The Truth Hath No Home Here

One of my favorite sounds, as you all know by now, is that of liberal heads exploding like DDT-laden eggshells in the hot sun. This happens when one liberal fetish runs headlong into another – like, for instance, the issue of whether indigenous hunters in Alaska should be allowed to continue to hunt whales. The formula is: Indigenous = good. Hunting whales = bad. Indigenous hunting whales = Boom!

But there is another sound that is also music to my ears, and that's the sound of liberals being forced to stop on a dime and make a precipitous about-face in response to some shift in the political winds. Now, first you have to realize that, for liberals, there is no conflict between politics and truth; for them, politics _is_ truth – there is no other. And this sickness of the mind is rooted in a total rejection of morality, because morality, properly defined, is based on belief in a Supreme Being (other than man himself) – not only that, but a _conscious_ supreme being who has, let's say, preferences as to how human beings should behave. Morality, then, by this definition, is simply the process of discerning God's will and acting accordingly, i.e. in conformance to that discerned will and not in rebellion against it. And there really is no other valid basis for morality than this; it may seem, at times, that there is, but there really isn't. And this is because any “moral” system that starts with “man” and goes no higher is inevitably infected with perversity, concupiscence, ill will, and relativism – original sin, if you will. (I would have said “moral relativism”, but that is actually a contradiction in terms, since true morality, being based on an absolute, must itself be absolute.) Another way of expressing this is that any allegedly “absolute” standard of conduct that is only based on man cannot possibly be absolute, and thus is always relative, and thus is always subject to things like culture, psychology, sociology, and ultimately politics. Now, I know this flies directly in the face of the teachings of Ayn Rand, of whom I am a great fan – but it can't be helped. Her concept of “man qua man” as the basis for morality (or ethics) sounds nice and solid and objective, until we start to reflect on just how many definitions of “man” there are in the world – and that they are all, in fact, colored by culture, psychology, sociology, history, economics, and all the rest of it.

Let me give an example of this. Up to the Reformation, say – and certainly up to the time of the secular revolutions, starting with the French – the concept of man – our self-image, our notions as to our true nature – was predicated on the idea of man as creature, as part of the created order. From that, it was no great leap to assume that whoever, or whatever, created man in the first place might just have an interest in not only the survival of that which was created, but in its conduct. (This assumes, of course, that human beings have free will – that that is part of the package. Because without the assumption of free will, there can be no question of morality; this is something the secularists of our time always overlook.) Now, admittedly, this is not the only possible view of the relationship – Deism, for example, posits a “blind watchmaker” who, basically, sets things in motion then leaves the building, and it's up to us to muddle through from then on. This is certainly typical of many of the more liberal Protestant denominations... but goes very much against Catholic teaching (as well as Protestant fundamentalism - yes, it does have its uses at times).

But, starting most significantly with the French Revolution, man became self-defining – as to his origins, his nature, and his fate -- much to the dismay of Dostoyevsky and the delight of Nietzsche. Then, soon afterward, Darwin put the cap on the origin question (accidental result of random events), put a limit on our self-image (animal), and this, in turn, rendered questions as to our fate more or less moot (“nasty, brutal, and short”). But all was not lost! Somehow out of all this, a kind of collective free-will concept arose (aided, perhaps, by Jungian psychology), and the Bolshevik Revolution presented us with the prospect of the “New Soviet Man” -- sui generis, and a pure product of economics and the dialectic. Ah, but wait! Not to be outshone in the remaking-of-mankind business, Hitler soon afterwards came up with the idea of the Master Race – and this was all at the same time that more, ahem, “enlightened” nations – like the U.S. -- were falling in love with ideas of eugenics, and characters like Margaret Sanger and Margaret Mead were sailing by with flying colors. So who, or what, was “man qua man” at this point? Was he the New Soviet Man? Or a member of the Master Race? Or maybe the “common man” celebrated in song and story by New Deal WPA grantees? When it came to the true nature of man, we all of a sudden had a veritable Tower of Babel on our hands. And this was before the Information Age and cybernetics and robotics had really gotten off the ground – and before scientists started gabbing about the “religion gene” on Oprah. One thing was certain, though – the ancient concept of a free will, and a well-formed conscience that would seek God's will – those were out the window. The “will” that was supposed to triumph in the Third Reich was a collective will – as was the one that would yield up the New Soviet Man. These mini-Frankensteins were never to be, or function as, free individuals – only as cogs in a much larger organism, i.e. the state (which was, according to Marx, fated to wither away eventually, leaving.... well, who knows what, since it never happened). Even in the U.S., “the land of the free”, the individual was supposed to put his petty self-interest aside and work for the collective for as long as the crisis (Depression, World War II, Cold War, etc.) continued – the problem with that notion being that there is always a crisis that some government bureaucrat can point to, in order to admonish people to keep up the good (sacrificial) work and not ask questions (and keep the incumbents in office).

So... over time, morality morphed into “ethics”, which, in turn, morphed into “political correctness” -- the reductio ad absurdum of secularization. Now we have no better basis for truth and justice than what is socially acceptable and works at the polls – a degenerate situation if there ever was one. And anyone who even tries to propose the value of Natural Law (think: Robert Bork) is treated about as nicely as Frankenstein's monster, with pitchforks and torches. And yet – liberals persist in using, i.e. abusing, the language of morality, as if their whims had any validity beyond the exigencies of the moment. When's the last time a liberal in any position of authority said: “It's true because I say it is” -- or “It's because I'm the boss, that's why”. No – they will negate the very concept of truth (as Bill Clinton did so often) but then turn around and make moral and ethical claims on... not on themselves, heaven forbid, but on the citizenry. So people “ought” to act a certain way, because it's “right” -- but if pressed, they could no more define “right” than they could fly to the Moon under their own power. Moral relativism (yeah – I said it) is a tool in their hands; it enables them to do whatever they damn well please, but to stomp on anyone who does something they don't like. Is this a great country or what?

So... after this very long, but vitally important, diversion, let's get back to our whiplashed liberal. The mother of all whiplash cases for American liberals was, of course, the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939. Up to that point, “useful idiots” the world over had been singing the praises of the Soviet Union (“I have seen the future and it works”) but expressing skepticism, at the very least, regarding Nazism, even though the two systems, in every way that really counts, were mirror images of each other. This skepticism turned to alarm with events like Kristallnacht in 1938. So for a good five years Hitler was the bad guy. But! Lo and behold! With the signing of the pact, Hiter and Stalin became, in effect, allies, and there was great grinding of gears among American liberals, New Dealers, communists, socialists, and the rest of the sorry crew. All of a sudden criticism of der Adolf was streng verboten! Theirs not to reason why... because Uncle Joe was god. Can you imagine the total volume of posters, leaflets, magazines, newspapers, etc. that had to go in the recycling bin? Can you imagine the awkward moments in so many American universities the morning after the pact was signed? Ah yes... the perpetual dilemma of people who believe in no truth but that which is dictated to them by some foreign tyrant.

But wait, there's more! The ink was hardly dry on the pact when, lo and behold, Germany invaded the Soviet Union less than two years later. Screech! Grind! Whiplash! American liberals are made fools of again – but they never learn. Because, once again, politics is truth – there is no other. So now they were at least back in the comfortable position of loving the Soviets and hating the Nazis – a position which, for all intents and purposes, continues to this day... since, as every liberal knows, there is a “Nazi” or at least a “fascist” lurking around every corner, and under every bed. (And they called Joe McCarthy paranoid... ) And -- Soviet communism would have turned out just fine if only it had been given a fair chance.

So what I'm saying is, for liberals, politics trumps facts, reality, and truth every time. And it also trumps whatever is left of ethics and morality. And when I say “politics” I'm not even talking about “democracy” or “majority rule”, but of whatever the strong man – the dominant personality – of the moment says or wants. In this, liberals are really no more advanced than the most benighted tribe in darkest Africa; the strong man gets his (or her) way, and everyone else had better conform or face the consequences. All of their prattling on about principles, ethics, “consideration for others”, etc. is a thin disguise for arbitrary power and brute force. Is it better to mouth the right words even if one has no idea what they mean? I guess it's OK if you don't care anything about the value of words, or language, or ideas... but if you do, then unapologetic, non-hypocritical brute force might actually be preferable. Compared to our liberal con artists in Congress, characters like Saddam Hussein or Idi Amin are downright refreshing.

So... to bring this whole discussion up to the present time, you'll notice that, for example, as long as Iraq and Afghanistan were “Bush's wars” they were bad... illegal... unjust... immoral... and all the rest of it. Vietnam redux, in other words. But lo and behold, the minute Obama took over, those wars were... well, maybe not so bad after all. I mean, gosh, there really were “terrorists” out there, weren't there? I mean, it wasn't just some tall tale made up by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. And it would hardly do to just lay down our arms and open ourselves up to further attacks by religious fanatics. So Obama got a carte blanche on the wars before the cleanup crews had even finished dealing with the mess on the Mall after the inauguration.

But there's another example which I find even more disturbing. Admittedly, skepticism re: the official narrative about 9/11 is an acquired taste; most Americans are eager to accept the party line and never look back, because events of this sort are just too overwhelming for the average person to process in any way other than massive denial. But all the same, there was plenty of healthy skepticism floating around after the event on the part of liberals across the spectrum – and most of it was directed at Bush and Cheney. In Bush's case, it was more or less limited to “what did he know and when did he know it?” since no one was willing to give him credit for any more intellectually demanding involvement. But in Cheney's case, it was more like, was he the Darth Vader who planned and oversaw the whole thing from some dark tower (or underground bunker), with Rumsfeld sitting to his right, Giuliani to his left, and a gaggle of Neocons at his feet? Yes, liberals' hatred and suspicion of Bush and Cheney knew no bounds – even unto the suspicion that they had somehow been complicit in the greatest provocateur action of all time – next to which the Reichstag fire looks like a birthday candle.

So it was not considered impolite to question the 9/11 narrative as long as Bush/Cheney were in office – in fact, it was, to some extent, seen as a civic duty. And this is not to say that people on the other end of the spectrum were not equally, or more, suspicious – most of the 9/11 “truthers” are from the right end of the spectrum – paleocons, libertarians, and beyond. So there was already some suspicion that skepticism from the left was based more on politics than on facts. And this has been confirmed beyond any doubt by events since Obama's inauguration. Now, all of a sudden, anyone questioning the official narrative about 9/11 is a paranoid nut case... insane... a “wing nut”... and so on. And look at what happened to Van Jones – the recent case extensively blogged on by yours truly. He was tied, ever so tentatively, to a “truther” petition, and guess what, he was out on his ear. This, from people who, a year earlier, might have said (albeit from the sidelines) “right on!” To put it in a nutshell, the 9/11 narrative now “belongs” to the liberals, the left wing, and to Obama. He inherited it, the way he did the twin wars, the economic crisis, and all the rest – and now he has to not only assert ownership, but defend the position against all skepticism... and so, likewise, do his supporters, particularly those in the media. It's a sort of writ-large version of what happens to homeless people once a Democrat takes office – they disappear! And they only reappear the next time a Republican takes office. I guess we could expect 9/11 skepticism to become fashionable and politically acceptable again if a Republican won in 2012 – but I'm not holding my breath. It only illustrates, once again, that no matter who is supposedly in charge, the real power never shifts and the rules of the game never change. And that, for liberals, it's always a matter of following orders, and never about seeking out the real truth.