progressive involvement

No longer 1955; ain't it awful

The retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion — a decadence that first arose in the West but now haunts rich societies around the globe. It’s a spirit that privileges the present over the future, chooses stagnation over innovation, prefers what already exists over what might be. It embraces the comforts and pleasures of modernity, while shrugging off the basic sacrifices that built our civilization in the first place.

So said Ross Douthat as he bemoans the fact that our lazy, self-centered citizens are having fewer children.

I wonder what "late-modern exhaustion" is, and I wonder how Douthat measures it.  In the first place, how does he know we're in a "late-modern" period.  Don't you have to know how everything turns out before you start saying what is "early" and what is "late"?  

Secondly, it's a sign of "exhaustion" that we're not having more babies?  Please.  Maybe it's just the opposite.  Maybe peoples' energy and dynamism, previously sapped by having children, is now being directed into other areas.  The United States is not "exhausted."  Quite the contrary, we are one of the most vibrant and vital countries in the world.

This entity called "late-modern exhaustion" arose in the west?  It did, did it.  When and where, and what are the marks by which we might know it?  

Would we know it by its two 12 trillion dollar economies--Europe and the US?  Would we know this awful decadence by its tired and defunct art and culture which somehow, still, manages to enliven people around the world, and is more sought and embraced than ever?

People are not stupid.  People had lots of children in past eras for a variety of reasons, the most compelling of which was economic advantage.  Two hundred years ago, when most of our citizens lived on farms, people needed the help.  More children meant more farm hands.

With affluence, people tend to have fewer children.  This is not because they are doing something so esoteric as favoring "stagnation" over "embracing the future", or some such rot, but rather because, first of all, there is no longer an economic advantage to having children.

Children cost a lot of money and a lot of time.  People have other options today, and they are taking them.  It doesn't mean they're exhausted, or stagnating, or shriveling up.  It means they are free to pursue their own lives in the way they want.  

Not to worry, Ross.  People are still having children.  The birth rates have gone down, but not out.  The United States birth rate is slightly more than the replacement rate, and even poor old exhausted Europe has seen an uptick in recent years.

They have children, these days, for no really good reason.  There's no money in it any more, but people keep having them anyway.  Maybe it's because, operating from a position of freedom and responsibility and love, they actually want them. 

The Deuteronomist and Michele Bachmann

Someone we know as "the Deuteronomist" wrote a fair-sized chunk of the Bible, including the books of  Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and more.  

The Deuteronomist, like all Biblical authors, had a certain point of view.  Politically, for example, the Deuteronomist was a monarchist.  The book of Judges shows you what happens when you don't have a king, and the books of Samuel and Kings tell of King David who shows you what a real king looks like.

In terms of every day ethics, the Deuteronomist took the position that people who did right get rewarded, and people who do wrong get punished.  Sin is directly punished, virtue directly rewarded.

When times were bad, the Deuteronomist took the position that it was the peoples' own fault.  It was their sin which had brought difficulty upon the land.  If they would "turn"--shuv, a big word for the Deuteronomist--from their evil ways and "turn" back to God, God would make it all right, maybe.

The problem, of course, is that the real world does not work that way and anyone can plainly see that it does not.  Virtue is not necessarily rewarded, and sin is not necessarily punished, neither in one's personal life nor in our national life.

The book of Job is a direct contradiction of the Deuteronomist.  Job is punished for no reason at all.  His friends--good Deuteronomists!--try to convince him that he surely must have done something.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be being punished.  Their arguments seem small and off-point.

Some scholars believe that the great prophet Jeremiah might have been the Deuteronomist.  I don't think so myself.  Jeremiah was too aware of human frailty to come up with something as wooden as Deuteronomistic theology, and his vision was much more expansive.

What prompted this impromptu reflection on the Deuteronomist is this statement yesterday by presidential candidate Michele Bachmann: 

“We too are at a crucial time today. And I think it is for us to remember, that if we do as Chronicles tells us, if we humble ourselves, and pray and confess our sins, and turn away from our wicked ways, and ask an almighty God to come and protect us and fight the battle for us, we know from his word, his promise is sure. He will come. He will heal our land. And we will have a new day.”

One shouldn't be surprised that she would quote Chronicles.  Though Chronicles was written down later than the Deuteronomist, Chronicles is about the exploits of King David in 2 Samuel and Kings.  Much of Chronicles is word-for-word from those two books.  Its primary source is the Deuteronomist.  

Chronicles tends to put an even more positive spin on the monarchy than does the Deuteronomist.  The Chronicler takes out the less virtuous parts of King David's career, for example, and also Solomon's as well.  (The reason is probably because Chronicles was written later, at a time when the Jews were starting over after return from the exile, and were being encouraged to look favorably on their ancient traditions.)

Bachmann's reference is a paraphrase of 2 Chronicles 14.  The immediate context is that the Lord God finds King Solomon to be absolutely wonderful, so much so that the Lord God communicates personally with King Solomon in a dream and tells him to tell the people to shape up.

Contrary to the Chronicler, King Solomon wasn't all that great a king, nor even particularly wise.  He raised taxes and increased slavery.  When he died, ten of the twelve tribes seceded from the union, and formed their own country.  You don't do something like that if you're happy with the monarchy.

In any case, it shouldn't be surprising that Michele Bachmann would refer to a selection from the Bible that is politically propagandistic, devotedly monarchist, at odds with observed reality, and theologically shallow.  

That said, she expressed it well.  Her comment, while borrowing heavily from Chronicles, is still a very succinct expression of Deuteronomist theology and politics. 

 

Pious drivel

Regarding an ignorant religion--the religion of "deficit reduction," as articulated by Sen. Saxby Chambliss:  the deficit is “the most significant national security interest that the United States is facing today.”

Which is saying something considering numerous wars, earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns and other signs of the apocalypse currently upon us.

Heavens sakes, people, if we do nothing at all, 75% of the so-called "deficit problem" is solved within five years.

Harry Reid calls "Pious Drivel!" on Kyl and DeMint

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was moaning on Monday about what a hard taskmaster is Majority Leader Harry Reid for making Senators actually do some work the last week of December.  Why, Reid was even "disrespecting" Christmas.

Meanwhile, Jim DeMint (R-CSA) said that it would be "sacreligious" to vote on the new START treaty too close to Christmas.  Yes, how dare they do something for peace at Christmas!

Today, Reid called "Pious Drivel!" on Kyl and DeMint:  "I don't need to hear the sanctimonious lectures of Sen. Kyl and [Sen. Jim] DeMint to remind me of what Christmas means."

Pious drivel!

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) thinks Majority Leader Harry Reid is a real meanie for making people work during parts of the Christmas holiday:

Mr. Kyl added, " It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out without doing -- frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff."

Kyl thinks working the week after Christmas disses Christians?  I'll be working that week, as will millions of Americans, including men and women in uniform who will be working on Christmas Day itself.  Are they disrespecting Christianity?

The other thing is that if Kyl hadn't been dragging his feet on the new START treaty, maybe the Senate wouldn't be so busy.

New category!

Pious Drivel!  The pompous, smarmy, lamely-conventional, sanctimonious, fatuous--that which prompts my Uncle Robert to say, "Save it for Sunday, preacher." 

As usual, we, the impious, have the Bible on our side.  Amos 5: 21-24 comes to mind, as well as the entire book of Job.  Jesus painted a very colorful picture of the "hypocrites" prancing around in their finery in the marketplaces and putting on a pious show (Mt 6:1-6).  One could go on. 

So, in that spirit, a new and proud category:  Pious Drivel!  It only has one post in it so far, but the title prompted the idea--pious drivel must be exposed!  Seriously! sort of. 

 

 

Pious drivel

The White House said this morning:  "Just as families and businesses around the nation have tightened their belts so must their government."  This kind of thing sounds pious, humble, and good, but it is complete nonsense.  We should all share the pain, or something, and this is supposed to help, somehow. 

Why, after all, "must" the government balance its budget?  Can anyone tell us what a balanced budget would accomplish in the way of economic recovery? 

No, they can't because it doesn't help at all.  A balanced budget in a time of recession only feeds that recession by laying people off and withdrawing money from circulation.  It makes matters worse, not better.

Balancing the budget during a recession, throwing more people out of work, cutting wages for those who still do, amounts to economic malpractice.  The deficit hawks talked FDR into cutting the budget in 1937, which resulted in the only year of FDR's presidency in which unemployment went up.

These feel-good pious bromides are a thin and pale substitute for actually doing something about jobs and the economy.  If the White House is slinging this pathetic pablum to the public, it's a sign that (1) perhaps they really believe it, contrary to what we've learned over the past 80 years, or (2) they don't know what they're doing.