Charlie, I like all your comments. Every thread of thought has the right nuance. Bluntly, you hit all the nails on their heads. Thank you for your expertise! from Ronald Massey a republican in Texas who voted for Biden. I also love everything Liz Cheney says and does. I read the biography of her father, and I think Liz has his crystal clear thinking and ethical values.
Just a comment on some of the wording. Saying that Repubs other than Liz Cheney have "gone silent" is a softball. Repubs that are oh so careful with their wording when answering Trump questions and silent otherwise are not just showing less principle than Liz, they are screaming a complete lack of ethics, integrity, honesty and respect for our country, our constitution, states' rights and intelligent people of every political bent. Elected Reps doing this are not saving a place at the future table, that seat is already gone. The time to keep it was in the days after Jan 6 but your fellow conservatives that you likely voted into office chose to be pussies. These Repubs are even worse than the nutjobs because THEY KNOW BETTER.they know how wrong it would be to devolve into authoritarianism, declare Christianity the 'national religion' and sessentially Trumpify the US at all official levels of government. And you can stand back and critique Democrats all you want about not having the 'chops' to save Democracy. Dems don't know how to do organized manipulation & dishonesty and wouldn't do it even if they knew it had to be done, which they don't. Where are the calls from Conservatives like you for elected Repubs to secure election integrity? All Repubs saying election was stolen should be expected to be working the problem & restoring faith in the system. W
Are you writing McCarthy and McConnell and Cruz & the rest regularly to bring them back to a reasonable conservative stance, or are waiting to watch what happens?
Thank you, Charlie! Your sane, clear and principled thoughts are a stream of cool water in the pot, which otherwise keeps filling up with the boiling spew from the Trumpian faucet. The GOP frog of influence, as epitomized by Rich Lowery and the National Review, has been slowly rationalizing and simmering there and would soon be ready for a fork and sauce if it weren’t for your spigot.
Just listened to the Jane Coaston podcast. All I can say is Charlie Thank you. Thank you for your perseverance in naming what you do clearly, authentically, keeping track of soo many facts, and with integrity. Thank you.
With regards to Tapper’s observations, that all tracks in a vacuum. But the fact is that we’re seeing something like 50 or 60 new pieces of legislation, especially in red states to make it harder to vote on a TARGETED basis because these consultants and data people know exactly how to make it harder for Dem voters to vote.
Rich Lowry - you want to help the Republican party? Help bring it down. Because the only thing that *ever* helps a political party change its tune is not being able to win elections. Which means you absolutely *have* to push back against Trump, because he's got the Republican party thinking not only do they not need to obtain majorities, they don't even need to legitimately win elections. If they have their way, every Republican legislature will just need one viral internet conspiracy theory to jump from 8chan to Twitter to say, "Well clearly the people have concerns - we'd better decide this ourselves."
I am a cultural Catholic born into the flock, then eight years of Catholic grammar school. Took four years out to meet and become friends with indifferent Jews and Protestants.
Then off to Catholic college when in the day, regardless of major or religion, students took 15 credits of Theology and 15 credits of Philosophy. My teachers in those disciplines were Diocesan and Jesuit priests, lay Catholics, Anglican Canons, Benedictine Nuns, a Jewish Rabbi, and agonistic/ athiest philosophy profs. I learned to observe, ask questions, and see the way people "walked the talk" of their spiritual life.
I considered that a well rounded feed of American Religion/Spirituality.
Then I went out into the world and encountered "Evangelical Christians," who totally baffled me. They seemed to lean toward the Old Testament (Angry God), while proclaiming Jesus.
In California I learned more about Eastern religions, but also encountered the polar opposite --- angry, self-righteous Christians who hated (not quite the way Jesus went out in the world) anyone not hooked into their narrow vision of "Their Jesus."
A few weeks ago Peter Wehner, of the NYT, had an extended essay in The Atlantic, of how Protestant Evangelicalism has morphed into a "secular religion," since close to 1/3 of self-described Evangelicals Rarely or Never attended church services, and another 15% attend Seldom or Sometimes.
The Evangelical movement now hold Trump and his amoral cult as the paradigm of their so-called spiritual beliefs.
Trump has become their demi-god spouting his bile and hate in a most un-Jesus way, seeking only to be considered by his cult following their Messiah.
You and I are similar. :-) I'm actually an atheist now but I find I still feel a sort of cultural kinship with Catholics after 12 years of Catholic elementary/high school. And I too was flabbergasted when I met Evangelicals. So *these* were all those people I always wondered about whenever I'd flip by a televangelist program in the 80's and think "Where do they get these audience members from? Who would sit through this?". Made me appreciate just how sane most Catholics were at the time. In all the years I went to church I never once heard any kind of politics coming from the pulpit.
The ancient (1970s) a Vatican Two Church had an opportunity to philosophically become "Quakers With Vestments,"
~ ditching celibacy so priests could accept the reality of their adherents
~ add women to part of the hierarchy as in the time of St. Paul
~ go full bore into the secular world with health, education, and social services that were already a reality here in western (euro-based) Catholicism around the world.
I am not a genius, but an entity making one's life better in recognizable ways would be getting many 10-5ves.
The Vatican's Authoritarians proved once again how to deplete their monied adherents, just when the sect realized they were starting to become a Third World religion.
Yeah, for sure. I mean, getting rid of Latin masses and restricting "meatless Friday" prohibition to Lent was all well and good, and no doubt there were other positive modernizations I don't appreciate having been born in the early 70s. But there were missed opportunities for sure.
I think you mentioned being an athiest. I can't presume your beliefs, but many people confuse "Athiest" with "Agnostic."
The former is a religion unto itself since its adherents are "against theism" that is, against a god-like entity. Most people in that belief are against God, or religion. They are adamant that there is no God, when asked for proof there is no God...they usually example the depravations of humans and the quirks of the natural world.
Still not proof there is no God. They have to take a "leap of faith" that there is no God, usually pointing to the hypocrisy of most God believers.
Agnostics, on the other hand, don't believe in a God, or just don't know. I understand this POV. Not knowing is not being against.
I like Blasé Pascale's Wager: “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you believe and there is a God, you gain all; if you believe and there is no God, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
Wikipedia did a feature series on Atheism/Agnosticism about a decade ago that really got down to specifics with terminology and philosophy. Based on their model, I think I qualified as a "strong agnostic atheist". The base definition of atheist given was "lacking a belief in God". The weak/strong dichotomy separates those who don't also explicitly believe that there *isn't* a god (i.e. what we commonly call "agnostics" in informal speech) from those who do (what we typically call an "atheist"). Then within the "strong atheist" category is the agnostic/gnostic dichotomy. An agnostic atheist *believes* there is no God but doesn't claim to *know* there is no God, whereas a gnostic atheist does.
Now, the vast majority of people who identify as atheist will not claim to know with complete certainty (or even what normally passes for "complete certainty" in practice) that there is no God. This would include even aggressively vocal atheists like Richard Dawkins.
The gnostic atheist is a somewhat strange bird; I've met few people who would cop to "knowing", although I imagine in most cases it might be a question of how we philosophically define "knowledge" - i.e. whether that definition incorporates implicit disclaimers about the fundamental uncertainty of things (for instance some might feel that, as I mentioned above, their belief in the non-existence of God meets the "what passes for certainty in practice" threshold).
So one can draw some parallels to religious faith in this regard. After all, most theists seem far more comfortable with using the word "belief" rather than "knowledge" when describing their personal religion. However there are certainly some people who, in practice, treat their "belief" as if it were knowledge, whether or not they use the word.
This is where things get more interesting. Many people hear "belief" and equate it with "faith", though I'm not sure the two really are always the same. In the above model, I understand "belief" to simply mean "the acceptance of something as truth", without implying any particular reason or category of reason. And I think normally the term "faith" says a bit more about the justification of the belief.
In religion class the meaning of "faith" wasn't characterized by a reason for belief so much as the *rejection* of a reason for *disbelief*. That is, belief *in spite of* the fact that we can't "prove" it in the way we normally would think of proving a scientific theory. Setting aside how this glosses over the difference between "proving" something in science vs., say, mathematics, the idea is to separate "faith" from knowledge gained through empirical observation.
But I think in practice, "faith" typically does carry with it some "positive" justification for belief, though it's something different for different people. For some, "faith" is a practical decision to accept something given what they feel to be reasonable if not conclusive evidence to support it (which more or less corresponds to how we use the term in a generic sense, like "I have faith in you.") By way of analogy to atheism, this seems like what you might call "agnostic theism" - because they explicitly don't claim knowledge, only belief.
For others (e.g. young-earth creationists), it seems to constitute an explicit rejection of what would otherwise be prohibitive evidence. Thus the "faith" represents the perceived dominance of religious belief over empirical observation, rendering it the highest form of understanding and therefore effectively making it "knowledge" (because if not, then what else could be?). This kind of "faith" might be considered something akin to "gnostic theism".
So while there are some parallels, the parallels for the vast majority of atheists are not so much with the hardcore form of religion but with the softer kind - a conviction based on available evidence that one is potentially open to changing their mind on if new evidence arises. One might still draw some distinctions - some would say religious belief involves more of an emotional investment, a desire to believe. With atheism it varies; I certainly wasn't happy about losing my religion at first, though I grew more comfortable with time. Admittedly, changing back now could, depending on the nature of the belief, have a similar, existentially disturbing effect. But I've known other atheists who still bemoan not being able to believe and don't discuss the topic with theists because they fear hurting them by convincing them of God's non-existence. Also challenging the analogy is the question of "burden of proof" when it comes to assertions of existence; most atheists (myself included) feel that it's reasonable to assume the non-existence of anything whose existence cannot be firmly established, God or otherwise.
So while it's true that atheism is different in principle from agnosticism, in practice atheism is very, very different from hardcore religious faith, and while there are similarities with more "soft" religious faith there are actually significant differences. Combining those with a lack of ritual, ceremony, or organization, and atheism in practice is largely indistinguishable from agnosticism; so much so that many atheists often just call themselves "agnostics" because there seems to be less stigma attached to the latter term.
I should also point out that there is a certain type of atheist (which seems to be what you're accustomed to) whose atheism is largely a result of the disappointment with the emotional comforts they expect religion to provide. Hence they abandon faith for reasons like (as you mentioned) "the problem of evil" (which I have never found convincing) or perhaps a disillusionment with the lack of progressive values in organized religion. While I can understand and relate to this on a certain level, this still seems a bit too close to wishcasting to me. I am of a breed that disbelieves for purely ontological reasons, so I promise if we discussed it you wouldn't get any of that weak sauce from me. 😉
As for Pascal's Wager, what I've never liked about it is that it seems to presume too much about the nature of God to be definitive wisdom. It presumes, firstly, that God cares whether or not I believe in His/Her existence, and secondly, that He/She *doesn't* care that I get the specifics correct (so that I don't, say, adhere to the dogma of the "wrong" religion). This is one of the (many) things I found frustrating and obnoxious about Evangelicals when I first encountered them - their dislike of Catholics and the belief that their faith in Jesus isn't the "right kind" of faith (because they don't accept the Lutheran interpretation of salvation). Presumably (according to some) this meant the Catholics would be headed for the Bad Place along with heathens like me.
F-bombs at moments fraught with drama, especially in NYT debates, makes the moment less fraught, for me, and really places the bomber among the locker room "grab 'em" hooligans. Surely you can match the Buckleyite Lowry's feints, parries and jabs with something wittier than an F-bomb.
The key Lowry comment that explains all: “But I’m not sure in terms of getting the Republican Party in a better place, whether that course actually helps.”
He’s right, of course. His focus is solely on what course of action minimizes the damage to the party in terms of lost seats and high offices, and thus power and influence, in the near future. “Saving” the party over saving the country. Cheney might be doing what’s best for the country, but doing so exposes and thus hurts the party.
Rich Lowry is an unserious fool. Who can forget his fawning over of Sarah Palin, “I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.”
If you weren’t smart enough to see that train wreck, you are a fool of unknown proportions.
This is a bit of a long quotation, but I hope you like it. I have kept this in front of me ever since 2015. The scene is from JRR Tolkien’s novel Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf is recounting his conversation with Saruman. Tolkien once said that though there are no more Sauron’s there are a great many Sarumans in the world. Rich Lowry should read and consider.
Our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see. ‘“ And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper!” he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. “I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.
The National Review went from "The Case Against Trump" to bending over backwards to make excuses for those who enable this amoral monster. Sad to see a once great publication slide down the slippery slope. Thank you, Charlie for rebutting Lowrey's rationalizations so effectively and for fighting the good fight .
lol, Good to see the Trumplicans are developing their own circular firing squad. Except that instead of civil and social justice issues....its booster shots and science teachers.
Charlie, I like all your comments. Every thread of thought has the right nuance. Bluntly, you hit all the nails on their heads. Thank you for your expertise! from Ronald Massey a republican in Texas who voted for Biden. I also love everything Liz Cheney says and does. I read the biography of her father, and I think Liz has his crystal clear thinking and ethical values.
Just a comment on some of the wording. Saying that Repubs other than Liz Cheney have "gone silent" is a softball. Repubs that are oh so careful with their wording when answering Trump questions and silent otherwise are not just showing less principle than Liz, they are screaming a complete lack of ethics, integrity, honesty and respect for our country, our constitution, states' rights and intelligent people of every political bent. Elected Reps doing this are not saving a place at the future table, that seat is already gone. The time to keep it was in the days after Jan 6 but your fellow conservatives that you likely voted into office chose to be pussies. These Repubs are even worse than the nutjobs because THEY KNOW BETTER.they know how wrong it would be to devolve into authoritarianism, declare Christianity the 'national religion' and sessentially Trumpify the US at all official levels of government. And you can stand back and critique Democrats all you want about not having the 'chops' to save Democracy. Dems don't know how to do organized manipulation & dishonesty and wouldn't do it even if they knew it had to be done, which they don't. Where are the calls from Conservatives like you for elected Repubs to secure election integrity? All Repubs saying election was stolen should be expected to be working the problem & restoring faith in the system. W
Are you writing McCarthy and McConnell and Cruz & the rest regularly to bring them back to a reasonable conservative stance, or are waiting to watch what happens?
Thank you, Charlie! Your sane, clear and principled thoughts are a stream of cool water in the pot, which otherwise keeps filling up with the boiling spew from the Trumpian faucet. The GOP frog of influence, as epitomized by Rich Lowery and the National Review, has been slowly rationalizing and simmering there and would soon be ready for a fork and sauce if it weren’t for your spigot.
Bravo Charlie!
Just listened to the Jane Coaston podcast. All I can say is Charlie Thank you. Thank you for your perseverance in naming what you do clearly, authentically, keeping track of soo many facts, and with integrity. Thank you.
While I have never agreed with Rich Lowry, I thought that he was a thoughtful political voice. NOT!
Been tempted but Charlie C sometimes annoys the heck out of me - more of a Jonah guy
With regards to Tapper’s observations, that all tracks in a vacuum. But the fact is that we’re seeing something like 50 or 60 new pieces of legislation, especially in red states to make it harder to vote on a TARGETED basis because these consultants and data people know exactly how to make it harder for Dem voters to vote.
Rich Lowry - you want to help the Republican party? Help bring it down. Because the only thing that *ever* helps a political party change its tune is not being able to win elections. Which means you absolutely *have* to push back against Trump, because he's got the Republican party thinking not only do they not need to obtain majorities, they don't even need to legitimately win elections. If they have their way, every Republican legislature will just need one viral internet conspiracy theory to jump from 8chan to Twitter to say, "Well clearly the people have concerns - we'd better decide this ourselves."
I am a cultural Catholic born into the flock, then eight years of Catholic grammar school. Took four years out to meet and become friends with indifferent Jews and Protestants.
Then off to Catholic college when in the day, regardless of major or religion, students took 15 credits of Theology and 15 credits of Philosophy. My teachers in those disciplines were Diocesan and Jesuit priests, lay Catholics, Anglican Canons, Benedictine Nuns, a Jewish Rabbi, and agonistic/ athiest philosophy profs. I learned to observe, ask questions, and see the way people "walked the talk" of their spiritual life.
I considered that a well rounded feed of American Religion/Spirituality.
Then I went out into the world and encountered "Evangelical Christians," who totally baffled me. They seemed to lean toward the Old Testament (Angry God), while proclaiming Jesus.
In California I learned more about Eastern religions, but also encountered the polar opposite --- angry, self-righteous Christians who hated (not quite the way Jesus went out in the world) anyone not hooked into their narrow vision of "Their Jesus."
A few weeks ago Peter Wehner, of the NYT, had an extended essay in The Atlantic, of how Protestant Evangelicalism has morphed into a "secular religion," since close to 1/3 of self-described Evangelicals Rarely or Never attended church services, and another 15% attend Seldom or Sometimes.
The Evangelical movement now hold Trump and his amoral cult as the paradigm of their so-called spiritual beliefs.
Trump has become their demi-god spouting his bile and hate in a most un-Jesus way, seeking only to be considered by his cult following their Messiah.
You and I are similar. :-) I'm actually an atheist now but I find I still feel a sort of cultural kinship with Catholics after 12 years of Catholic elementary/high school. And I too was flabbergasted when I met Evangelicals. So *these* were all those people I always wondered about whenever I'd flip by a televangelist program in the 80's and think "Where do they get these audience members from? Who would sit through this?". Made me appreciate just how sane most Catholics were at the time. In all the years I went to church I never once heard any kind of politics coming from the pulpit.
Eric,
The ancient (1970s) a Vatican Two Church had an opportunity to philosophically become "Quakers With Vestments,"
~ ditching celibacy so priests could accept the reality of their adherents
~ add women to part of the hierarchy as in the time of St. Paul
~ go full bore into the secular world with health, education, and social services that were already a reality here in western (euro-based) Catholicism around the world.
I am not a genius, but an entity making one's life better in recognizable ways would be getting many 10-5ves.
The Vatican's Authoritarians proved once again how to deplete their monied adherents, just when the sect realized they were starting to become a Third World religion.
Spectacular Fail!!!
Yeah, for sure. I mean, getting rid of Latin masses and restricting "meatless Friday" prohibition to Lent was all well and good, and no doubt there were other positive modernizations I don't appreciate having been born in the early 70s. But there were missed opportunities for sure.
Eric,
I think you mentioned being an athiest. I can't presume your beliefs, but many people confuse "Athiest" with "Agnostic."
The former is a religion unto itself since its adherents are "against theism" that is, against a god-like entity. Most people in that belief are against God, or religion. They are adamant that there is no God, when asked for proof there is no God...they usually example the depravations of humans and the quirks of the natural world.
Still not proof there is no God. They have to take a "leap of faith" that there is no God, usually pointing to the hypocrisy of most God believers.
Agnostics, on the other hand, don't believe in a God, or just don't know. I understand this POV. Not knowing is not being against.
I like Blasé Pascale's Wager: “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you believe and there is a God, you gain all; if you believe and there is no God, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
His theorem is also popular in gaming parlors.
Wikipedia did a feature series on Atheism/Agnosticism about a decade ago that really got down to specifics with terminology and philosophy. Based on their model, I think I qualified as a "strong agnostic atheist". The base definition of atheist given was "lacking a belief in God". The weak/strong dichotomy separates those who don't also explicitly believe that there *isn't* a god (i.e. what we commonly call "agnostics" in informal speech) from those who do (what we typically call an "atheist"). Then within the "strong atheist" category is the agnostic/gnostic dichotomy. An agnostic atheist *believes* there is no God but doesn't claim to *know* there is no God, whereas a gnostic atheist does.
Now, the vast majority of people who identify as atheist will not claim to know with complete certainty (or even what normally passes for "complete certainty" in practice) that there is no God. This would include even aggressively vocal atheists like Richard Dawkins.
The gnostic atheist is a somewhat strange bird; I've met few people who would cop to "knowing", although I imagine in most cases it might be a question of how we philosophically define "knowledge" - i.e. whether that definition incorporates implicit disclaimers about the fundamental uncertainty of things (for instance some might feel that, as I mentioned above, their belief in the non-existence of God meets the "what passes for certainty in practice" threshold).
So one can draw some parallels to religious faith in this regard. After all, most theists seem far more comfortable with using the word "belief" rather than "knowledge" when describing their personal religion. However there are certainly some people who, in practice, treat their "belief" as if it were knowledge, whether or not they use the word.
This is where things get more interesting. Many people hear "belief" and equate it with "faith", though I'm not sure the two really are always the same. In the above model, I understand "belief" to simply mean "the acceptance of something as truth", without implying any particular reason or category of reason. And I think normally the term "faith" says a bit more about the justification of the belief.
In religion class the meaning of "faith" wasn't characterized by a reason for belief so much as the *rejection* of a reason for *disbelief*. That is, belief *in spite of* the fact that we can't "prove" it in the way we normally would think of proving a scientific theory. Setting aside how this glosses over the difference between "proving" something in science vs., say, mathematics, the idea is to separate "faith" from knowledge gained through empirical observation.
But I think in practice, "faith" typically does carry with it some "positive" justification for belief, though it's something different for different people. For some, "faith" is a practical decision to accept something given what they feel to be reasonable if not conclusive evidence to support it (which more or less corresponds to how we use the term in a generic sense, like "I have faith in you.") By way of analogy to atheism, this seems like what you might call "agnostic theism" - because they explicitly don't claim knowledge, only belief.
For others (e.g. young-earth creationists), it seems to constitute an explicit rejection of what would otherwise be prohibitive evidence. Thus the "faith" represents the perceived dominance of religious belief over empirical observation, rendering it the highest form of understanding and therefore effectively making it "knowledge" (because if not, then what else could be?). This kind of "faith" might be considered something akin to "gnostic theism".
So while there are some parallels, the parallels for the vast majority of atheists are not so much with the hardcore form of religion but with the softer kind - a conviction based on available evidence that one is potentially open to changing their mind on if new evidence arises. One might still draw some distinctions - some would say religious belief involves more of an emotional investment, a desire to believe. With atheism it varies; I certainly wasn't happy about losing my religion at first, though I grew more comfortable with time. Admittedly, changing back now could, depending on the nature of the belief, have a similar, existentially disturbing effect. But I've known other atheists who still bemoan not being able to believe and don't discuss the topic with theists because they fear hurting them by convincing them of God's non-existence. Also challenging the analogy is the question of "burden of proof" when it comes to assertions of existence; most atheists (myself included) feel that it's reasonable to assume the non-existence of anything whose existence cannot be firmly established, God or otherwise.
So while it's true that atheism is different in principle from agnosticism, in practice atheism is very, very different from hardcore religious faith, and while there are similarities with more "soft" religious faith there are actually significant differences. Combining those with a lack of ritual, ceremony, or organization, and atheism in practice is largely indistinguishable from agnosticism; so much so that many atheists often just call themselves "agnostics" because there seems to be less stigma attached to the latter term.
I should also point out that there is a certain type of atheist (which seems to be what you're accustomed to) whose atheism is largely a result of the disappointment with the emotional comforts they expect religion to provide. Hence they abandon faith for reasons like (as you mentioned) "the problem of evil" (which I have never found convincing) or perhaps a disillusionment with the lack of progressive values in organized religion. While I can understand and relate to this on a certain level, this still seems a bit too close to wishcasting to me. I am of a breed that disbelieves for purely ontological reasons, so I promise if we discussed it you wouldn't get any of that weak sauce from me. 😉
As for Pascal's Wager, what I've never liked about it is that it seems to presume too much about the nature of God to be definitive wisdom. It presumes, firstly, that God cares whether or not I believe in His/Her existence, and secondly, that He/She *doesn't* care that I get the specifics correct (so that I don't, say, adhere to the dogma of the "wrong" religion). This is one of the (many) things I found frustrating and obnoxious about Evangelicals when I first encountered them - their dislike of Catholics and the belief that their faith in Jesus isn't the "right kind" of faith (because they don't accept the Lutheran interpretation of salvation). Presumably (according to some) this meant the Catholics would be headed for the Bad Place along with heathens like me.
F-bombs at moments fraught with drama, especially in NYT debates, makes the moment less fraught, for me, and really places the bomber among the locker room "grab 'em" hooligans. Surely you can match the Buckleyite Lowry's feints, parries and jabs with something wittier than an F-bomb.
The key Lowry comment that explains all: “But I’m not sure in terms of getting the Republican Party in a better place, whether that course actually helps.”
He’s right, of course. His focus is solely on what course of action minimizes the damage to the party in terms of lost seats and high offices, and thus power and influence, in the near future. “Saving” the party over saving the country. Cheney might be doing what’s best for the country, but doing so exposes and thus hurts the party.
Partisan stooge.
Rich Lowry is an unserious fool. Who can forget his fawning over of Sarah Palin, “I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.”
If you weren’t smart enough to see that train wreck, you are a fool of unknown proportions.
This is a bit of a long quotation, but I hope you like it. I have kept this in front of me ever since 2015. The scene is from JRR Tolkien’s novel Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf is recounting his conversation with Saruman. Tolkien once said that though there are no more Sauron’s there are a great many Sarumans in the world. Rich Lowry should read and consider.
Our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see. ‘“ And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper!” he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. “I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.
The National Review went from "The Case Against Trump" to bending over backwards to make excuses for those who enable this amoral monster. Sad to see a once great publication slide down the slippery slope. Thank you, Charlie for rebutting Lowrey's rationalizations so effectively and for fighting the good fight .
lol, Good to see the Trumplicans are developing their own circular firing squad. Except that instead of civil and social justice issues....its booster shots and science teachers.