Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Conservative Communism: Chapter 1

Conservative Communism: The Secret History of the American Right, From Gerrard Winstanley to Grover Norquist

Chapter 1. Oliver's Army Are On Their Way: The Origins of Conservative Communism

It was inevitable that the intellectual origins of conservative communism should be found in Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, since the English Civil War represented the first major conflict between conservative communism and liberal fascism. Just as the Roundheads represent the origins of conservative communism, so the Cavaliers represent the origins of liberal fascism. As Michael Stipe has pointed out,

Watch a heel crush, crush. Uh oh, this means no fear - Cavalier. Renegade and steer clear! 1



The authoritarian libertines who supported King Charles I intended to create the world's first liberal fascist regime -- a regime combining the Divine Right of Kings and liberalism's metrosexual fashion sense, as represented by their 17th-century manifestations: ostrich plumes and elaborate curled wigs.

Opposing them were the world's first conservative communists, the Roundheads: sober, conservatively dressed members of the New Model Army quoting the Bible in support of communitarian ideals.

1 Stipe, Michael, "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)", as quoted in Document, I.R.S. Records, 1987.



[Adam, you get the idea. I'll fill in some stuff about the Putney Debates and the Levellers and Diggers later. Maybe I can get some of my blog readers to send me some stuff.]

Conservative Communism: Introduction

Conservative Communism: The Collectivist Conspiracy From Hegel to Happy Meals

Introduction.

A specter is haunting America -- the specter of conservative communism. All the powers of liberal fascism have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this specter: social worker and college professor, Moulitsas and Soros, San Francisco homosexuals and New York intellectuals.

This book will present a very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care: that the roots of the modern-day American conservative movement can be found in the works of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. We (and when I say "we", I of course speak of myself as a member of the conservative collective) will trace the intellectual roots of conservative communism from its origins in the 17th century conservative communitarian religious factions of Cromwellian England. I will follow that strain of belief as it is introduced into colonial America by such notable conservative communitarians as William Penn and Mother Ann Lee. I will examine the cross-pollination of ideas between 19th-century American religious communists and European secular communists. And finally, I will trace the convergence of these two communistic impulses into the modern Republican Party, the "Grand Old Revolutionary Vanguard Party", with its vast array of think tanks, media outlets, radical journals, revolutionary "militia" cells, warblogs, and self-reinforcing mytho-ideology.

It is a common misconception to regard communism as an ideology of the "left". This is due to the confusion between the "classical" communism of William Penn and Karl Marx, and the aberrant "leftist" strain of communism as practiced by the notorious "free-love" communes of the 1960s. One of the goals of this book will be to disentagle "classical" communism from its many hippie-inspired leftist variants and restore it to its proper place within the continuum of conservative thought.

Another goal of this book will be to take a look at the current field of Republican presidential candidates and show how conservative communism informs the ideology of each, albeit in different ways, from the Penn-derived religious communitarianism of former Arkansas governor Michael Huckabee to the descendant of Leninist War Communism that has been one of the driving forces of the George W. Bush administration and of the campaigns of Arizona Senator John McCain and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Finally, this book will serve as a counterpoint to that of my fellow conservative communist intellectual Jonah Goldberg. Just as Goldberg has served to warn America about the threat posed by liberal fascism, so I hope to reassure a fearful nation that conservative communism remains the central ideology of the Republican Party, and that that ideology will continue to serve as a blueprint for the ongoing radical restructuring of America into a collectivist conservative utopia.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Race and the Democratic Primary

Ever since Senator Barack Obama announced his presidential campaign, one issue has dominated his candidacy more than any other, and following his first place showing in the Iowa caucuses and his close second-place finish in the New Hampshire primary, that issue has now come to the forefront. I'm talking, of course, about Race.


Roger "Race" Bannon has been a close friend of Senator Obama since the latter's childhood. Readers of Obama's Dreams from My Father will recall the story of Obama's 1970 meeting in Jakarta with Bannon and his companions, Dr. Benton Quest and Quest's son Jonathan and ward Hadji Singh. Although their initial meeting in Jakarta lasted only a few days, Obama became close friends with Bannon and the Quests, often visiting Bannon and the Quests at their compound in Key Palm, Florida, and rooming with Jonathan Quest when the two attended Columbia University together.

Bannon of course is a well-known gay rights activist, first gaining notoriety after being expelled from the Secret Service in 1971 after openly acknowledging his relationship with Dr. Quest. Since then, Bannon and Quest have been at the forefront of the gay rights movement, being among the first gay couples to marry after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004.

Obama's longstanding friendship with Bannon first surfaced as an issue in 2004 during his run for the United States Senate. During a televised debate with his Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, on October 21, Keyes denounced Bannon and Quest's relationship in harsh, uncompromising language and called upon Obama to prove his commitment to Christianity by renouncing his friendship with them. Obama refused to do so.

Despite his friendship with Bannon, Obama's relations with the gay community have not always gone smoothly. His inclusion of anti-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin in a concert tour in South Carolina in October 2007 led to friction with gay rights activists, a dispute that Bannon and Quest chose not to comment on in public.

Now that Obama is one of the Democratic frontrunners, the issue of Race Bannon is once again receiving attention, as supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton drop hints that Obama's close ties with the controversial former government agent may cost him support in the general election in November. Obama supporters, in their turn, have been accusing the Clinton campaign of engaging in gay-bashing. If sparring between the two campaigns degenerates into open warfare, the Race Bannon issue may wreck the best chance Democrats have had in a generation of attaining a clear electoral mandate for a progressive agenda.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Alan Keyes and History

Jeff Fecke, a component of the blogospheric hive mind known as Shakesville, has posted the latest edition of his GOP Power Rankings on the current state of the Republican presidential race. Amidst the well-merited liberal schadenfreude (the post is subtitled "Someone's Gotta Win, Right?), Fecke has this to say on the subject of Alan Keyes, whom he ranks ninth and last:
Alan Keyes received a grand total of 220 votes in New Hampshire. I'll wager you a friendly bet that I could get 220 votes in New Hampshire. Alan Keyes is no longer a joke merely among Democrats; he's just a joke. That said, he's a joke that never stops being funny, so here's hoping he stays in the race a long time. I can't wait to hear how he manages to blame global warming on abortion.

Fecke is not alone in finding Keyes a source of amusement. The commenters at Balloon Juice had what amounts to an online party when news reached them that Keyes had qualified for a spot in the Des Moines Register/Iowa Public Television presidential debate on December 12.

Clearly, then, Keyes plays a vital role in adding entertainment value to the Republican presidential race. Fecke hopes he stays in the race a long time, and that got my thinking. Will Keyes stay in the race till the bitter end? What was his motivation for running in the first place? That's when the year 1860 occurred to me.

The 1860 presidential election was, hands down, the most important in American history. The Republicans were a recently-cobbled-together antislavery party confined entirely to the North, the nation's first major regional party. The Democrats had split in two when Southern Democrats broke with their insufficiently-proslavery Northern colleagues. And in an eerie foreshadowing of Unity08, the Constitutional Unionists attempted to create a centrist party that ignored the slavery issue completely.

Among the free states, the election was a contest between Republican candidate Abraham "Honest Abe" Lincoln and Northern Democratic candidate Stephen "The Little Giant" Douglas. This was particularly interesting because two years before, Lincoln and Douglas had faced each other in a race for a senate seat from Illinois.

And this brings us to Alan Keyes, who faced Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama four years ago for . . . a senate seat from Illinois. (Disappointingly, the seat in play in 1858 was not the seat in play in 2004. Obama's colleague Dick Durbin currently occupies the Lincoln-Douglas seat.) In the extrordinarily unlikely event that Keyes wins the Republican nomination, we could see a repeat of the Lincoln-Douglas rematch.

The Illinois senate elections of 1858 and 2004 were both historically important elections. The 1858 contest produced the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, which served to crystallize Northern opinion on the subject of slavery. The 2004 contest quantified the Crazification Factor, which is the percentage of the population that will vote for any Republican, however crazy, over any Democrat, however sane.

In both the 1858 and 2004 senate elections, the Democrat defeated the Republican, though Douglas' victory over Lincoln was a narrow one, and Obama's victory over Keyes was overwhelming. As noted above, both men are now running for president, though Obama is one of the Democratic frontrunners and Keyes has practically no support among Republicans.

Is Keyes basing his presidential hopes on somehow replicating Abraham Lincoln's victory over his onetime senate race opponent? I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet that if you used the Vulcan mind meld on Keyes, you'd find that the answer is yes.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Deep Space Nine: Dark Prophecy of the War on Terror

Over a year ago, reasonable conservative Jon Swift devoted a post to the then-current storyline of the revamped Battlestar Galactica called "On Battlestar Galactica Heroic Cylons Battle Vicious Terrorists". As the title indicates, Swift noted the parallels between the storyline in which the cybernetic Cylons attempted to deal with an insurgency on New Caprica and the ongoing effort by the United States to deal with a similar insurgency in Iraq.

What Swift did not mention was that Ronald D. Moore, co-producer of Battlestar Galactica, had dealt with a similar (and similarly relevant) theme in an earlier science fiction series which he also co-produced. Swift's failure to mention this earlier series is understandable given its obscurity; Star Trek: Deep Space Nine suffered the fate of being overshadowed by its better-known, more glamorous sibling, Star Trek: Voyager. Nevertheless, DS9's eerily prophetic theme of jihadist-fueled terrorism merits our attention.

Some necessary background follows. Back in 1991, the producers of Star Trek: The Next Generation were tasked with creating a spin-off series that would continue the Star Trek franchise after TNG went off the air. They then did what any creative team in Hollywood would do: they dug out a series proposal from Paramount's archives called Babylon 5, made a few cosmetic changes, and claimed the result as their own.

The series was set in the Bajoran system, which, like Iraq, was liberated by a major power (called the Cardassian Union in the show. The similarity in name to the United States is obvious). Since the series is set fifty years after the actual liberation of the Bajorans by the Cardassians, we don't know the exact circumstances surrounding that event. We do know that before the arrival of the Cardassians, Bajor was a caste-ridden theocracy, so the planet was in definite need of liberation. We know that, as has been the case in Iraq, the Cardassians sought to finance their liberation of Bajor by extracting and refining one of the planet's valuable natural resources (and that extremists claimed that it was the Cardassians' desire for that natural resource that was the real motive for the liberation). We also know that, as has been the case in Iraq, following the planet's liberation, an insurgency arose that was fueled by religious fanaticism.

The essentially benign nature of the Cardassian liberation of Bajor can be seen in the person of Gul Dukat, the Cardassian prefect (administrator) of Bajor. Upon being appointed prefect, Dukat ordered the abolition of child labor on Bajor, and reduced production quotas by fifty percent. Dukat is also known to have been in intimate relationships with at least two Bajoran women, which speaks volumes about his love for the Bajoran people.

The most remarkable thing about the parallels between the Cardassian liberation of Bajor and the American liberation of Iraq is the fact that the series was created ten years before the liberation of Iraq. This can doubtless be ascribed to the foresight of series creators Michael Berman and Michael Piller. At the time the series was being created in 1992, the first Iraq War had already been fought, leaving Saddam Hussein still in power. It was apparently already clear to Berman and Piller that it would be necessary for the United States to return to Iraq and depose Saddam, and that DS9 was their forecast of the upcoming war of liberation.

The most powerful aspect of DS9's prophetic storyline is its cautionary nature. As the series begins, defeatist elements within the Cardassian government have allowed the terrorists to win, and have chosen to cut and run from Bajor. The Bajoran system quickly falls under the control of the Cardassian Union's greatest enemy, the Federation (the similarity to the name of the recently-established Russian Federation cannot be coincidental). Over the course of the next seven years, the Cardassian Union is invaded by the Klingon Empire, betrayed by its erstwhile allies in the Dominion, and conquered and occupied by an alliance of enemy powers.

Those fainthearted so-called Americans who want us to withdraw our troops from Iraq would do well to heed the warning of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. There we can see depicted, in metaphorical form, the fate that awaits us if we lose our will and allow ourselves to be driven from Iraq before our mission there is complete.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Is Obama Black Enough?

That's the question that political commentators (invariably, white ones) asked when Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) first entered the presidential race: is he black enough to attract the "black vote"? Well, as Glenn Greenwald points out, Obama is certainly black enough to cause conservatives to start tooting on their race dogwhistles. Here he quotes Jonah Goldberg:

I think it's worth imagining a certain scenario. Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee -- and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008.


This seems a little obscure, since it's written in a conservative dialect called Chickenshit. Fortunately, thanks to the miracle of Babelfish, we can machine-translate Jonah's words from their original Chickenshit into the more easily understood LOLCat:

O noes! Teh negroz iz komen! Teh negroz iz komen!


Greenwald predicts that if Obama secures the Democratic nomination, we can expect to hear many, many more racial dogwhistles from conservatives.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Minneapolis Dreams

I'm already on record predicting that the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis will deadlock, resulting in the compromise choice of former President George H. W. "Poppy" Bush as the Republican nominee. And that prediction still stands.

But.

There's prediction, and then there's daydreaming. Here's my daydream of how the convention in Minneapolis will turn out:

As the delegates assemble on September 1, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has a razor-thin majority. However, he's been spewing gaffes like a firehose all year, and polling shows that he's running about fifteen points behind the newly-chosen Democratic nominee. Also, the Powers-That-Be in the Republican Party still don't like having an actual fundy as their nominee. Fundies (or "the nuts" as the Powers-That-Be like to call them), are for voting, not for nominating. As a result, on the day of the roll call, certain Rovian dirty tricks are employed (possibly by Rove himself), and in a replay of the 2000 presidential race, the nomination ends up going to runner-up Mitt Romney.

Well, the Huckababies aren't Democrats, and they won't take that kind of bullshit lying down. Fights break out across the convention floor as Huckabee supporters vent their rage on Romney supporters, and the convention comes to a premature close as a mob of Huckababies storms the podium.

Huckabee himself isn't willing to bend over and take one for the Party, and the day after the convention ends he announces that he is leaving the GOP, and his supporters f0llow him en masse. Although there are only two months to go before the general election, the Huckababies succeed in placing their candidate on the ballot in 21 states, mostly in the South. On election day, Huckabee wins 14% of the vote, to 29% for Romney and 55% for the Democratic nominee.

Following the election day debacle, Huckabee's followers begin converting their insurgent movement into a national political party called the Christian Democrats. Attempts to lure them back into the GOP are rebuffed; the Christian Democrats are determined to replace the Republicans as the country's major conservative party. The split among American conservatives continues for the next thirty years, resulting in a permanent Democratic governing majority.

Hey, a man can dream, can't he?

Thursday, January 3, 2008

My Iowa Predictions

It's now 7:00 PM on the evening of Thursday, January 3, 2008. The Democratic Caucus in Iowa opens in half an hour, and the Republican caucus opens in one hour. I hereby commit to blogospheric posterity my predicted outcomes:

Democratic Caucus
Obama - 38%
Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 29%
Richardson - 2%
Biden - 1%

I also predict that Biden and Dodd will withdraw from the race when these results are known.

Republican Caucus
Huckabee - 34%
Romney - 25%
Thompson - 13%
McCain - 13%
Paul - 10%
Giuliani - 4%

I also predict that none of these candidates will withdraw from the race before the New Hampshire primaries.

Now, if it turns out that these predictions prove to be suspiciously accurate, some may suspect me of resorting to some sort of trickery. It is true that one can manually set the timestamp for Blogger posts, so it is theoretically possible that this post was actually composed Friday morning, and the timestamp backdated to Thursday evening.

I just want to assure my readers that I did nothing of the sort. As Joe Klein so memorably put it, I'll stake my reputation on it.

Liberal Fascism: The Venn Diagram

Yeah, if you wanted to understand the basic point of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, you could acquire a copy and read it, like poor Spencer Ackerman is doing. Or you could look at the Venn diagram below.

As you can see from this diagram, which is a very serious, thoughtful diagram that has never been made in such detail or with such care, liberalism is a form of fascism, but conservatism isn't.

I hope that clears everything up.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Minion of the Great Orange Satan

Yes, it's true. I have been corrupted. I have been suborned. I have been seduced by the orange side of the Force. I now have my own account on Daily Kos. The Mark of the Beast has been tattood on my virtual forehead: user id #145945.

I posted my first comment today to a front page story on Mike Huckabee's embarrassing lack of knowledge about foreign policy. It has attracted six recommends and one follow-up comment.

I know now that there is no going back. It's too late for me, but it's not too late for you! Save yourselves! Run for your lives! It lives!

The Great Orange Satan lives!

Thursday, December 27, 2007

From the Trenches at Sadly, No!

Gavin M. is one of the brave souls at Sadly, No! who read the wingnuts so we don't have to. But it takes its toll:

If I can have an honest-moment now, I look at thousands of words of right-wing spew daily, beginning in the morning when I first check my feeds, and ending when the last press-releases thwonk onto the pavement in the evening. There are hundreds of items every day. And it does all, literally, drive you batshit, if you try to follow the main currents honestly and plain-mindedly . . . .

Because you see, after a point, you encounter the worst of it, and see that ‘the worst’ replicates willfully, every week, as well as most days (and more than half of the empirical hours). And as I’ve been sitting here in this computer-chair writing this, several new columns have been published, for instance, on Townhall.com. And each one is in whooping bad faith, and no sane person in the world has the time to refute them all.

I’m not complaining, and none of us are. I imagine our conservative friend, Stephen, reading this, but don’t imagine him as morally impressed by it.

And in a way, I suppose this site, day by day, chronicles our failures as human beings. (As well as, not-unremarkedly, successes.) There’s simply too much, and we’re not enough. It’s shovel-funded and unremittent. But then, of course, we try every day . . .


You couldn't pay me enough to do what these folks do. I freely admit that I just don't have the fortitude to wade through the daily morass of right-wing sludge that inundates our public discourse. I have no idea how they do it. What I do know is that they perform a valuable service, so go ahead and leave them a little spending money. I did.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

To Lee Siegel: A Modest Proposal

Mr. Lee Siegel
c/o The New Republic
1331 H Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC, 20005

Dear Mr. Siegel,

No doubt you are aware of the impending publication of Jonah Goldberg's long-awaited and much-postponed monograph on the subject of liberal fascism. In fact, thoughout the book's long pre-history and frequent subtitle changes, the main title has remained Liberal Fascism, a remarkable instance of persistence for such a protean project.

While it is true that Goldberg's claim on the idea of liberalism as a form of fascism goes back several years, nevertheless you were the first to actually achieve publication of the idea in your online article "The Origins of Blogofascism", as well as accomplishing the notable feat of coining the word "blogofascism" itself. (By the way, in the course of composing this post I've discovered that "The Origins of Blogofascism" is no longer available on The New Republic's website. You may want to alert them to this dismaying technological mishap.) Of course, one might argue that the term "blogofascism" doesn't necessarily apply only to liberals. The proper response is to note that in your seminal article on the phenomenon, you cited Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the liberal blog Daily Kos, as the definitional example of a blogofascist, pointing out his "rootlessness" and his three-year hitch in the US Army as proof of the essentially fascistic nature of his personality.

Given the widespread notoriety evinced by your explication of this phenomenon, it seems to me that your own intellectual precedence on the topic of liberal fascism is beyond dispute. That being the case, I think it behooves you to speak up on this subject. You need to remind the world that Goldberg's work is nothing more than a rehash of concepts that were pioneered by yourself. At the very least, you ought to be entitled to a notice within the pages of Liberal Fascism acknowledging your own contribution to the idea's intellectual pedigree. If you're willing to kick up enough of a fuss, you could even browbeat Goldberg into offering you co-author status. Heck, if you play your cards right, you could even parlay your prior claim to this particular piece of intellectual property into a book deal with Doubleday of your own, a companion piece to Goldberg's book called Liberal Blogofascism: The Secret History of the Left Blogosphere from Mussolini to Markos Moulitsas. I picture the front cover as having a smiley emoticon with a Hitler mustache. (Yes, I know you already have a book deal with Doubleday, but a man can never have too many book deals.)

According to Amazon.com, Goldberg's book is (currently) due out on January 8, so you're going to have to act quickly if you want it to properly reflect your intellectual contribution.

Best of luck,
Johnny Pez
http://johnnypez9.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

How the Boy Who Lived Stole Christmas

The mood was grim as the heads of the major videogame manufacturers, toy manufacturers, film studios, and television networks met that December. Sales were down across the board. Black Friday had been a severe letdown, and so had all the shopping days before Christmas.

"Videogame sales are in the toilet," confirmed the head of Nintendo.

"Ratings have dropped, and they're still dropping," confirmed the head of NBC. "Even on Saturday mornings. Especially on Saturday mornings!"

"Toy sales are down too," reported the head of Hasbro. "Except," he added darkly, "for Harry Potter tie-ins."

The other corporate executives all winced at the name. The head of Sony snarled (in Japanese, with inexpertly translated subtitles) "You dare speak that name among us?" ("All your Potter are belong to us!")

"Gentlemen," said their leader, the chairman of the Association of Global Conglomerates, "we cannot afford to be squeamish. We all know the source of our problems. Books!"

There was another round of wincing, but nobody dared speak against the chairman of the AGC.

The chairman continued, "We all thought that we could weather the storm. We all thought that when the last of those books was published, everything would go back to normal. But we were wrong. They started buying other books: Terry Pratchett, Piers Anthony, even L. Frank Baum. L. Frank Baum, for heaven's sake! And there are plenty more where they came from! Gentlemen, we must face the harsh facts: our children are reading." As the others averted their eyes in horror, the chairman savagely repeated, "Reading! Reading books! Little black letters on white pages! With spines! And covers!"

The head of MGM/UA cried out in horror and fainted dead away.

"But what are we to do?" wondered the head of Sony. ("You have no chance to survive make your time.")

"We have no choice," said the chairman. "We must make the ultimate sacrifice."

"You don't mean . . . " cried the head of ABC.

"I do!" insisted the chairman. "We must cancel Christmas! We must make the world understand the price to be paid for this unnatural habit."

The other executives mumbled, but in the end the chairman had his way.

On Christmas morning, in gated suburbs throughout America, loudspeaker trucks fanned out, broadcasting the message: "ATTENTION CHILDREN OF AMERICA! ATTENTION CHILDREN OF AMERICA! CHRISTMAS HAS BEEN CANCELLED BECAUSE OF HARRY POTTER! REPEAT, CHRISTMAS HAS BEEN CANCELLED BECAUSE OF HARRY POTTER!" On every channel of every television the message was repeated. Christmas was cancelled. And Harry Potter was to blame.

On every street corner, in every small town and suburban subdivision and urban neighborhood, mourning families gathered with their handfuls of Harry Potter, of Xanth, of Discworld, of Narnia, and stacked them neatly in piles on the sidewalk. Gasoline was poured, matches and zippo lighters flared, and the skies of America were filled with greasy dark clouds.

A year later, Black Friday dawned bright and early across the country. Box stores threw open their doors, but the expected flood of customers failed to materialize. That evening, the heads of the Association of Global Conglomerates gathered at a secret emergency meeting. All looked at the chairman for an explanation.

"We thought everything would return to normal once we took away their books," he said, his expression that of a man numbed with horror. "We were wrong. They haven't stopped reading. Instead, they've started writing their own stories. The internet is clogged with them. Ficblogs, they call them."

"Can't we do something?" asked the head of Sony. ("Take off every 'ZIG'!!")

The chairman shook his head. "We'd have to shut down the internet, and we can't. We can't! We'd be cutting our own throats." He signed. "We'll just have to learn to adapt. Start selling pens and paper, maybe, with advertising. Or marketing tie-ins." He tried to sound brave, but he knew as well as the rest that the world had changed, and there was no going back.

Harry Potter had triumphed.

Monday, December 24, 2007

Review: Catch-22

Reasonable conservative Jon Swift is widely regarded on the internets for his series of Amazon.com book reviews -- though not by Amazon.com itself, which removed most of them from its website. It's been said that flattery is the sincerest form of imitation, so I have decided to produce a flattering set of imitation Jon Swift book reviews. I cannot post them on Amazon.com itself, since you have to actually buy something off of their website in order to be allowed to post reviews to it, but that's just as well; in all likelihood, my sincere flattery of Mr. Swift's work would result in my own reviews also being removed from the Amazon.com website. Fortunately for both Amazon.com and myself, I can further flatter Mr. Swift by imitating his solution: posting the reviews here on my blog. As my first subject for review, I have chosen the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller.

I have not read this book, and I was initially disappointed when I found out that it was not, as I had at first assumed, about fishing. My disappointment vanished, though, when I realized that it was actually about World War II. Mr. Heller was apparently one of the earliest writers to write about what Tom Brokaw has dubbed the Greatest Generation and its wonderful battle against fascism (which was, as Jonah Goldberg reminds us, actually an early form of liberalism). In fact, Mr. Heller himself was apparently a member of the Greatest Generation who actually served in the European Theater during World War II. Although it is extremely suspicious behavior for someone writing about a war to actually take part in it, Mr. Heller probably deserves a pass, since he lived in a time before it became firmly established that the people who cheerlead a war are at least as important and as deserving of praise as the people who fight in it. Mr. Heller's tribute to the brave officers and men who battled against Eurolibrofascism in the 1940s is as timely today as when it was first published in 1961.

How Crazy Is Too Crazy?

The always-thoughtful Jen Clark poses a troubling question: should she change her registration to Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the California primary?

The question is troubling because my own thoughts have been paralleling hers. They go like this:

The three Democratic frontrunners all have not-too-dissimilar policy positions. It won't make a whole lot of difference which one wins the nomination, so choosing one over the others in the Democratic primary is not an urgent priority.

On the other hand, the Republicans have quite dissimilar policy positions. In particular, Ron Paul, crazy as he is, is the only major candidate in either party with a sane foreign policy. As one character put it in Joseph Heller's Catch-22, "That crazy bastard may be the only sane one left."

Yeah, Ron Paul is nuts. He basically wants to abolish huge chunks of the federal government, eliminate all federal regulations, gut the 14th Amendment, amend the Constitution to criminalize flag-burning, withdraw from the United Nations, and return the country to the Gold Standard. But he also wants to eliminate the vast global military establishment that the United States has established since the start of the Cold War, starting with the occupation of Iraq. If he became the Republican nominee, we would be treated to the unusual spectacle of a Republican running to the left of the Democrats on foreign policy and military policy. More generally, having Paul running for president as the Republican nominee would move the Overton Window on foreign policy in the direction of less militarism and fearmongering.

So I understand where Jen is coming from. We need a debate on America's global military hegemony, and we won't get one until a major party candidate start talking about it. And right now, the only person in a position to do that is Ron Paul. Is the need for that debate great enough to justify switching parties and voting for crazy Ron Paul in the Republican primary?

I've been giving that question a lot of thought.

UPDATE: In her comment, Jen raises another salient point: given the GOP's recent spate of electoral fraud, being a registered Republican is probably the best way to avoid having one's vote stolen. I don't have to worry about that at the present time, since Rhode Island's Secretary of State is a Democrat, but it's something to keep in mind for the future.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Online Petition: Impeach Cheney

From my reader Jen Clark comes word that Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) want to move forward with impeachment hearings on Vice President Richard "Dead-Eye Dick" Cheney.

Some background: The Conventional Wisdom in DC (which I'm pretty sure can be traced directly back to Karl Rove) is that actually trying to impeach Bush or Cheney for their various abuses of power would be Bad News For The Democrats, because the American People would be turned off by the idea of trying to hold these criminals responsible for their actions, and there would be a huge backlash against the Dems and a surge in popularity for the impeachee. Needless to say, the Democratic leadership in Congress has adopted this view, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Beltway) very ostentatiously took impeachment "off the table" after the 2006 elections. Nevertheless, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Campaign Trail) has introduced a series of Articles of Impeachment against Cheney over the last year back in April, and last month, his latest one passed the House of Representatives thanks to the efforts of some smart-ass Republicans who are basically daring the Dems to defy the Conventional Wisdom that rules their lives. It goes without saying that Pelosi was dead-set against holding any impeachment hearings against Cheney, so she sent the articles back to the House Judiciary Committee and told Chairman John Conyers to sit on them and not let them see the light of day again.

Nevertheless, three members of the Judiciary Committee do want to proceed with hearings against Cheney: Wexler, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). They wrote an op-ed in support of their position, which various Important Newspapers refused to run, so in the end Wexler had to make the announcement via a blog post on the Huffington Post. Wexler has put up a website with an online petition, and in his blog post he wrote, "If we can get 50,000 or even more people to sign up in support of this effort I will report back to each and every Democratic colleague of mine the true power that exists behind this movement."

As far as I know, Jen Clark is the only person in the world who reads this blog regularly, and she's the one who told me about it. Nevertheless, to anyone out there reading these words: go and sign Wexler's petition, tell everyone you know about it, and if your representative is on the Judiciary Committee (mine, alas, is not), contact them and ask them to support Wexler. Do we, the people, have the power to force our elected leaders to do their jobs? We'll find out.

UPDATE: Over at the Great Orange Satan, Dave Lindorff has a diary on the Cheney impeachment that has made it up into the Recommended area. This is encouraging news.

UPDATE 2: A slight correction to Kucinich's role. Plus, a front page post by Kagro X at Daily Kos, mostly focusing on the ominous media blackout, and another diary by Lindorff tracking the progress of Wexler's petition.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

The Return of Poppy

The race to be the Republican Party's presidential nominee is in a state of extreme flux. Once-upon-a-time presumptive front-runner John McCain has been suffering from anemic fundraising all year. Former White-Knight-to-the-rescue Freddy "Grandpa Fred" Thompson is literally asleep at the switch. Rudy Giuliani is being dragged down by the Sex on the City scandal. Mitt Romney is desperately trying to avoid being cast out by the GOP's fundies. Mike Huckabee's sudden burst of popularity has got the GOP establishment training its big guns on him. All of this is a reflection of the fact that the Republican rank-and-file isn't particularly happy with any of their candidates.

If this breaks just the right way, we could have every political reporter's fondest dream: a brokered convention. The shakers and movers of the GOP retire into the proverbial smoke-filled room. Assume that all of the leading declared candidates refuse to back down, and the Republicans have to choose a compromise candidate. Who would it be?

The most important clue is the oft-repeated observation, "I'll say this for Dubya -- he makes you realize what a good president his dad was." This, I think, is the sentiment that will rule the hour in Minneapolis. The Republicans will realize that, yeah, Poppy did do pretty well. And if you want an experienced man in the oval office, who better than someone who actually held the job for four years? And anyone who expresses concern about Poppy being in his 80s can be reminded of his skydiving hobby. You can't get more vigorous than that. And if the Republicans do decide to pick #41, who would he pick for his running mate? Who else but good ol' Dan Quayle? And the campaign slogan practically writes itself: PARTY LIKE IT'S 1988!

Yeah, I know, go ahead and laugh. But you'll all be bowing down and worshipping my brilliant prognostication skills when the Republicans emerge from Minneapolis with their Bush/Quayle '08 campaign paraphernalia.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Playing With the Banned

From Reuters comes this story about an attempt by the German government to ban Scientology.

German federal and state interior ministers declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional on Friday, opening the way for a possible ban on the organization.

They said Germany's domestic intelligence agencies should continue gathering information on the legality of Scientology's activities in Germany so that a decision could be made about a possible ban next year.

But the domestic intelligence agencies have been closely monitoring Scientology's operations for a decade and see little hope of amassing sufficient evidence to justify a ban.

Citing unnamed domestic intelligence agents familiar with the Scientology issue, Der Spiegel magazine reported that German authorities where having little success infiltrating the organization.

The magazine also said Scientology's membership in Germany had stagnated.

Germany does not recognize Scientology as a religion and regard it as a cult masquerading as a church to make money.


To be sure, the Germans are right about Scientology. It is a cult masquerading as a church to make money. It's a racket, plain and simple. The problem is, how much more of a racket than other religions does Scientology have to be before it becomes banworthy? There's a certain amount of racketry to all organized religions, just as there is in any human institution.

If the Germans ever do come up with a formula for determining the outer bounds of racketry-within-religion, I'll be very interested in seeing it. It might prove useful here in America.

Friday, December 7, 2007

The Frank Miller Test

Back in October, thene, author of the blog Aaru Tuesday, proposed what she called The Frank Miller Test, in order to determine how much male sci-fi writers were obsessed with whores; if the proportion of female sex workers to neutrally presented female people in his story is above 1:1, he fails.

I've decided to take up thene's challenge, but I'm going to cheat, because the male sci-fi writer I'll be testing is Isaac Asimov. This is cheating because it's clear from the context of her post that thene is talking about current male sci-fi writers. Nevertheless, Asimov it is, for two reasons. One, he's the sci-fi writer whose works I'm most deeply versed in; and, two, I think he'll serve as a sort of baseline writer.

The test itself is pretty easy, since, as I cast my mind over Asimov's body of work, I honestly can't think of any sex workers among his female characters, giving him a rating of .000 on the Miller Scale. I suspect that thene might consider this too much of a good thing.

The reason for Asimov's low score isn't hard to work out. He was a product of the pulp SF tradition of the 1930s, and he first gained fame in the pages of the Golden Age Astounding Science Fiction, quite possibly the most puritanical SF magazine of all time. A lot of his stories didn't have any female characters, and the few who did appear tended to be wives and girlfriends (though there were a couple of very notable exceptions). And unlike some of his fellow Campbell Authors who continued writing into the latter part of the century, Asimov didn't take advantage of the freedom from censorship to explore sexual themes. His writing remained just as puritanical as it had been in the 1940s.

It wasn't until his fifth story, "Ring Around the Sun", that Asimov even created a female character:

Jimmy Turner was humming merrily, if a bit raucously, when he entered the reception room.


"Is Old Sourpuss in?" he asked, accompanying the question with a wink at which the pretty secretary blushed gratefully.

"He is; and waiting for you." She motioned him towards the door on which was written in fat, black letters, "Frank McCutcheon, General Manager, United Space Mail."

And that's it, Isaac Asimov's first female character, a nameless secretary who is described simply as "pretty" and who is grateful to be winked at. His next couple of female characters are equally minor: an industrialist's wife in "The Magnificent Possession" and a wealthy starship passenger in "Black Friar of the Flame". However, in his fourteenth story, "Robbie", Asimov finally has a major female character: Grace Weston, a shrewish housewife. Grace takes a deep dislike to her eight-year-old daugher's robot nursemaid and nags her husband incessantly until he agrees to send the robot back to its factory.

It wasn't until his 28th story, "Liar!", that Asimov created a female character who wasn't some other character's wife, girlfriend, or secretary. This was Dr. Susan Calvin, a robopsychologist at the United States Robot corporation. Although she would later gain in stature, in this first story Dr. Calvin's role was an inglorious one: she was a plain, bespectacled, spinsterish woman in her late 30s with an unrequited crush on a handsome male co-worker several years her junior. In later stories such as "Escape" and "Little Lost Robot" she took on her defining characteristics: her icy demeanor, formidable intelligence, and disinclination to suffer fools gladly.

It was in 1945 that Asimov created his first fully rounded female character (or at any rate, as fully rounded as his characters ever got) in his short novel "The Mule": Bayta Darrell, a historian and member of the democratic underground on her despotically ruled homeworld. "The Mule" reaches its climax when Bayta kills a man in cold blood to keep him from revealing the most important secret in the galaxy. Yet, Bayta is also a housewife who as a matter of course cooks and cleans for her husband. Asimov had been married for three years when he wrote "The Mule", and he based Bayta on his own wife.

Asimov followed up with "And Now You Don't" in 1949, a story featuring Bayta's granddaughter, Arcadia Darrell, a 14-year-old schoolgirl and aspiring novelist with a romantic streak. "And Now You Don't" also featured a second prominent female character, Lady Callia, who is apparently the scatterbrained mistress of the Warlord of Kalgan, but is actually a secret agent from a group of highly advanced mental supermen.

In the Empire novels of the early 1950s, the few female characters served mainly as a love interst for the male heroes. In the two robot novels of the mid-1950s, all the female characters served mainly to move the murder mystery plot along (though admittedly, so did all the male characters except Baley and Daneel). By contrast, in 1955's The End of Eternity, the character of Noÿs Lambent is actually the puppetmaster pulling all the strings from behind the scenes -- as well as being the hero's love interest.

There followed a period of a decade and a half when Asimov concentrated on writing nonfiction. This ended spectacularly with his 1972 novel The Gods Themselves. The first section, in an echo of his Astounding days, had no female characters; the second section had no human characters at all; but the third section had an actual female viewpoint character, a Lunar tour guide named Selene Lindstrom. Selene is pretty much the opposite of the standard pulp fiction female character: independent, intelligent, outspoken, and thoroughly in control of events.

Ten years later Asimov published Foundation's Edge, his first work in that series in over thirty years. Conscious now about the lack of female characters in his earlier stories, he made an effort to even the sexual balance in Foundation's Edge, and the result was four major female characters: the Thatcheresque Mayor Harla Branno, the power-hungry Second Foundationer Delora Delarmi, the Trantorian farm girl Sura Novi, and the Gaian Blissenobiarella.

Women continued to play prominent parts in Asimov's fiction, most notably the artist and fashion designer Gladia Solaria in The Robots of Dawn and Robots and Empire, Blissenobiarella in Foundation and Earth, the telepathic teenager Marlene Insigna Fisher in Nemesis, and the historian Dors Venabili in Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation (though, being an android, Dors probably doesn't count).

So, how does Asimov do in the Frank Miller test? He was a pulp writer who, in his later years, consciously sought to overcome his pulp origins to create female characters who were the intellectual equals (for good and ill) of his male characters.

UPDATE: Thene responds in comments by pointing to the Bechdel Test as a better determinant of whether a piece of fiction can be considered feminist. The three basic requirement of the test are that a work of fiction:

1. Has to have at least two women in it,
2. Who talk to each other,
3. about something besides a man.

Failure to meet the Rule is a strong indication that female characters are under-characterized or under-developed in the work.

ISTM that the Bechdel Test would be more applicable to mainstream fiction than genre fiction, since mainstream fiction tends to be more focused on (and have conversations involving interpersonal relationships, while genre fiction is more likely to involve conversations involving a genre-specific situation. Provided there are a sufficient number of female characters, there's a pretty good chance that at some point, two of them are going to talk about How do we get past these zombies? or Does the butler's alibi hold up? or Is it safe to land on this planet?, thus technically passing the Bechdel Test despite the presence of under-characterized or under-developed female characters.