Baruch Spinoza and Hillary Clinton
Nicholas D. Kristof writes in his Times column of 16th March, that if the Democratic Party “wants to figure out how to win national elections again, it has already in its midst an unexpected guide: Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Kristof argues that Ms. Clinton seems to know how to talk to an American Public which has voted a Republican ascendancy for the past dozen years, at least. It is Hillary, Kristof avers, who seems to know how to compete in the Heartland. For starters, Kristof says, the Democrats, following the example of Ms. Clinton’s rhetoric, might learn “to speak more openly about God and prayer,” because “a Pew poll found that 60 percent of Americans pray at least once a day.” Kristof does not say for what those Americans prayed.
Secondly, Kristof says that Hillary Clinton recognizes, and gives voice to, the moral doubts surrounding issues of abortion, doubts which “acknowledge that [American] people are deeply uncomfortable with abortions, but they also don’t want women or doctors going to prison, and they don’t want teenage girls dying because of coat-hanger abortions.” Democrats, Kristof implies, deny the moral complexities of abortion for the Manichean perspectives represented by issues of pro-life vs. pro-choice. As if the Republican rhetoric gives voice to any moral doubt! Indeed, to listen to the pundits, it was the absolutism of moral values in the hearts of the red-staters that led to the Bush victory. In fact, to my mind, it was the perceived threat of moral ambiguity or difference to which the Bush campaign pandered as it crossed the Heartland. It was the black and white world of absolute right and wrong which made the Bush lies concerning Iraq acceptable, and that continue to maintain this war, especially horrible, because it is, as were so many such conflicts in the 17th century, a private monarch’s grab for land, wealth and personal retribution.
Finally, Kristof praises Clinton for her collegiality, which he defines as her willingness to wonder at a meeting if anybody wants coffee. I cannot speak much to this praise, but it seems fairly damning: don’t the men know enough to get their own coffee?
Of course, Kristof does not believe that Hillary has the slightest chance of being nominated, much less, elected President, in 2008, because “ambitious, high-achieving women are still a turnoff in many areas, particularly if they’re liberal and feminist.” But at least, argues Kristof, Clinton’s discourses could be a model for the Democrats who need very much to reconnect to the heartland of America. By Heartland, of course, Kristof refers to what has come to be known as ‘the red states.”
My lords, I beg to differ. I have been reading Steven Nadler’s biography of Baruch Spinoza (1999: Cambridge University Press). Spinoza was a philosopher excommunicated by the Jewish community of Amsterdam for heretical views; he was a philosopher vilified in his own nation-state, and often at risk, locally and internationally, for the advocacy in his religious and political writings of a radical freedom for the individual and for the nation. And Baruch Spinoza was, as well, a man who would brook no compromise in his advocacy for these radical freedoms, even when that compromise would have made his life more financially comfortable and physically safe. Living in very dangerous times, Spinoza nevertheless refused to accommodate his views to ingratiate himself to the larger public; indeed, he preferred not to do so, and remained largely isolated and marginalized, and, sigh, veritably powerless.
But this is not the powerlessness of a Democratic Party which cravenly speaks what it believes a public it only imagines to exist wants to hear; rather, Spinoza’s lack of power derives from his willingness to seek truth in a world comfortable with lies. Spinoza’s powerlessness results from the radical freedoms he offers, and the radical fears of those threatened by those freedoms. But, despite Spinoza’s failure to influence public policy to any extent, he never doubted the truth of his ideas. Baruch Spinoza remains my candidate for moral bellwether. If it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness, then Spinoza is our candle in the Republican darkness. And though powerless, at present, in the public sphere, we are not without power as long as we remain true to our principles. In principled opposition, we can address the horrors of the Republican agenda without soiling ourselves, or being sent out for coffee. I offer Baruch Spinoza, in principle and philosophy, as a model for the Democrats to follow.
Who are these people to whom Nicholas Kristof argues the Democrats should be speaking following the example of Hillary Clinton? To those in the Heartland, he declares! But to whom exactly does this description apply? I do not mean to whom the label names individually, but well, to whom the appellation is addressed generically? And I want to argue here that the term Kristof uses—the Heartland—refers to those people who elected George Bush and Dick Cheney, two of the meanest persons I have come across in mainstream politics in my life time. These men argue for a crueler, more selfish America, one pointedly concerned with the continued pleasures of those who have at the expense of those who have not. This is a President who claimed during the debates that to offer health care for all equal to that which the government offers its own workers, including the President and the Congress, would be too expensive. This is a government which would abandon the one enduring social program which sustains those most in need of it. This is a government which appoints as its Representative to the United Nations one of the most vicious critics of that organization. This is a government which seems to hold that governing ought to be a relatively simple business because world situations are so absolutely transparent. This is a President who declares that “Freedom is on the March,” without having a clue as to how to articulate what that phrase might mean!! This is a President who stood up in the first debate and leaned on his podium, looked the American Public straight in the face, and whined, “This is a hard job.” IS HE KIDDING? What did he think the Presidency was about?? That statement alone should have been the end of the Bush candidacy, but the Heartland said, ‘nay.’ It is to this Heartland that Kristof argues the Democrats must speak. I say nay. It is not to them as they are that we must speak; it is to the Heartland as they must become we must address our words. I think what Democrats must do is speak honestly about the complexities of our world; I think Democrats must help Americans learn to discern truth from lies; I think Democrats must refrain from complicity in the lies of others, and make absolutely certain that clear distinctions can be drawn between the advocacies of both parties. I think the Democratic Party must finally declare its uncompromised allegiance to equal rights, to secure jobs, and to adequate incomes, pension rights and health care for all, and especially for those who can least afford it, and therefore, least afford to do without it. I think high quality education should be a priority, but it cannot be measured by generic curriculums and impersonal test scores. I think Democrats must publicly insist on high corporate values, and publicly demand severe penalties for those who betray the public trust. At this moment in America, the wages of sin are wonderfully high. These wages demand severe cutting.
In the attempt to keep things simple, stupid, the Republican monarchy avoids the complexities of life. And Kristof and Clinton notwithstanding, prayer is not the answer to the material miseries of this world. It is another obfuscation aimed to keep the red states bleeding.
It might be that Hillary Rodham Clinton has something to offer the Democratic Party; it might be that Hillary Rodham Clinton has something to offer the American Public. But it is not by adopting her language so that we sound more like them that must be our panacea; rather, I would like Ms. Hillary Clinton to learn to speak more like us.
Secondly, Kristof says that Hillary Clinton recognizes, and gives voice to, the moral doubts surrounding issues of abortion, doubts which “acknowledge that [American] people are deeply uncomfortable with abortions, but they also don’t want women or doctors going to prison, and they don’t want teenage girls dying because of coat-hanger abortions.” Democrats, Kristof implies, deny the moral complexities of abortion for the Manichean perspectives represented by issues of pro-life vs. pro-choice. As if the Republican rhetoric gives voice to any moral doubt! Indeed, to listen to the pundits, it was the absolutism of moral values in the hearts of the red-staters that led to the Bush victory. In fact, to my mind, it was the perceived threat of moral ambiguity or difference to which the Bush campaign pandered as it crossed the Heartland. It was the black and white world of absolute right and wrong which made the Bush lies concerning Iraq acceptable, and that continue to maintain this war, especially horrible, because it is, as were so many such conflicts in the 17th century, a private monarch’s grab for land, wealth and personal retribution.
Finally, Kristof praises Clinton for her collegiality, which he defines as her willingness to wonder at a meeting if anybody wants coffee. I cannot speak much to this praise, but it seems fairly damning: don’t the men know enough to get their own coffee?
Of course, Kristof does not believe that Hillary has the slightest chance of being nominated, much less, elected President, in 2008, because “ambitious, high-achieving women are still a turnoff in many areas, particularly if they’re liberal and feminist.” But at least, argues Kristof, Clinton’s discourses could be a model for the Democrats who need very much to reconnect to the heartland of America. By Heartland, of course, Kristof refers to what has come to be known as ‘the red states.”
My lords, I beg to differ. I have been reading Steven Nadler’s biography of Baruch Spinoza (1999: Cambridge University Press). Spinoza was a philosopher excommunicated by the Jewish community of Amsterdam for heretical views; he was a philosopher vilified in his own nation-state, and often at risk, locally and internationally, for the advocacy in his religious and political writings of a radical freedom for the individual and for the nation. And Baruch Spinoza was, as well, a man who would brook no compromise in his advocacy for these radical freedoms, even when that compromise would have made his life more financially comfortable and physically safe. Living in very dangerous times, Spinoza nevertheless refused to accommodate his views to ingratiate himself to the larger public; indeed, he preferred not to do so, and remained largely isolated and marginalized, and, sigh, veritably powerless.
But this is not the powerlessness of a Democratic Party which cravenly speaks what it believes a public it only imagines to exist wants to hear; rather, Spinoza’s lack of power derives from his willingness to seek truth in a world comfortable with lies. Spinoza’s powerlessness results from the radical freedoms he offers, and the radical fears of those threatened by those freedoms. But, despite Spinoza’s failure to influence public policy to any extent, he never doubted the truth of his ideas. Baruch Spinoza remains my candidate for moral bellwether. If it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness, then Spinoza is our candle in the Republican darkness. And though powerless, at present, in the public sphere, we are not without power as long as we remain true to our principles. In principled opposition, we can address the horrors of the Republican agenda without soiling ourselves, or being sent out for coffee. I offer Baruch Spinoza, in principle and philosophy, as a model for the Democrats to follow.
Who are these people to whom Nicholas Kristof argues the Democrats should be speaking following the example of Hillary Clinton? To those in the Heartland, he declares! But to whom exactly does this description apply? I do not mean to whom the label names individually, but well, to whom the appellation is addressed generically? And I want to argue here that the term Kristof uses—the Heartland—refers to those people who elected George Bush and Dick Cheney, two of the meanest persons I have come across in mainstream politics in my life time. These men argue for a crueler, more selfish America, one pointedly concerned with the continued pleasures of those who have at the expense of those who have not. This is a President who claimed during the debates that to offer health care for all equal to that which the government offers its own workers, including the President and the Congress, would be too expensive. This is a government which would abandon the one enduring social program which sustains those most in need of it. This is a government which appoints as its Representative to the United Nations one of the most vicious critics of that organization. This is a government which seems to hold that governing ought to be a relatively simple business because world situations are so absolutely transparent. This is a President who declares that “Freedom is on the March,” without having a clue as to how to articulate what that phrase might mean!! This is a President who stood up in the first debate and leaned on his podium, looked the American Public straight in the face, and whined, “This is a hard job.” IS HE KIDDING? What did he think the Presidency was about?? That statement alone should have been the end of the Bush candidacy, but the Heartland said, ‘nay.’ It is to this Heartland that Kristof argues the Democrats must speak. I say nay. It is not to them as they are that we must speak; it is to the Heartland as they must become we must address our words. I think what Democrats must do is speak honestly about the complexities of our world; I think Democrats must help Americans learn to discern truth from lies; I think Democrats must refrain from complicity in the lies of others, and make absolutely certain that clear distinctions can be drawn between the advocacies of both parties. I think the Democratic Party must finally declare its uncompromised allegiance to equal rights, to secure jobs, and to adequate incomes, pension rights and health care for all, and especially for those who can least afford it, and therefore, least afford to do without it. I think high quality education should be a priority, but it cannot be measured by generic curriculums and impersonal test scores. I think Democrats must publicly insist on high corporate values, and publicly demand severe penalties for those who betray the public trust. At this moment in America, the wages of sin are wonderfully high. These wages demand severe cutting.
In the attempt to keep things simple, stupid, the Republican monarchy avoids the complexities of life. And Kristof and Clinton notwithstanding, prayer is not the answer to the material miseries of this world. It is another obfuscation aimed to keep the red states bleeding.
It might be that Hillary Rodham Clinton has something to offer the Democratic Party; it might be that Hillary Rodham Clinton has something to offer the American Public. But it is not by adopting her language so that we sound more like them that must be our panacea; rather, I would like Ms. Hillary Clinton to learn to speak more like us.
posted by Alan A. Block at 3:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home