Speaking of Dialogues…
The following is an unedited transcript of an IM conversation I had with fellow contributor Sam Rocha. As you will see, I had no idea when it started that it would become a Vox Nova post, but I thought it might function as both a sort of “mea culpa” and also as food for further discussion.
Matt
Sam – you there?
11:45amSam
yes
11:49amMatt
I’ve posted a couple of things related to the Democratic Party on VN, and I get the sense that you think I’m barking up the wrong tree on that – where am I going wrong, in your view? (I ask sincerely, because I respect your intellect and education…)
11:51amSam
basically, I think that the Democratic Party–and all the political parties in US history (including their presidents!)–fall incredibly short of what we ought to aspire to politcally.
Most would agreee but contend that we have to like something or someone
And here is my objection:
Insofar as we are dominated by the domain of the merely present and real, we lack the ability to aspire for the future and possible.
To me, mainstream politics creates the very conditions under which conversion and deep, cultural change are unimaginable and dangerous
it disciplines us into not imagining what the world we would want would look like in the prsent world
Which is why poets, artist, and theologians are the greatest enemy of status quo politicians, because they create the conditons of a new world, again and agin
11:55amMatt
e.g., MLK jr?
11:56amSam
yes. and Obama noted correctly this fact in the early primary debates: MLK Jr would have not endorsed himself or Clinton because he didn’t see politics under the limitations of partisan imagination
11:56amMatt
I think I agree with what you’re saying…
But my concern is this:
11:58amMatt
For every MLK, you need an LBJ to actually enact, governmentally at least, the demands of justice?
11:59amSam
Yes, here is the problem, as I see it:
12:00pmSam
It then becomes a situation where governmental enactments validate what is possible and real, for MLK freedom was always the case, his struggle was to press the point that unjust law is no law at all.
And in that instance he has a higher appeal to create deep, cultural change than LBJ’s Civil Rights Act
And he did so within politics as well as against it
12:02pmMatt
against it, e.g. his speech where he turned against the War in Vietnam?
12:03pmSam
and even his “I have a Dream Speech” locates the stuggle for freedom within the “bad check” that had been dealt tot he Negro by the govenment
12:04pmMatt
I’m beginning to see the issue, pehaps – aim to be more prophetic than “political”, per se?
12:05pmSam
exactly. and with that we would have to give up the fetish of changing the world via legislation and begin to change it through love
12:06pmMatt
Is there really such a dichotomy, though – didn’t MLK talk about power needing to be “love implementing the demands of justice?”
12:07pmSam
which would not preculde leaving the political realm altogether
Yes.
The dicotomy is false in the world, but the dialectic against pure politics is necessary, I think
12:09pmMatt
Not sure what you mean by “dialectic against pure politics” – I’m not a Philosophy major ;)
12:09pmSam
something like a necessary reversal
the idea that governace and legislation are the limit of “real” change
much like anti-abortion advocates see no “real” activism in feeding the poor
12:11pmSam
or giving everyone free healthcare through progressive taxation
I guess another way to put my critique is this way: Intentions.
12:12pmMatt
As in, what are mine?
12:12pmSam
No party has intention that go beyond their maniacal desire for money and power from donors and the parties let themselves be created acdording to those very same interests
no, the “party’s intentions” I do not question your own…
12:13pmMatt
Ah
12:13pmSam
from time to time we may find a person within the party who makes a claim to something bigger than the almighty dollar, but that is literally becoming impossible in election politics
its ALL about fundraising
12:14pmMatt
by the way, I knew I wouldn’t regret tapping your brain – I really appreciate your thoughts!
And yes, it is looking more and more like you describe
He who has the gold makes the rules
12:15pmSam
right. my views come from deeply desiring something completely different–I don’t event trust America, democracy, or liberalism
I am a postmodern theocrat
a conservative leftist
12:17pmMatt
hmm
12:17pmSam
historically and philosophically we have given secular modenity a free pass in status quo politics
it presupposes that this is the world we want
well, I don’t I want a different world–a world not of this world
12:19pmSam
there should be a period at the end of “I don’t.”
12:20pmMatt
I read you – But hasn’t been that a classic excuse for quietism (I know that’s not what you’re doing there)?
I mean…
12:20pmSam
yes, you are quite right
and I am not “quiet”
12:21pmMatt
I read a lot of commentary that “well, war is unfortunate, but what is one to do in a fallen world?”
And that really bothers me
12:22pmSam
and you are very good to be skeptical of this if loses hope, and waits for Christ to come.
12:22pmMatt
Talk about being restricted to the world as it is!
12:22pmSam
But I think that if we take the view that Christ is here and not here we can fight for a better world and refuse to accept it
I think contradiction would be a great way to conduct poltics, its mirrors real life and love more closely
12:24pmMatt
There is a lot of wisdom in that, I think.
When you say “contradiction” – what would that look like in, say, a VN post?
12:25pmSam
Derrida calls this the au venir–to-come
something never “here” but that must be dealt with in temporality–the here and now
12:27pmSam
like Christ himself–always and infinately present but never finished or fully grasped
12:27pmMatt
“Agape demands x: in the context of our current political predicament, that might mean _______.” — like that?
12:28pmSam
Oh, I see. Some thing the following:
12:30pmSam
In the context of our current political predicament we must reject the very idea that this predicament is something that we need to deal with on its own term and redefine it in terms that takes the human person seriously.
12:32pmMatt
Ah! Got it. Awesome feedback – is there a way to save these chats on FB?
12:33pmSam
cut and paste to a word doc, I think
maybe you could post it as a dialogue?
12:34pmMatt
on VN, you mean?
12:34pmSam
sure
it could show them that we actually talk to each other
in ways that are not simply echo chamberish…
12:36pmMatt
What a great idea…I think I will. Thanks again for the feedback.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
much like anti-abortion advocates see no “real” activism in feeding the poor
Forgive me if this is kind of “off topic” for this post, but I’m wondering what kind of pro-life advocates you have encountered. This depiction simply doesn’t ring true to my experience. I have to confess that I don’t normally do the whole stand in front of Planned Parenthood thing, but the folks that I know who do also spend a lot of time volunteering at the St. Vincent DePaul shelter and Missionaries of Charity soup kitchens. One woman in particular, a professed religious sister, runs an tutoring service for mostly immigrant families, prays in front of the local Planned Parenthood once a week, and also actively collects food to give to the homeless. And there’s the eighty-something-year-old priest I see fairly often who says Mass in the park for the homeless as well as picketing abortion providers. Or a couple of women I know who run a pro-life march in the city, and also spend time volunteering to care for AIDS patients.
Maybe I’m more accustomed to the pro-life activism here in my urban area, but the stereotype mentioned above just doesn’t compute to me.
John H: I’ll take that one right on the chin.(Along with my many typos and such.) That should read more like “certain” anti-abortion advocates—but it doesn’t, and for that I am sorry for employing the stereotype. This rough transcript shows, however, what we say in “private” and I know that I can grow in being as accountable to what I say in personal conversation to what I write in public. Thank you for your critique.
Shall we call that a Samrochratic dialogue? Call it what you will, I enjoyed reading it, and thanks, Matt, for both the fictional and actual dialogues.
If the big theme here is redefinition, then first looking back we maybe need to see how Reaganism redefined everything rightwards, to the point where many see Obama as a potential or actual socialist tyrant.
Looking ahead, it seems to me the redefining needs to start at the point I have mentioned a couple of times recently on the blog. It needs to be shown how American rugged individualism is anti-gospel in a very precise way–anti-neighbor-love; anti-golden-rule.
While recent Popes and the US bishops have been doing their part to forward this redefinition, those at the forefront of it today in the US may be the coming crowd of “liberal” evangelicals such as the “Red Letter Christians.” Theirs is a bandwagon we Catholics should jump on–and not so much that of the “family values” types.
As a precursor to this push on our part to redefine the major political terms, how about redefining our own terms within the Church? “They will know we are Christians by our love”–our love first for our fellow believers as a foundation to build on(see the Acts of the Apostles). Our arguments and our example would be so much more convincing and effectual in the wider society if the Church cared for its people in demonstrably effective ways, in both spiritual and material terms;if the Church showed, in other words, what human solidarity and community really mean.
Sam, you have an overly cynical view of politics, and, I think, an underdeveloped appreciation of the virtues of republican (small r) government vis a vis the alternatives.
The relative peace and prosperity we enjoy now are a direct consequence of our political arrangements and it’s frustrating to me to see someone take so much for granted. I think we have a very poor conception of what life is like with different political arrangements – it’s difficult to recover because liberalism is so pervasive. But I think, on the whole and considering things in balance, things are pretty good with the current arrangement. Could they be better? Of course – they always can – and we should strive for that. But we should also be able to appreciate the virtues of what we have been given, and what I find so distasteful about progressives is that they are totally unable to appreciate anything good in what is at present. You seem wise enough to buck the mold, but I don’t know you that well.
In American government it is possible to have politicians and parties that transcend the desire for power and money – history has proven so. Because we do not have that now does not mean we cannot have that ever.
Things are not pretty good. How can things be pretty good when people suffer because we do not love as Christ taught us? Before I returned to Catholicism after a 40 year absence things were pretty good in my individualistic self-centeredness of a neurotic egotistic life. Once I heard the voice of God’s Love I could feel the suffering all around me and I could feel the heaviness of that suffering. Politics is the work of things and love is a direct act given to people. If we love we will know and feel the overwhelming reality of suffering to the extent that we are open to love.
Love creates community and encourages a unified caring for others. Being complacent and unappreciative is expressed as “things are pretty good.”
How can things be pretty good when people suffer because we do not love as Christ taught us?
Famous story: The Times of London once held an essay contest on the question, “What’s Wrong With the World?” The (by then) Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton responded with his shortest essay ever: “I am.”
The question shouldn’t be “Do ‘we’ love?” but “Do ‘I’ love?” And while it is true that “love creates community and encourages a unified caring for others,’ this is a description of the Church, not the state.
Zach: You wrote, “In American government it is possible to have politicians and parties that transcend the desire for power and money – history has proven so.” Can you give some historical examples?
As for the general idea of my being overly cynical of politics, I think that politics should always be held at distance. It is not politics, after all, that changes the hearts of men and women or that brings good things to the world—that alone is the work of Love (that we can find in politics, to be sure, but is not properly “political”)
Zach: One more thing. Are you suggesting that I am a progressive? If so, then, please know that I detest progressiveness and modern notions of “development.”
Mark G, Thanks for the correction. I do not love enough.
Mark G, One other point. Love is not restricted to the Church.
Ronald, none of us loves enough. That’s the point. As for love not being restricted to the Church; it is true that love is not restricted to the visible Church, but if God is love, then all love is in God; and if love is in God, then it is in Christ, who is God; and if love is in Christ, then it shares in the mystery of the Church, which is the Body of Christ.
The state doesn’t “love.” It may and should do good things (though as often it does terrible things), but even when it does, one can’t call those good things “love” for the simple reason that as an accommodation to human sinfulness, the state always commands by force. And while the state can and sometimes should command its subjects to do good – as in providing universal healthcare – it can never command them to love.
as an accommodation to human sinfulness, the state always commands by force.
I keep coming across some version of that phrase, and I’m not sure what that means exactly, or where that comes from – I can’t find that understanding in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
I think it is kind of strange to say “the government is that entity in civilization whose role is the use of force…period” (not that that is necessarily your exact claim, Mark – you just reminded me of this…).
I would say that government is that entity whose role it is to serve the common good. And sure, some of that involves guys with rifles (the military and FBI) and some of it involves guys with unfashionable eyeglasses and math degrees (the Department of the Treasury) and some of it involves Clinical Social Workers counseling the mentally ill. All serving (at least in theory) the common good.
Matt,
The Constitution is a document that defines the authority of the Federal government and organizes the powers that derive from and reinforce that authority. The first section grants to a Congress the power to make laws which you are compelled to obey. The second section gives to the President the power to execute and enforce those laws. The third section gives to a judiciary the power adjudicate violations of the law, and to interpret the meaning of law. The entire document is about force and authority.
The sociologist Max Weber defined the state as “that organization that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Every definition of the state similarly focuses on force, or power, because the state is the supreme authority – legitimate or not – in a given polity. And that authority is maintained by force. Don’t believe it? Try not paying your taxes for a few years.
I am not making a case against the state. The state is a necessary evil – an ‘accommodation to sinful humanity – precisely because sinful men and women will not act for the common good unless compelled to do so. So the state has a role in the administration of justice, the delivery of goods and services, the protection of the most vulnerable, etc. But it is not an extension of the Kingdom of God. And it certainly does not love.
Finally, let’s not forget that because of its monopoly on force, the state has been and continues to be the great oppressor of humankind. Our experience of the state has, thanks be to God, been different than that of many people throughout the world. But we can hardly be lulled into irenicism about the fundamental nature of the thing. It is power crystallized, and we should always make use of such power with humility and prudence.
The sociologist Max Weber defined the state as “that organization that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Every definition of the state similarly focuses on force, or power, because the state is the supreme authority – legitimate or not – in a given polity. And that authority is maintained by force. Don’t believe it? Try not paying your taxes for a few years.
Well, okay, I guess I can go along with that, as far as it goes — but it has been my experience that many folks on the American political right tend to limit the definition of the state to that, in the context of a general discussion on the proper role of government, which seems to beg the question: “The Government should restrict itself to things the American political right wants it to do because that is its role.”
Reading your full comment, I see that’s not what you’re doing. I just thought I’d bring it up as a tangent because it’s been tickling my brain for awhile.
I would argue with your assertion that the government can’t love. Or I guess, it is true and not true. The government can be a means by which citizens express compassion – as I said on another thread, programs like Social Security, Head Start, Food Stamps, and AFDC have undeniably alleviated suffering: we can debate the unintended consequences of those programs, but they undeniably sprang (in part, anyway) from citizen’s consciences being troubled by destitution in the midst of wealth, and responding through the means of their government – which can be described as being a means of expressing charity, I think?
I’ve probably put all this rather badly, but do you see what I’m getting at?
Hey Sam,
I do not have time to adequately reproduce American history in a concise blog-comment-box format, but I can point you to the stories of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, as perhaps the two most obvious examples of politicians who believed in more than power and money.
I do think you are a progressive in the sense that you seem to reject traditionalist notions of truth and that you also, in general, seem to prefer the progressive political agenda.
Ronald,
My judgment that “things are pretty good” is a relative one; relative to history; relative to the depth of human depravity and the miserable state the majority of mankind has lived in until the recent past.
Of course relative to Heaven, things are not pretty good. Anything imperfect relative to something perfect is radically deficient. But times can be worse than they have been now, and we should be able to appreciate that.
Zach: You offer very vague examples of history. But, moving from that point: What is the traditionalist notion of truth that you claim that I reject? And what is this progressivist agenda that I supposedly support?
Matt, I get your point, and in Caritas in Veritate the Holy Father writes about “love” being worked out on both the micro scale (personal relationships) and the macro scale (social and civic arrangements). I don’t doubt that this is true, but my point is that the state per se does not love. People love. The state is an instrument erected (again) as an accommodation to human sinfulness. It may be used for good, as an instrument of compassion, or for evil, as an instrument of hate. To me, it makes no more sense to say “The state loves,” than it does to say “The refrigerator hates.”
Moreover, even if we grant that “love” can be worked out by people through the state, that doesn’t substitute for the personal duty to “love one another.” A man can’t say “I won’t help my neighbor in his distress because I prefer to work out my love on the ‘macro’ scale by paying taxes or voting for the right candidates.” It’s hard to imagine that showing your 1040 with Schedule A will suffice when the Great Judge asks “What did you do for these, the least of my brothers?”