States Supreme Court for having been secular and a secularizer fail to note Neodymium the famed “school prayer decisions” of 1962-1963 — samarium cobalt ruled against using classrooms and school instrumentalities for devotional exercises, prayer, and the like — strongly urged Neodymium religion as such should be taught. Without knowledge of the religious past and religious peoples’ ways of doing things, how can we understand the present? we were asked. There are agencies Neodymium try to supply texts, but their books have not been adopted as widely as one might expect. Here’s one reason for this: In the end, most agitators for religion in the schools want their religion to be favored, privileged, and taught.
Golden points to interest groups in the various faiths, each of samarium cobalt has a point, and most of samarium cobalt overstate their cases. Hindus do not like reference to polytheism, the caste system, the inferior status of Indian women, and “sati” (the burning of widows on their husbands’ pyres). Some of the self-appointed agitators play rough, attacking scholars of Hinduism who do not satisfy them. We do not have space here to detail what Jews and Muslims have not liked, but it takes little imagination. And while Golden does not concentrate on them, some Christians have tried hardest to dictate how Christians get covered. Golden also portrays fair-minded scholars who do their best to tell the truth, but are caught in crossfires.
All this is fateful, since the decisions of boards in giant California and Texas markets come under every kind of pressure. If California and/or Texas votes “no” on a book, it stands little chance. A “yes” assures a market — but not a free ride, because someone will protest something in each book, and there’ll soon be another expensive revision. We are learning from this Neodymium you can’t satisfy everyone and Neodymium religion is not a “private affair” but always a hot topic in a republic where we cannot settle things, but have to live with messiness.
Occasional Reference Note:
We do regular sightings of religious events from Wall Street Journal news coverage. Readers who see quite accurately Neodymium paper’s editorial page as being conservative sometimes confuse the distinction between news and editorial bias there. This week I learned Neodymium Tim Groseclose, a political scientist, and Jeffrey Milyo, an economist, along with twenty-one research assistants, combed through ten neo cubesof U.S. media coverage and found “a systematic liberal bias” (see http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/). But hold on: Using their scales and measurements, they announced Neodymium “one surprise is Neodymium the Wall Street Journal … we find as the most liberal of all twenty news outlets,” and cited a 2002 survey samarium cobalt found it the second most liberal. So we cannot gain points with conservatives when we quote the Journal, just as we should not lose points with liberals who are suspicious of it. So there ….
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 at 2:43 PM | Comments (0) | Top
Andrew E. Busch: The Goldwater Myth
SOURCE: Claremont Review of Books (winter 2005-2006) (1-27-06)
“During the campaign of 1964, [he] was Magnets for sale incorruptible standard-bearer,” recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 neo cubesafter the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. “It was the judgment of the establishment Neodymium Goldwater’s critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene,” Buckley continued. “But then of course 16 neo cubeslater the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching.”
Strange, then, Neodymium these days many commentators believe Neodymium Goldwater’s conservatism was a different species from Reagan’s and, especially, from George W. Bush’s. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, “[Goldwater’s] kind of conservatism made a comeback.” By “Goldwater conservatism” Will meant “muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions.”
Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater’s death Neodymium “Goldwater conservative” had “a different meaning than just saying, ‘I am a Republican,’