When Ibsen’s Peer Gynt is lured under the mountain and into the Hall of the Troll King, he is offered a simple eye operation—a mere scratch with glazier’s tools—that will confer on him troll-vision. Cows and pigs and hideous goblins will show their true form as beautiful maidens, while all things of human beauty will appear monstrous and vile. When he learns that the procedure is not reversible he declines the Troll Kings hospitality and returns to the world of humans. As Canada reels out of 2008, it is hard to resist the notion that the Prime Minister and most of his caucus have been under the mountain but, unlike Peer, they have emerged with a transformed vision that they are ready to impose on the country.
On the morning after last month’s American election, 2008 Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote a brief essay in the New York Times in which he characterized the previous decade of American life as “the monster years.” His monsters were Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and their like, men who blamed school massacres on the teaching of evolution, who portrayed liberals as willing dupes of terrorists, and who used Islamic terrorism as an opportunity to launch profitable military adventures while discarding constitutional protections against torture and unwarranted arrest. What particularly concerned Krugman was that for a decade Americans had considered it “shrill” to point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters. The public naming of monsters was a major component of the atmosphere of hope and relief in which most Americans have lived during the past weeks.
Few Canadians would identify our federal politicians or political operatives as monsters. Monsterhood requires a combination of power and evil intent, the ability and the will to cause havoc on a massive scale, and such power is scarce in the realm of Canadian politics. Even our current Prime Minister, who may command enough of the requisite power, is saved from monsterhood by the glassy eyes, wooden hair and immobile face of a marionette. The aura of monsterhood hangs about him but it comes from somewhere behind the curtain, perhaps from Washington, or more likely from the petro-towers of Houston and Calgary. The front-man is no monster, but he and many of his cohorts do resemble the annoying little creatures that have long been known as goblins. Goblins are monsters manqué, possessing the will but lacking the power to undertake actions that cause world-scale disasters. They are small, mean, angry, and can do considerable harm if left unchecked.
Goblins were apparently in charge of the last Conservative election campaign, which focused most of its energy on the fear-mongering and personal smears that they had learned from the monsters in charge of the dying American administration. In their goblin-vision climate change is a hallucination of ivory-tower professors, and if it does exist it is certainly not the fault of the oil industry. Canada is shamed by the Liberal’s refusal to support George Bush’s war in Iraq. Governments suck tax-money from the hard earned profits of honest businessmen and waste it on artists and the poor. From the CBC to the Supreme Court, the self-appointed intellectual-homosexual elite that has grasped control of the public service, the courts and the media distorts the moral outlook of the country. The goblins are angry, they are going to take the nation back in the name of Christian capitalism, they will use any means at their disposal, and the rest of us are going to learn to live according to their rules.
Do these people truly represent the attitudes of the Canadian population, as they insist that they do?
This autumn saw national elections held in Canada and America. Despite enormous differences in the size, structure, history and political outlook of the two nations, both the themes and the results of these elections were remarkably similar. The citizens of each country were presented with the same basic question: did they wish to replace a government dominated by an ideology of libertarian economics, social and environmental policies founded in the beliefs of Christian fundamentalism, and attitudes to foreign relations that were based in American exceptionalism? Each country was offered an alternative that combined pragmatic economic strategies, a shift of taxes from lower to higher income earners, progressive social policies based in humanist values, serious attempts to deal with environmental problems, and multilateral approaches to foreign relations.
A majority of the voters in both countries rejected their Conservative/Republican governments, by margins of 53% to 46% of the presidential popular vote in America, and 62% to 38% of the popular vote in Canada. Because of differences in the electoral systems on either side of the border, this similar voting behaviour produced very dissimilar results. The U.S. Electoral College system magnified the Democratic lead into an overwhelming win for presidential candidate Barack Obama, a triumph that was reinforced by Democratic gains in congressional representation. In Canada, the splitting of progressive votes between four distinct political parties allowed the survival and even the expansion of the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper. In the idiom of the election campaigns, the citizens of both countries voted for change but only one country achieved it.
In the weeks since the American election, the triumphant celebration of “change” has pervaded political and media discussion in both countries. The simultaneous slow-motion crash of the American financial system, taking with it significant parts of the economy and casting the importance of social programs in a better light, has discredited the economic policies of past Republican administrations. This collapse has guaranteed that political and economic change will occur in America, and has provided the opportunity for the new government to rebuild according to its own ideas. The expectation of renewal has effectively countered the economic fear with which Americans view their future. The mood of optimistic hope is brightened by a widespread sense that the election marked the defeat of a version of America that focused its energies on greed, intolerance, anger, suspicion, and disregard for the rule of law. The monsters have been banished, and the outbreak of relief has reminded many Americans of a country liberated from a foreign occupying power. The sensation of being governed by an alien administration has become familiar to many Canadians during the past few years.
The winds of political optimism, like those carrying smoke from the generating stations of the American Midwest, sweep effortlessly across the Canadian border. Expectations of a more progressive America are probably more widespread in Canada than they are at home, since fewer Canadians are susceptible to Republican fear-mongering that paints Obama as a secret socialist with an Arabic middle name—most Canadians probably know a few socialists as well as a couple of guys named Hussein, and aren’t particularly afraid of either. If the Canadian election had been held after Obama’s triumph rather than a few weeks before, Conservative votes would have fallen far short of the 38% that were cast in October.
This effect is apparent in a poll published by Nanos Research on Canadian opinions a week after the American elections. National support for the Conservative party had dropped to 32% and was in a statistical tie with support for the Liberal party. The biggest surprise was in the Conservative homeland of Western Canada, where support dropped from 52% to 38% while all progressive parties showed gains. Stephen Harper’s much-touted aptitude for political maneuvering probably led him to preempt this situation by calling the unnecessary election on a date before the expected Obama victory. But will the gambit save his government from the desire for political change that is reflected in the October vote, and even more clearly in the mid-November poll?
This poll contradicts Harper’s recent assertions that the political mood of Canadian citizens is “shifting to the right”, and that his Conservative government represents the new political centre. Republicans have been spinning the results of the American election in the same way, portraying America as a “centre right” nation despite the victory of a progressive president and congress. Robert Borosage, in a column published in The Huffington Post shortly after the election, notes that this conclusion is forged by simply adding the proportions of people who identify themselves to pollsters as “conservatives” or “moderates”. He reports an election eve poll undertaken by the Centre for America’s Future in which self-identified moderates responded to questions on national security, the Iraq war, government regulation, taxes, acceptance of homosexuality, and concludes that “On issue after issue, moderates stand with liberals, not conservatives. This is a center-left nation.” If America is a centre-left nation, then it seems very likely that Canada remains one.
The situation in Canada changed dramatically with the Economic Statement presented by the Conservative government on November 27. This document assured all Canadians that despite the progressive mood of America, the goblins were still fully in charge of the Canadian government. The last Thatcherite administration left standing wasn’t going to follow the weak sisters of America, Europe and Asia in providing assistance to failing industries, or giving help and hope to the millions of citizens who are either unemployed or expecting to be out of work. The economic crisis of late 2008 would be met with true troll-measures: prohibiting civil servants from striking for wage increases, putting a roadblock in the path to gender pay equity, and revising the election laws in a way that would undermine the major funding source of all opposition parties. These actions might repeat the mistakes of the 1930s politicians who sought to cure an economic depression by tightening government’s belt. However in recompense, the measures would contribute to Harper’s campaign to reduce the effectiveness of the federal government, would insult women and unionized labour, and would cripple any effective opposition to his future plans.
The action was so bizarre, so totally devoid of principle and benefit to the country, that Harper’s true goblin nature finally stood revealed. His vaunted intellect and tactical brilliance was in reality no more than the limited vision and thirst for personal power of a talk-radio entertainer. The impression was confirmed in the following days, when he shut down parliament for two months in order to avoid the inevitable vote that—following normal parliamentary procedure—would have stripped him of power and replaced his government by one led by a coalition of moderate parties. Addressing the nation on television he stared glassily at the camera and rolled out a series of appalling lies, successfully persuading many Canadians that the replacement of his government would be a disgraceful flaunting of democracy, and that it was his and their patriotic duty to protect the nation against Quebec separatists. The dishonorable appeal to national disunity had its expected effect on his western power base, and solidified his hold on the portion of the country west of the Ottawa River.
Stephen Harper may have exposed himself—to both confederates and opponents—as nothing more than a power-hungry fool, but can we rid ourselves of him as Paul Krugman hopes that America has purged itself of monsters?
Despite the power granted to the Conservative party by the Canadian electoral system, the enthusiasm for political renewal that is now flowing across our borders may provide the conditions necessary to do just that. The will to do so was apparent in the extensive, though unsuccessful, efforts to elect a progressive majority through selective voting during the October election. Following the election, that will was expressed through repeated calls for a merger of progressive parties in order to overcome the problem of vote-splitting. Liberal elder Lloyd Axworthy’s October 28 piece in the Ottawa Citizen refers to the Liberal instinct to shift right (or perhaps more accurately to reveal their conservative intentions) in order to capture the ideological centre, as a “death wish”. Instead, he calls for a progressive parliamentary alliance to effectively oppose Conservative legislation, and to form a partnership that will provide Canadian voters with a credible alternative come the next election. In the same week, long time NDP operative Les Campbell used the Globe and Mail to make public a call for New Democrats to undertake intense policy renewal and to spearhead a "unite-the-centre-left" movement.
The idea proliferated in progressive publications and blogs, but was consistently opposed by representatives of the Liberals, NDP, Greens and (naturally) Bloc Québequois.
The coalition that was quickly flung together by the Liberal and New Democratic parties in response to Harper’s late November power-grab was an improvised attempt to counter the problem, but at this writing (a week into its existence) it is unclear whether it can survive the splitting-wedges of party alliance. Despite their support of this temporary coalition, the Liberals appear to have convinced themselves that the coronation of a new leader will return them to their normal position as rulers. New Democrats delude themselves into believing that they still have the unwavering support of unionized workers, the leftist intelligentsia and political activists. The Bloc is increasingly alienated from its separatist support, but refuses to accept that it presents a policy platform that is practically indistinguishable from that of its Liberal rivals in Québec. After the October election the Greens must realize that their development into an influential political force will be the work of decades. A temporary coalition is only a temporary solution to the problem of progressive politics in Canada. The leadership of these parties have too much historical baggage invested in their party organizations, and their personal careers in those organizations, to seriously consider the sort of realignment that is necessary to confront and overcome the last stronghold of neo-conservative goblins in the western world. None have the will to recognize the essential similarity of several supposedly unique party platforms.
Who is going to tell our moderate political parties that they are central to the problem of challenging the goblin forces? Is there a progressive force in Canada that can undertake this task? There are precedents. One recent example of a home-made attempt to renew progressive politics is the Euston Manifesto, drafted (in an Irish pub across from Euston Station) by a small group of Londoners, and now rolling across the internet as it gathers support from a swelling number of concerned individuals throughout the democratic world. Although written by leftists, the ideals and goals outlined in this document explicitly discard many touchstones of the doctrinaire Left, and are meant to appeal to “egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment”.
It is exactly 75 years since the Regina Manifesto was crafted, in a period of social and economic distress that has not been experienced since. It served as the founding document of the new Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, continued to influence the thinking of its NDP daughter-party, and eventually influenced the adoption of public healthcare and other important elements of Canada’s social policy. Stripped of its 1930s rhetoric on the destruction of capitalism and the efficacy of centralized planning, as well as of its unwarranted faith in the social sciences, the manifesto still reads as an inspiring attempt to create a better world. Proponents of a political realignment of the kind that is desperately needed could do worse than revisit this historic document, and consider the usefulness of redrafting it for the contemporary world.
What would moderate Canadian politicians do with the fact of widespread public agreement on a clear statement of the principles and ideals that citizens wish to see enshrined at the core of their national government? Could any but entrenched Conservatives reject it as incompatible with individual party platforms? Would some be tempted to discuss its adoption? Could this be the tool that is needed to expose the fiction of party uniqueness, and to pry down the walls separating self-cancelling pools of voters?
At a time when a recurrence of the Great Depression is a distinct possibility, and when our neighbours across the border are equipped to meet it with a wave of political renewal, Canadians may be willing to go beyond their traditional reliance on party politics in order to obtain the humane and rational government that they desire. It seems the only way that we are going to rid our house of its infestation of goblins.
First published in The Metaball, Winter 2009
http://www.metaball.ca/2009/ball_Winter-09/index.php
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Well, That Didn't Work
We have another Conservative-led minority government, with increased strength. Liberals and New Democrats together fell far short of the numbers required for a coalition government, and the Greens at zero seats won't help. What can Stephen Harper get up to in four years? At least we can still hope for an Obama vistory in the US next month, with some progressive policies trickling north through the Bush Memorial Policy Defences at the Canadian border.
Monday, October 6, 2008
We Can Take the Country Back
Most of the clichés that have been applied to the election of October 2008 happen to be true. It is the most important election in a generation. Canadians will be given a clear choice between two visions of the nation.
Unfortunately, if current polls are even close to being correct, the majority of Canadians won’t elect their preferred option. Instead they will get an ideologically-driven government supported by a minority of voters. The Stephen Harper government of the past two years was only a warm-up act for the performance that will begin on October 14 if the vote goes as currently anticipated.
There is no doubt that a consolidation of centre and centre-left parties is going to occur in order to bring the federal political system back into balance. The only question is when. A Conservative majority on 14 October will create conditions drastic enough to force an amalgamation of the Liberals and New Democrats at some time between 2009 and 2012, probably with the Greens joining in. A Conservative minority after the October elections will produce an opposition that cannot continue the pathetic performance of the past two years. There is too much to gain by joining forces in the form of a coalition government established to replace a defeated Conservative minority. When one compares the quality of any potential Conservative front bench with the sort of cabinet that could be put together by other parties—starting with people like Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Joe Comartin, Libby Davies, Martha Hall Findlay, Ujjal Dosanjh, Ralph Goodale, Jack Layton, Stéphane Dion, Elizabeth May, and maybe even Thomas King—the public support for such a coalition would be unquestioned.
The next week is by far the most opportune time for a consolidation of the 60% to 70% vote that will go to parties of the centre and centre-left, but we cannot expect the parties involved to do much about it. The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloquistes have too much historical baggage invested in their party organizations to admit the coalescence of their support. Liberals will not admit that they have lost most of their hereditary voters and their traditional ties to the big money industries, while New Democrats still delude themselves about the unwavering support of the trade unions and the Bloc is increasingly alienated from its separatist backers. The party leaders lack both the will and the authority to suggest that their unique platforms are, in fact, very much the same, and that the voters would do well to vote strategically for the centrist candidate most likely to win in each riding.
The politicians cannot save our country, so we will have to do it ourselves. Fortunately, and for the first time, we have the tools to do so. The internet provides everything needed for a strategic voting event based on the individual decisions of a few million voters. We don’t even have to assemble a consensus as to which of the many web-sites devoted to strategic voting that we should use as a basis for decisions, since most of them present very much the same picture of individual ridings. My personal favourite is the mathematically-based system that can be found at www.voteforenvironment.ca. The voting recommendations suggested by this site are designed to elect a government that will be friendly to environmental concerns, but the same decisions will also elect a minority or coalition government that will share the views of the majority of Canadians on matters of the economy, social justice, international affairs, and our participation in the Afghan war.
We have the power to elect the government that most of us desire, and that most of us believe will produce a better world for Canadians. We don’t even have to organize. All we have to do is visit the internet, make our decision, and then take that walk to the polling station.
Pass it on.
Unfortunately, if current polls are even close to being correct, the majority of Canadians won’t elect their preferred option. Instead they will get an ideologically-driven government supported by a minority of voters. The Stephen Harper government of the past two years was only a warm-up act for the performance that will begin on October 14 if the vote goes as currently anticipated.
There is no doubt that a consolidation of centre and centre-left parties is going to occur in order to bring the federal political system back into balance. The only question is when. A Conservative majority on 14 October will create conditions drastic enough to force an amalgamation of the Liberals and New Democrats at some time between 2009 and 2012, probably with the Greens joining in. A Conservative minority after the October elections will produce an opposition that cannot continue the pathetic performance of the past two years. There is too much to gain by joining forces in the form of a coalition government established to replace a defeated Conservative minority. When one compares the quality of any potential Conservative front bench with the sort of cabinet that could be put together by other parties—starting with people like Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Joe Comartin, Libby Davies, Martha Hall Findlay, Ujjal Dosanjh, Ralph Goodale, Jack Layton, Stéphane Dion, Elizabeth May, and maybe even Thomas King—the public support for such a coalition would be unquestioned.
The next week is by far the most opportune time for a consolidation of the 60% to 70% vote that will go to parties of the centre and centre-left, but we cannot expect the parties involved to do much about it. The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloquistes have too much historical baggage invested in their party organizations to admit the coalescence of their support. Liberals will not admit that they have lost most of their hereditary voters and their traditional ties to the big money industries, while New Democrats still delude themselves about the unwavering support of the trade unions and the Bloc is increasingly alienated from its separatist backers. The party leaders lack both the will and the authority to suggest that their unique platforms are, in fact, very much the same, and that the voters would do well to vote strategically for the centrist candidate most likely to win in each riding.
The politicians cannot save our country, so we will have to do it ourselves. Fortunately, and for the first time, we have the tools to do so. The internet provides everything needed for a strategic voting event based on the individual decisions of a few million voters. We don’t even have to assemble a consensus as to which of the many web-sites devoted to strategic voting that we should use as a basis for decisions, since most of them present very much the same picture of individual ridings. My personal favourite is the mathematically-based system that can be found at www.voteforenvironment.ca. The voting recommendations suggested by this site are designed to elect a government that will be friendly to environmental concerns, but the same decisions will also elect a minority or coalition government that will share the views of the majority of Canadians on matters of the economy, social justice, international affairs, and our participation in the Afghan war.
We have the power to elect the government that most of us desire, and that most of us believe will produce a better world for Canadians. We don’t even have to organize. All we have to do is visit the internet, make our decision, and then take that walk to the polling station.
Pass it on.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Talk Radio in Munich
Comparing a contemporary politician to Hitler is a cheap and easy slur, one that has become so commonplace that it has very limited effect. Most readers treat the comparison as a commentary on the laziness or lack of imagination of the writer rather than as a useful contribution to political debate. It is obvious that the unique coalescence of social, economic and psychological factors that created Adolf Hitler are very unlikely to recur and create another personality of such enthralling malevolence.
However, the political processes that propel a particular person to leadership, and that carry a set of social ideas to the forefront of a people’s consciousness, seem to operate in very similar ways on disparate societies. They may even be universal characteristics of human social organization. Political scientists analyze earlier examples of these processes in order to understand the political and social developments of our present world.
If we turn this procedure on its head, the study of today’s political processes may shed light on past developments that have been otherwise difficult to understand. A prime example of such an episode would be the rise to power of Hitler and his National Socialist Party in 1930s Germany. Despite massive social research and the production of hundreds of academic books, no scholar has credibly explained how the people of Germany, arguably the most civilized and advanced nation in Europe, fell under the sway of a cult of personality and death, a movement that eventually led to national destruction on a scale never previously witnessed. There have been no shortage of economic, social and psychological explanations—usually centred on the Great Depression and the imposition of war reparation payments to the powers of western Europe. What has been lacking is the link between these grand issues and the thinking of the individual voters who propelled the growth of National Socialist representation in government, and eventually to power in the German chancellery.
Once Nazi power had been consolidated it is clear that well organized propaganda campaigns, including events such as the celebrated Nuremberg rallies, provided the force that drew individuals into the national cult. But during the early years no such means were available to the National Socialists, yet a major shift in voting patterns was developing. Between the election of 1928 and that of September 1930 the National Socialist share of the vote climbed from 2% to over 18%, and then to almost 40% in 1932. What fuelled this growing consensus? Insights gained from studying our own society may allow us to reconstruct a scenario that might explain how the consciousness of a society was transformed.
Transcription: The Hans Schmidt Show
19:00-22:00, August 1 1930
Radio Munich
HOST: Good evening friends. Another bright summer evening in Bavaria. For the next three hours there will be none of the gloom that so many of our countrymen seem to see everywhere around us, in either the weather or the economy. This is Straightforward Radio, no doubletalk here, no questions asked, just straight talk and straight answers. What do you want to talk about tonight? The government seems to be giving us enough subjects to keep us busy all week. Now that the tax increase has been defeated, do we really need another election? Will we have to revisit the last government’s stands on pornography and degenerate art? I thought they had finally taken care of jazz, but are we going to have to listen to it again? What about the cuts to pensions and welfare payments—will those stick? And I see that the Prussians have now followed Bavaria’s lead in banning political uniforms. What do you think of that? Should we be proud of our state politicians now that others are following them? Lots to talk about, and we have Rudy from Schwabing on line 1. What do you have to say Rudy?
CALLER: Good evening Hans, I want to make a comment on the unemployment situation. If there are so few jobs for us Germans, what are all the foreigners doing here? You go into any restaurant and half the waiters are Czechs or Poles. Even the City is hiring Polish street-sweepers. Why doesn’t the government do something about these people when good Germans don’t have jobs to feed their families?
HOST: I know just how you feel Rudy. Last week I went to get my car fixed and found that my garage has hired a couple of gypsy mechanics—the owner tells me they are the only kind he can afford to pay what with the government flweecing him with taxes. At least those guys were working, but what about all their relatives? Stealing bicycles and living off welfare with allowances for their ten children and probably their horses too. I don’t know what you think should be done, but I wouldn’t complain if they were all shoved back to the Slav lands or Romania or wherever they came from.
CALLER: If they did that there would be more jobs for us, and the air would be cleaner too.
HOST: You’re right there Rudy. What does everyone else think? We have Kurt from Neuhausen on line 2. Go ahead Kurt.
CALLER: Hello Hans. You’re right on about sending the foreigners home, but what I called about is this banning of party uniforms. This is really about banning Mr. Hitler’s SA guards. Sure, they say it applies to the Communists too, but what sort of uniforms do those scum wear? It's been the SA that’s kept the Commie thugs under control and brought some peace to our streets, and now they want to ban them?
HOST: You know what Kurt? I agree with you there, but you’ve missed the most serious part. We Germans know our political rights, and this is a straightforward interference with those rights. Wearing a uniform is a declaration of our thoughts and allegiances. Is the government going to try to ban our thoughts? I would like to see them just try.
CALLER: You know what the federal government is like, Hans. A bunch of clerks and bureaucrats sitting in the Reichstag making up rules for the rest of us. Not one of them remembers what it’s like to live in the real world, to have to feed your family or meet a paysheet. They think we should all be like them and never get riled up about anything. They forget how unfair life is out here. We need people like Mr. Hitler to speak up for us, and keep the commies and their money-hungry shopkeeper friends—you know who I mean—off our backs. Am I right?
HOST: You said it Kurt. I won’t agree with you because this program doesn’t take political sides, but I know you speak for a lot of our listeners out there. Let’s hear from them. Here’s Franz from Dachau. What’s the weather like out there in the country Franz?
CALLER: Nice and calm, just like our politics. Ha! Anyway I agree with your last caller’s views on those pansies in the Reichstag. They’re completely cut off from what’s happening out here. The SA have cleaned up our streets and now they ought to do a job on Berlin. Everybody knows the homos are running the place—what about those cabaret shows and dirty dancers and the art galleries showing filthy smears that they call paintings. And this is supposed to be the capital of our country! Shouldn’t we be ashamed?
HOST: We should be ashamed and most of us are, but everybody is afraid to say it outright. The politicians aren’t ashamed. The professors and the so-called “intellectuals” aren’t ashamed. They say it’s “avant garde.” I don’t know much French but I do know that the Frenchies are way ahead of us when it comes to pornography. The last government tried to keep them from purveying this smut to children, but they didn’t go nearly far enough. We have Wilhelm from Maxvorstad on line 1.
CALLER: Good evening Hans. I hope you won’t mind my presenting a contrary opinion.
HOST: Go right ahead if you can make sense.
CALLER: My job often takes me to Berlin, and I must say that the city is far from the den of debauchery and degenerate life-styles that you and your last caller seem to think. It’s really very civilized, and an exciting place to be. In fact, so many foreigners are visiting our capital to participate in its artistic life that it is very cosmopolitan and the economy is booming.
HOST: Just a minute. You’re telling me that we should be happy that degenerate foreigners like our capital city? And even happier that they are making us richer by paying for their vices?
CALLER: It depends on your definition of degenerate. I don’t think…
HOST: Degenerate is degenerate. If you don’t know that, I don’t want to talk to you. Are you at the University out there in Maxvorstad?
CALLER: As a matter of fact I am, but that…
HOST: I thought so. You probably “appreciate” those dirty paintings. And what about jazz? You and your pansy “intellectual” friends probably like that too. That’s not music, it’s jungle jive, it’s not human and the nation of Wagner and Mozart…
CALLER: Mozart wasn’t Germ..
HOST: …shouldn’t have it inflicted on us. Thank God it’s now banned from radio. But there are still lots of jazz clubs in Berlin and even here in Munich there’s a place I’ve been told about. . What’s wrong with this country? Won’t anybody speak out? Am I wrong? Otto, you’re on line 2.
CALLER: You’re right Hans. It’s time the real people had their say. Not just about art, but about running the country. My cousin up in Duisberg is a manager in one of Mr. Thyssen’s steel mills, and he tells me that taxes and wages are eating up the company’s profits. As long as the workers can draw welfare benefits they don’t have to work, and those that do work can demand higher pay. The communists are trying to organize a union, and if that ever happens the plant will just shut down. Do you think that a mill owner can be expected to do what his workers tell him to do?
HOST: I’m glad you called Otto, because this situation is at the heart of our problems. Last week I was having lunch with some of the people out at BMW and they tell me the same thing. Our economy needs these companies and we damned well better take care of them. The factory owners have given this country what prosperity it has, and where would the workers be without those people’s initiative and hard work? Our government has coddled people far more than is good for them. Pensions, welfare, now this new-fangled “unemployment insurance.” They’re falling into the communist’s trap. If people were starving they would have to take jobs at a reasonable rate of pay, and they would have to actually work at them or be fired and go back to starving—not collect some phony kind of insurance to sit on their fat butts. And what about the criminals? They used to work or starve, but now we have penitentiaries that feed them and pretend to cure their criminal behaviour. Don’t get me started on how criminals are treated. Forcing them to work in the mills for no pay would do a lot more for our economy than encouraging degenerate performers in Berlin. I’d like to hear more about your cousin Otto, but we have Anna on line 3. Hello Anna.
CALLER: Good evening Hans, I want to go back to your call on the government’s ban on political uniforms. I agree with you that uniforms are part of our rights as citizens, and also that the SA has been very useful in keeping the rabble-rousers under control. But, you know, I somehow don’t trust that Mr. Hitler. He has a funny look in his eyes, and I get the feeling that despite all his talk of justice and honour he has some sort of secret agenda for…
HOST: Anna, do you really judge people by “the look in their eye”? Come on, this is a rational radio program, we don’t go around criticizing people for how they look. As for Mr. Hitler, he looks you straight in the eye and tells you straightforwardly what he thinks. What’s this so-called “secret agenda” that you women and your cowardly socialist friends prattle on about? The man is a natural leader, and he is as open and forthright as this radio program about what he wants to do for our country. He wants to clean out the trash, give everyone a good job, treat the criminals like they should be treated, and give pride back to the German nation. How can you worry about that and still think of yourself as a good German? Sometimes I don’t know what’s wrong with you people. I don’t think you know what’s good for you. We have to take a break now for the sports news, but we’ll be back and maybe some of you would like to comment on Anna’s feminine intuition, or the life in Berlin that Professor Kurt finds so exciting. What’s wrong with these people? Back in a minute.
Transcription Ends
First published in The Metaball, Autumn 2008. http://www.metaball.ca/2008/ball_Fall-08/1008_c01.html
However, the political processes that propel a particular person to leadership, and that carry a set of social ideas to the forefront of a people’s consciousness, seem to operate in very similar ways on disparate societies. They may even be universal characteristics of human social organization. Political scientists analyze earlier examples of these processes in order to understand the political and social developments of our present world.
If we turn this procedure on its head, the study of today’s political processes may shed light on past developments that have been otherwise difficult to understand. A prime example of such an episode would be the rise to power of Hitler and his National Socialist Party in 1930s Germany. Despite massive social research and the production of hundreds of academic books, no scholar has credibly explained how the people of Germany, arguably the most civilized and advanced nation in Europe, fell under the sway of a cult of personality and death, a movement that eventually led to national destruction on a scale never previously witnessed. There have been no shortage of economic, social and psychological explanations—usually centred on the Great Depression and the imposition of war reparation payments to the powers of western Europe. What has been lacking is the link between these grand issues and the thinking of the individual voters who propelled the growth of National Socialist representation in government, and eventually to power in the German chancellery.
Once Nazi power had been consolidated it is clear that well organized propaganda campaigns, including events such as the celebrated Nuremberg rallies, provided the force that drew individuals into the national cult. But during the early years no such means were available to the National Socialists, yet a major shift in voting patterns was developing. Between the election of 1928 and that of September 1930 the National Socialist share of the vote climbed from 2% to over 18%, and then to almost 40% in 1932. What fuelled this growing consensus? Insights gained from studying our own society may allow us to reconstruct a scenario that might explain how the consciousness of a society was transformed.
Transcription: The Hans Schmidt Show
19:00-22:00, August 1 1930
Radio Munich
HOST: Good evening friends. Another bright summer evening in Bavaria. For the next three hours there will be none of the gloom that so many of our countrymen seem to see everywhere around us, in either the weather or the economy. This is Straightforward Radio, no doubletalk here, no questions asked, just straight talk and straight answers. What do you want to talk about tonight? The government seems to be giving us enough subjects to keep us busy all week. Now that the tax increase has been defeated, do we really need another election? Will we have to revisit the last government’s stands on pornography and degenerate art? I thought they had finally taken care of jazz, but are we going to have to listen to it again? What about the cuts to pensions and welfare payments—will those stick? And I see that the Prussians have now followed Bavaria’s lead in banning political uniforms. What do you think of that? Should we be proud of our state politicians now that others are following them? Lots to talk about, and we have Rudy from Schwabing on line 1. What do you have to say Rudy?
CALLER: Good evening Hans, I want to make a comment on the unemployment situation. If there are so few jobs for us Germans, what are all the foreigners doing here? You go into any restaurant and half the waiters are Czechs or Poles. Even the City is hiring Polish street-sweepers. Why doesn’t the government do something about these people when good Germans don’t have jobs to feed their families?
HOST: I know just how you feel Rudy. Last week I went to get my car fixed and found that my garage has hired a couple of gypsy mechanics—the owner tells me they are the only kind he can afford to pay what with the government flweecing him with taxes. At least those guys were working, but what about all their relatives? Stealing bicycles and living off welfare with allowances for their ten children and probably their horses too. I don’t know what you think should be done, but I wouldn’t complain if they were all shoved back to the Slav lands or Romania or wherever they came from.
CALLER: If they did that there would be more jobs for us, and the air would be cleaner too.
HOST: You’re right there Rudy. What does everyone else think? We have Kurt from Neuhausen on line 2. Go ahead Kurt.
CALLER: Hello Hans. You’re right on about sending the foreigners home, but what I called about is this banning of party uniforms. This is really about banning Mr. Hitler’s SA guards. Sure, they say it applies to the Communists too, but what sort of uniforms do those scum wear? It's been the SA that’s kept the Commie thugs under control and brought some peace to our streets, and now they want to ban them?
HOST: You know what Kurt? I agree with you there, but you’ve missed the most serious part. We Germans know our political rights, and this is a straightforward interference with those rights. Wearing a uniform is a declaration of our thoughts and allegiances. Is the government going to try to ban our thoughts? I would like to see them just try.
CALLER: You know what the federal government is like, Hans. A bunch of clerks and bureaucrats sitting in the Reichstag making up rules for the rest of us. Not one of them remembers what it’s like to live in the real world, to have to feed your family or meet a paysheet. They think we should all be like them and never get riled up about anything. They forget how unfair life is out here. We need people like Mr. Hitler to speak up for us, and keep the commies and their money-hungry shopkeeper friends—you know who I mean—off our backs. Am I right?
HOST: You said it Kurt. I won’t agree with you because this program doesn’t take political sides, but I know you speak for a lot of our listeners out there. Let’s hear from them. Here’s Franz from Dachau. What’s the weather like out there in the country Franz?
CALLER: Nice and calm, just like our politics. Ha! Anyway I agree with your last caller’s views on those pansies in the Reichstag. They’re completely cut off from what’s happening out here. The SA have cleaned up our streets and now they ought to do a job on Berlin. Everybody knows the homos are running the place—what about those cabaret shows and dirty dancers and the art galleries showing filthy smears that they call paintings. And this is supposed to be the capital of our country! Shouldn’t we be ashamed?
HOST: We should be ashamed and most of us are, but everybody is afraid to say it outright. The politicians aren’t ashamed. The professors and the so-called “intellectuals” aren’t ashamed. They say it’s “avant garde.” I don’t know much French but I do know that the Frenchies are way ahead of us when it comes to pornography. The last government tried to keep them from purveying this smut to children, but they didn’t go nearly far enough. We have Wilhelm from Maxvorstad on line 1.
CALLER: Good evening Hans. I hope you won’t mind my presenting a contrary opinion.
HOST: Go right ahead if you can make sense.
CALLER: My job often takes me to Berlin, and I must say that the city is far from the den of debauchery and degenerate life-styles that you and your last caller seem to think. It’s really very civilized, and an exciting place to be. In fact, so many foreigners are visiting our capital to participate in its artistic life that it is very cosmopolitan and the economy is booming.
HOST: Just a minute. You’re telling me that we should be happy that degenerate foreigners like our capital city? And even happier that they are making us richer by paying for their vices?
CALLER: It depends on your definition of degenerate. I don’t think…
HOST: Degenerate is degenerate. If you don’t know that, I don’t want to talk to you. Are you at the University out there in Maxvorstad?
CALLER: As a matter of fact I am, but that…
HOST: I thought so. You probably “appreciate” those dirty paintings. And what about jazz? You and your pansy “intellectual” friends probably like that too. That’s not music, it’s jungle jive, it’s not human and the nation of Wagner and Mozart…
CALLER: Mozart wasn’t Germ..
HOST: …shouldn’t have it inflicted on us. Thank God it’s now banned from radio. But there are still lots of jazz clubs in Berlin and even here in Munich there’s a place I’ve been told about. . What’s wrong with this country? Won’t anybody speak out? Am I wrong? Otto, you’re on line 2.
CALLER: You’re right Hans. It’s time the real people had their say. Not just about art, but about running the country. My cousin up in Duisberg is a manager in one of Mr. Thyssen’s steel mills, and he tells me that taxes and wages are eating up the company’s profits. As long as the workers can draw welfare benefits they don’t have to work, and those that do work can demand higher pay. The communists are trying to organize a union, and if that ever happens the plant will just shut down. Do you think that a mill owner can be expected to do what his workers tell him to do?
HOST: I’m glad you called Otto, because this situation is at the heart of our problems. Last week I was having lunch with some of the people out at BMW and they tell me the same thing. Our economy needs these companies and we damned well better take care of them. The factory owners have given this country what prosperity it has, and where would the workers be without those people’s initiative and hard work? Our government has coddled people far more than is good for them. Pensions, welfare, now this new-fangled “unemployment insurance.” They’re falling into the communist’s trap. If people were starving they would have to take jobs at a reasonable rate of pay, and they would have to actually work at them or be fired and go back to starving—not collect some phony kind of insurance to sit on their fat butts. And what about the criminals? They used to work or starve, but now we have penitentiaries that feed them and pretend to cure their criminal behaviour. Don’t get me started on how criminals are treated. Forcing them to work in the mills for no pay would do a lot more for our economy than encouraging degenerate performers in Berlin. I’d like to hear more about your cousin Otto, but we have Anna on line 3. Hello Anna.
CALLER: Good evening Hans, I want to go back to your call on the government’s ban on political uniforms. I agree with you that uniforms are part of our rights as citizens, and also that the SA has been very useful in keeping the rabble-rousers under control. But, you know, I somehow don’t trust that Mr. Hitler. He has a funny look in his eyes, and I get the feeling that despite all his talk of justice and honour he has some sort of secret agenda for…
HOST: Anna, do you really judge people by “the look in their eye”? Come on, this is a rational radio program, we don’t go around criticizing people for how they look. As for Mr. Hitler, he looks you straight in the eye and tells you straightforwardly what he thinks. What’s this so-called “secret agenda” that you women and your cowardly socialist friends prattle on about? The man is a natural leader, and he is as open and forthright as this radio program about what he wants to do for our country. He wants to clean out the trash, give everyone a good job, treat the criminals like they should be treated, and give pride back to the German nation. How can you worry about that and still think of yourself as a good German? Sometimes I don’t know what’s wrong with you people. I don’t think you know what’s good for you. We have to take a break now for the sports news, but we’ll be back and maybe some of you would like to comment on Anna’s feminine intuition, or the life in Berlin that Professor Kurt finds so exciting. What’s wrong with these people? Back in a minute.
Transcription Ends
First published in The Metaball, Autumn 2008. http://www.metaball.ca/2008/ball_Fall-08/1008_c01.html
Monday, June 30, 2008
Scammed by Christians
this review first appeared in The Metaball June 2008 (http://www.metaball.ca/2008/ball_Jun-08/0608_01.html)
The central table in the bookstore carried piles of titles by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other popular authors of the "new atheism". Booksellers have been impressed by the sales potential of this recent outbreak of books challenging or debunking religious views of the world. I have joined the horde of readers who occasionally purchase these books, attracted by the fresh vitality of secular thought in a society that seems increasingly enthralled by fundamentalist preachers and the politicians whom they instruct.
I was ready to buy a book by Daniel Dennett, but was distracted by a display of several volumes devoted to challenging the challengers. Thinking that I should get some exposure to the other side of the debate, I flipped through a few. All seemed to have been written by young smiling Americans, pastors or academics in the churches and colleges of evangelical Christianity. Their challenges consisted of rehearsals of the standard statements of biblical belief and intelligent design, neither interesting nor particularly convincing.
One book was different. Published last fall, its stark jacket bore the title There is No God modified with a scratchy pen to read There is A God. The subtitle promised to explain "How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind." No, Joseph Stalin didn't experience a deathbed conversion. The notorious atheist turned out to be Antony Flew, identified as "a renowned philosopher who was arguable the best-known atheist in the English-speaking world." Flew is an Oxford-trained scholar who has taught at Oxford, Aberdeen and Reading, as well as briefly at the University of Calgary and York University in Toronto. His photograph, lurking (for some reason upside down) behind the title, shows a distinguished and dynamic intellectual. Being a sucker for academic qualifications, and sensing that this author must at least know the best arguments that are currently in play, I bought his book.
Antony Flew deserves his credentials, and his reputation as a fluent debater of religious believers over the past half-century. He established his name with a short student essay titled "Theology and Falsification" which he presented in 1950 to a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club, then led by C.S. Lewis (the Narnia man). Stripped of its undergraduate pedantry, the essay simply asked theologians whether there was any imaginable thing or event that would convince them that God did not exist, or that would make them believe that God did not love mankind. If not, Flew pointed out, their assertion that there is a loving God can have no meaning. It was a tactic that he continued to use in several worthy books published over the latter half of the twentieth century.
The early portions of There is A God are written in the first person, a credible account of childhood in a Methodist parsonage, the sense of evil felt as an adolescent travelling in Hitler's Germany, the discovery of atheism and philosophy at Oxford, and a subsequent academic career. It is the sort of autobiographical sketch that an aging academic might be expected to write (in apparent contrast to his cover-photo, Flew was 84 at the time of publication). But the first paragraph of Chapter 3 suddenly strikes a very puzzling note. It presents a knowledgeable account, replete with names and motives, of the Boston Red Sox' 1919 sale of pitcher Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees. This is an appropriate introduction to the story of Flew's "switch to another team" after six decades of atheism, but is it the sort of parable that would spring to the mind of an English philosopher? The inkling that something is amiss is sustained by subsequent headings such as "Shootout at the Ok Corral" and "My New York Debut." The latter reports his "coming out" as a deist (one who believes that the universe was created by a deity, but that this being has no interests in the existence or behaviour of humans) during a 2004 symposium on scientific evidence supporting the existence of God.
Flew's account of his conversion is very strange. He explains that his change of view resulted from recent scientific evidence on the complexity of life and the statistical improbability of its having arisen from inert matter. Flew testifies "I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder's point by point refutation of what I call the 'monkey theorem'". Schroeder described an experiment (allegedly funded by the British National Council for the Arts) in which six monkeys were caged with a computer. At the end of a month they had typed fifty pages but no Shakespearean sonnets, nor even a single English word. Extrapolating to the universe, Schroeder claimed that if every particle of matter were equivalent to a monkey typing at millions of strokes a second, no sonnet would ever emerge. "After hearing Schroeder's presentation," Flew reports, "I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish….If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance."
Gerald Schroeder is an Israeli physicist who is very much at home with large numbers. His website (http://www.geraldschroeder.com) argues that the book of Genesis adequately describes the evolution of the universe from the initial Big Bang to historical times. For example, he reports that if you multiply the six days of Biblical creation by a certain number which he selects as appropriate (the ratio of the "temperature of quark confinement" in the very early universe to the temperature of the universe today), six days expands to15 billion years which is close to current estimates of the age of the universe. Critics have pointed out that Schroeder could equally well have used thousands of other numbers which would have expanded six days into radically different ages, and that in any case his calculations are wrong. Of all the individuals in this story who could be described as probable kooks, Schroeder best fits the picture. Yet we are asked to believe that this Biblical interpreter, arguing from an experiment (which as a taxpayer I fervently hope never took place) with monkeys and a particularly durable computer, convinced a serious and experienced scholar to renounce his work of a lifetime.
It was Gerald Schroeder who drove me to the internet in order to try to find out what was wrong with the book that I had purchased. There I discovered his calculations on the age of the universe as revealed in the Torah, as well as a unique interpretation of "intelligent design" evolution involving God stepping in to produce catastrophes in order to wipe out creatures such as dinosaurs, which were not evolving properly toward human form. I also found another name, Roy Abraham Verghese, an American writer and Christian entrepreneur who had recorded and sold DVD's of the Schroeder-Flew conversation including Flew's admission that Schroeder had convinced him of the existence of a Creator. Verghese had also written an appendix to There is A God, a virulent critique of the arguments of "the New Atheism."
Verghese's name led me to an apparent solution to the problem. Last fall the New York Times magazine commissioned Mark Oppenheimer, a journalist from Yale, to inquire into the same questions that had struck me. As reported in his lengthy article ("The Turning of an Atheist", New York Times Magazine, November 4, 2007) Oppenheimer read and interviewed widely among the scholars quoted in the book, and also travelled to Reading where he interviewed Antony Flew over two days. He was very disconcerted by what he found. Essentially the book had been ghostwritten by Verghese and an American evangelical pastor named Bob Hostetler. The elderly professor claimed to have had little or no knowledge of its contents, nor any acquaintance with the writings or opinions of several of the scholars quoted in the text.
Returning to the book, I now noticed for the first time that below the name Antony Flew was the phrase, printed in a small black font, "with Roy Abraham Varghese." This idiom is generally used by the ghostwriters who are hired to compose autobiographies of sports stars, entertainers, and other celebrities who shouldn't be trusted with a pen. Academics usually, although often mistakenly, feel themselves capable of writing their own biographies. Certainly the renowned philosopher whose vital middle-aged portrait illustrates the book jacket would not be associated with the need for a ghostwriter, so that even those who noticed Varghese's name would likely assume that he had contributed only the appendix to which he claims authorship.
I contacted Varghese and asked him directly the nature of his contribution to the book. He replied courteously and immediately, stating that "The Preface and one of the appendices are my contributions to the book-and they represent my views not that of Professor Antony Flew. The body of the book reflects the current views of Professor Flew.…My role was simply to present Flew's current views and to include those arguments and quotes from other thinkers that he found persuasive." This statement could cover a broad range of situations, including Mark Oppenheimer's portrait of an elderly and rather frail scholar trusting a persuasive younger acquaintance to present his views in a format that would appeal to a general audience. If Oppenheimer is correct, the project was carried out with little supervision by Flew, and the book incorporated a good deal of material with which the supposed author was not familiar.
The extent to which the published text reflects the philosopher's opinions is also at question. Over the past few years, as I learned from internet discussions, Flew has reported different opinions on the existence of a divine Creator. Varghese informed me that "the basic source for his change of mind was Conway's The Rediscovery of Wisdom". This book was published in 2000 by philosopher David Conway, who argues for a return to the "classical belief" that the world was created by a supreme God for the sole purpose of producing rational creatures. These creatures' intellects would lead them to become aware of His existence and they can then join their Creator in contemplating Him, an activity in which God is "perpetually and blissfully" engaged.
Flew does not seem to have been swayed by the idea of the Creator's need for blissful contemplation. In a 2001 review of the book in the journal Philosophy, Flew stated that he was particularly persuaded by the arguments that life cannot arise from non-living matter, and that life cannot then develop the capacity to reproduce itself without a form of divine guidance. The development of life from inert matter was the same point that was elucidated by Gerry Schroeder in terms of monkeys typing sonnets. The origin of life and of reproduction are items that can be discussed more knowledgeably and effectively by scientists than by philosophers. They relate to facts and theories involving such variables as the point in time when complex organic molecules began to be manufactured in the evolving universe, the process by which these molecules reached the early earth, the nature of past earth environments, and the statistical probabilities associated with various processes of organic chemistry and biochemistry. Most philosophers lack both the knowledge and training to assess scientific assertions on such matters. Like the rest of us, they probably accept what they are told by the most persuasive scientist whose work reaches their ears. Flew's commitment to atheism seems to have waxed and waned depending on which scientific acquaintance had most recently provided him with persuasive information.
His accounts of his own thinking appear to have varied depending on the venue in which they were made. In the presence and company of enthusiastic proponents of religion, he has disavowed atheism; in correspondence with scientifically trained colleagues he has reverted to his earlier views. An excellent running commentary on the vagaries of Flew's thinking is provided by Richard Carrier, an industrious American scholar who corresponded with the elderly philosopher on the subjects of science and theology (see http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369, http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html).
Even Verghese admits that Flew's "conversion" was not a simple matter. He explained to me that "When the announcement of [Flew's] change of mind was first made, he said that the scientific evidence was in favour of [a divine Creator]. Several correspondents then sent him material on abiogenesis (the study of the origins of life) and he then in all honesty said that there appear to be several scientific models for the origin of life without recourse to a Creator. Currently, he does not think these models work." That report was received a few weeks ago, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the situation has changed by now.
By this time I was willing to conclude that Antony Flew may simply have tired of his lifelong debate over the validity of religious belief, and no longer cared very much whether or not the universe had been created and set in motion by a divine Being. However it was apparent that this was as far as he wished to go in altering his point of view, and continued to dismiss any beliefs that postulated a personal God which interested itself in the doings of humankind. I was almost willing to forgive the chicanery involved in packaging and promoting the supposed thoughts of an elderly professor as an intellectual breakthrough. But the authors of "Flew's" book had a final surprise for their readers, and perhaps for the alleged author, in the form of a very incongruous appendix advertised as "a dialogue on Jesus."
The appendix is not a dialogue, but a sermon by the English Bishop N.T. Wright followed by a ten-line response from Antony Flew. The Bishop's arguments, propounded in a cheerfully thoughtful and condescending manner, are worth summarizing for the flavour of current theological evidence:
We know that Jesus existed historically because the idea that Jesus might be a fiction is so passé that "I think that question can be put to rest."
We know that Jesus was God incarnate because he is reported as acting as if he believed that he was, which would have been very unusual behaviour for a man of the time.
We know that Jesus was resurrected because Jews of the first century A.D. did not believe in immediate resurrection of the body, therefore they would not have thought of embellishing the Jesus story in this manner. Further proof is deduced from the fact that there are two mutually supporting stories preserved: the first relating to the discovery of the empty tomb, and the second telling of people meeting a living Jesus at some time after that discovery. Although each story on its own might have a natural explanation (tomb-robbers, dreams or visions), taken together they are convincing evidence of a true resurrection.
As a layman untrained in either philosophy or theology, I am neither persuaded nor impressed by the quality of this evidence, but Antony Flew apparently found it compelling. In his brief response he is reported as writing "I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time…. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful."
Surely this lifelong atheist, this debater of Christian champions for half a century, has long been familiar with these arguments. To use Bishop Wright's line of reasoning, it is hard to believe that this represents the well-considered opinion of Antony Flew, because we would expect that an eminent and mentally acute philosopher with Antony Flew's track record would not have written these lines. In fact, the addition of this bit of unpersuasive theological reasoning only mocks the gullibility of the reader. Even those of us who had given up on the book as the intellectual autobiography that we were led to expect, but who were willing to accept Varghese's assurance that his "role was simply to present Flew's current views," are now ashamed of our naiveté. The authors and promoters of this charade have revealed too clearly the lengths to which they will go to advance their own Christian beliefs. Or to make money from the Christian beliefs of others.
The parable of Babe Ruth makes it clear that the authors' of this book consider religion to be a team sport, in which a squad of muscular and competitive Christians skirmish with a ragtag horde of shallow, stubborn and godless sceptics. And in twenty-first century America the game is played by professional athletes, entrepreneurial propagandists whose rewards are derived from book and DVD sales, lecture tours and television appearances, or public debates sponsored by churches and private foundations. And as in any other professional sport, winning is just too lucrative to be sacrificed for trifling matters of honesty or truth. The unwary reader now joins with the elderly person writing a cheque at the behest of the television preacher, the invalid collapsing at the touch of the faith healer. We are here to be fleeced in the name of a loving and personal God.
The central table in the bookstore carried piles of titles by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other popular authors of the "new atheism". Booksellers have been impressed by the sales potential of this recent outbreak of books challenging or debunking religious views of the world. I have joined the horde of readers who occasionally purchase these books, attracted by the fresh vitality of secular thought in a society that seems increasingly enthralled by fundamentalist preachers and the politicians whom they instruct.
I was ready to buy a book by Daniel Dennett, but was distracted by a display of several volumes devoted to challenging the challengers. Thinking that I should get some exposure to the other side of the debate, I flipped through a few. All seemed to have been written by young smiling Americans, pastors or academics in the churches and colleges of evangelical Christianity. Their challenges consisted of rehearsals of the standard statements of biblical belief and intelligent design, neither interesting nor particularly convincing.
One book was different. Published last fall, its stark jacket bore the title There is No God modified with a scratchy pen to read There is A God. The subtitle promised to explain "How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind." No, Joseph Stalin didn't experience a deathbed conversion. The notorious atheist turned out to be Antony Flew, identified as "a renowned philosopher who was arguable the best-known atheist in the English-speaking world." Flew is an Oxford-trained scholar who has taught at Oxford, Aberdeen and Reading, as well as briefly at the University of Calgary and York University in Toronto. His photograph, lurking (for some reason upside down) behind the title, shows a distinguished and dynamic intellectual. Being a sucker for academic qualifications, and sensing that this author must at least know the best arguments that are currently in play, I bought his book.
Antony Flew deserves his credentials, and his reputation as a fluent debater of religious believers over the past half-century. He established his name with a short student essay titled "Theology and Falsification" which he presented in 1950 to a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club, then led by C.S. Lewis (the Narnia man). Stripped of its undergraduate pedantry, the essay simply asked theologians whether there was any imaginable thing or event that would convince them that God did not exist, or that would make them believe that God did not love mankind. If not, Flew pointed out, their assertion that there is a loving God can have no meaning. It was a tactic that he continued to use in several worthy books published over the latter half of the twentieth century.
The early portions of There is A God are written in the first person, a credible account of childhood in a Methodist parsonage, the sense of evil felt as an adolescent travelling in Hitler's Germany, the discovery of atheism and philosophy at Oxford, and a subsequent academic career. It is the sort of autobiographical sketch that an aging academic might be expected to write (in apparent contrast to his cover-photo, Flew was 84 at the time of publication). But the first paragraph of Chapter 3 suddenly strikes a very puzzling note. It presents a knowledgeable account, replete with names and motives, of the Boston Red Sox' 1919 sale of pitcher Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees. This is an appropriate introduction to the story of Flew's "switch to another team" after six decades of atheism, but is it the sort of parable that would spring to the mind of an English philosopher? The inkling that something is amiss is sustained by subsequent headings such as "Shootout at the Ok Corral" and "My New York Debut." The latter reports his "coming out" as a deist (one who believes that the universe was created by a deity, but that this being has no interests in the existence or behaviour of humans) during a 2004 symposium on scientific evidence supporting the existence of God.
Flew's account of his conversion is very strange. He explains that his change of view resulted from recent scientific evidence on the complexity of life and the statistical improbability of its having arisen from inert matter. Flew testifies "I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder's point by point refutation of what I call the 'monkey theorem'". Schroeder described an experiment (allegedly funded by the British National Council for the Arts) in which six monkeys were caged with a computer. At the end of a month they had typed fifty pages but no Shakespearean sonnets, nor even a single English word. Extrapolating to the universe, Schroeder claimed that if every particle of matter were equivalent to a monkey typing at millions of strokes a second, no sonnet would ever emerge. "After hearing Schroeder's presentation," Flew reports, "I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish….If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance."
Gerald Schroeder is an Israeli physicist who is very much at home with large numbers. His website (http://www.geraldschroeder.com) argues that the book of Genesis adequately describes the evolution of the universe from the initial Big Bang to historical times. For example, he reports that if you multiply the six days of Biblical creation by a certain number which he selects as appropriate (the ratio of the "temperature of quark confinement" in the very early universe to the temperature of the universe today), six days expands to15 billion years which is close to current estimates of the age of the universe. Critics have pointed out that Schroeder could equally well have used thousands of other numbers which would have expanded six days into radically different ages, and that in any case his calculations are wrong. Of all the individuals in this story who could be described as probable kooks, Schroeder best fits the picture. Yet we are asked to believe that this Biblical interpreter, arguing from an experiment (which as a taxpayer I fervently hope never took place) with monkeys and a particularly durable computer, convinced a serious and experienced scholar to renounce his work of a lifetime.
It was Gerald Schroeder who drove me to the internet in order to try to find out what was wrong with the book that I had purchased. There I discovered his calculations on the age of the universe as revealed in the Torah, as well as a unique interpretation of "intelligent design" evolution involving God stepping in to produce catastrophes in order to wipe out creatures such as dinosaurs, which were not evolving properly toward human form. I also found another name, Roy Abraham Verghese, an American writer and Christian entrepreneur who had recorded and sold DVD's of the Schroeder-Flew conversation including Flew's admission that Schroeder had convinced him of the existence of a Creator. Verghese had also written an appendix to There is A God, a virulent critique of the arguments of "the New Atheism."
Verghese's name led me to an apparent solution to the problem. Last fall the New York Times magazine commissioned Mark Oppenheimer, a journalist from Yale, to inquire into the same questions that had struck me. As reported in his lengthy article ("The Turning of an Atheist", New York Times Magazine, November 4, 2007) Oppenheimer read and interviewed widely among the scholars quoted in the book, and also travelled to Reading where he interviewed Antony Flew over two days. He was very disconcerted by what he found. Essentially the book had been ghostwritten by Verghese and an American evangelical pastor named Bob Hostetler. The elderly professor claimed to have had little or no knowledge of its contents, nor any acquaintance with the writings or opinions of several of the scholars quoted in the text.
Returning to the book, I now noticed for the first time that below the name Antony Flew was the phrase, printed in a small black font, "with Roy Abraham Varghese." This idiom is generally used by the ghostwriters who are hired to compose autobiographies of sports stars, entertainers, and other celebrities who shouldn't be trusted with a pen. Academics usually, although often mistakenly, feel themselves capable of writing their own biographies. Certainly the renowned philosopher whose vital middle-aged portrait illustrates the book jacket would not be associated with the need for a ghostwriter, so that even those who noticed Varghese's name would likely assume that he had contributed only the appendix to which he claims authorship.
I contacted Varghese and asked him directly the nature of his contribution to the book. He replied courteously and immediately, stating that "The Preface and one of the appendices are my contributions to the book-and they represent my views not that of Professor Antony Flew. The body of the book reflects the current views of Professor Flew.…My role was simply to present Flew's current views and to include those arguments and quotes from other thinkers that he found persuasive." This statement could cover a broad range of situations, including Mark Oppenheimer's portrait of an elderly and rather frail scholar trusting a persuasive younger acquaintance to present his views in a format that would appeal to a general audience. If Oppenheimer is correct, the project was carried out with little supervision by Flew, and the book incorporated a good deal of material with which the supposed author was not familiar.
The extent to which the published text reflects the philosopher's opinions is also at question. Over the past few years, as I learned from internet discussions, Flew has reported different opinions on the existence of a divine Creator. Varghese informed me that "the basic source for his change of mind was Conway's The Rediscovery of Wisdom". This book was published in 2000 by philosopher David Conway, who argues for a return to the "classical belief" that the world was created by a supreme God for the sole purpose of producing rational creatures. These creatures' intellects would lead them to become aware of His existence and they can then join their Creator in contemplating Him, an activity in which God is "perpetually and blissfully" engaged.
Flew does not seem to have been swayed by the idea of the Creator's need for blissful contemplation. In a 2001 review of the book in the journal Philosophy, Flew stated that he was particularly persuaded by the arguments that life cannot arise from non-living matter, and that life cannot then develop the capacity to reproduce itself without a form of divine guidance. The development of life from inert matter was the same point that was elucidated by Gerry Schroeder in terms of monkeys typing sonnets. The origin of life and of reproduction are items that can be discussed more knowledgeably and effectively by scientists than by philosophers. They relate to facts and theories involving such variables as the point in time when complex organic molecules began to be manufactured in the evolving universe, the process by which these molecules reached the early earth, the nature of past earth environments, and the statistical probabilities associated with various processes of organic chemistry and biochemistry. Most philosophers lack both the knowledge and training to assess scientific assertions on such matters. Like the rest of us, they probably accept what they are told by the most persuasive scientist whose work reaches their ears. Flew's commitment to atheism seems to have waxed and waned depending on which scientific acquaintance had most recently provided him with persuasive information.
His accounts of his own thinking appear to have varied depending on the venue in which they were made. In the presence and company of enthusiastic proponents of religion, he has disavowed atheism; in correspondence with scientifically trained colleagues he has reverted to his earlier views. An excellent running commentary on the vagaries of Flew's thinking is provided by Richard Carrier, an industrious American scholar who corresponded with the elderly philosopher on the subjects of science and theology (see http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369, http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html).
Even Verghese admits that Flew's "conversion" was not a simple matter. He explained to me that "When the announcement of [Flew's] change of mind was first made, he said that the scientific evidence was in favour of [a divine Creator]. Several correspondents then sent him material on abiogenesis (the study of the origins of life) and he then in all honesty said that there appear to be several scientific models for the origin of life without recourse to a Creator. Currently, he does not think these models work." That report was received a few weeks ago, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the situation has changed by now.
By this time I was willing to conclude that Antony Flew may simply have tired of his lifelong debate over the validity of religious belief, and no longer cared very much whether or not the universe had been created and set in motion by a divine Being. However it was apparent that this was as far as he wished to go in altering his point of view, and continued to dismiss any beliefs that postulated a personal God which interested itself in the doings of humankind. I was almost willing to forgive the chicanery involved in packaging and promoting the supposed thoughts of an elderly professor as an intellectual breakthrough. But the authors of "Flew's" book had a final surprise for their readers, and perhaps for the alleged author, in the form of a very incongruous appendix advertised as "a dialogue on Jesus."
The appendix is not a dialogue, but a sermon by the English Bishop N.T. Wright followed by a ten-line response from Antony Flew. The Bishop's arguments, propounded in a cheerfully thoughtful and condescending manner, are worth summarizing for the flavour of current theological evidence:
We know that Jesus existed historically because the idea that Jesus might be a fiction is so passé that "I think that question can be put to rest."
We know that Jesus was God incarnate because he is reported as acting as if he believed that he was, which would have been very unusual behaviour for a man of the time.
We know that Jesus was resurrected because Jews of the first century A.D. did not believe in immediate resurrection of the body, therefore they would not have thought of embellishing the Jesus story in this manner. Further proof is deduced from the fact that there are two mutually supporting stories preserved: the first relating to the discovery of the empty tomb, and the second telling of people meeting a living Jesus at some time after that discovery. Although each story on its own might have a natural explanation (tomb-robbers, dreams or visions), taken together they are convincing evidence of a true resurrection.
As a layman untrained in either philosophy or theology, I am neither persuaded nor impressed by the quality of this evidence, but Antony Flew apparently found it compelling. In his brief response he is reported as writing "I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time…. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful."
Surely this lifelong atheist, this debater of Christian champions for half a century, has long been familiar with these arguments. To use Bishop Wright's line of reasoning, it is hard to believe that this represents the well-considered opinion of Antony Flew, because we would expect that an eminent and mentally acute philosopher with Antony Flew's track record would not have written these lines. In fact, the addition of this bit of unpersuasive theological reasoning only mocks the gullibility of the reader. Even those of us who had given up on the book as the intellectual autobiography that we were led to expect, but who were willing to accept Varghese's assurance that his "role was simply to present Flew's current views," are now ashamed of our naiveté. The authors and promoters of this charade have revealed too clearly the lengths to which they will go to advance their own Christian beliefs. Or to make money from the Christian beliefs of others.
The parable of Babe Ruth makes it clear that the authors' of this book consider religion to be a team sport, in which a squad of muscular and competitive Christians skirmish with a ragtag horde of shallow, stubborn and godless sceptics. And in twenty-first century America the game is played by professional athletes, entrepreneurial propagandists whose rewards are derived from book and DVD sales, lecture tours and television appearances, or public debates sponsored by churches and private foundations. And as in any other professional sport, winning is just too lucrative to be sacrificed for trifling matters of honesty or truth. The unwary reader now joins with the elderly person writing a cheque at the behest of the television preacher, the invalid collapsing at the touch of the faith healer. We are here to be fleeced in the name of a loving and personal God.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Tragedy of Don Carlos Cadman
Evidence appearing throughout the spring of 2008 has made it increasingly clear that the Conservative party and its then leader, now Prime Minister, acted illegally in attempting to purchase the crucial vote of the respected and dying Independent MP Chuck Cadman. In order to smother these insistent allegations, Prime Minister Harper and his obedient minions have resorted to frivolous lawsuits and threats of legal action against those who publicly comment on "The Cadman Affair".
The entire affair has a tragic quality that demands a Shakespearean treatment. The Tragedy of Don Carlos was originally published in The Metaball April 2008 (http://www.metaball.ca/2008/ball_Apr-08/0408_c01.html)
A play in three or more acts, depicting the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of a beloved politician.
Characters in order or appearance:
Señor Harpo: Politician, leader of the opposition party in the island nation of Canadeo
Dr. Tom: American academic, chief mentor and architect of Señor Harpo's career
Dugaldo: Top official of the opposition party.
Don Carlos: Dying politician, once a member of the opposition party but now exiled.
Doña Dona: Wife of Don Carlos
Zitarro: Reporter and biographer of Don Carlos
Act I Scene 1: The office of Señor Harpo, who muses while gazing through the window at the towers of the Capital.
Harpo: How many months now have I tried
to teach this nation what it needs.
The glory of the market drive
o'er rule of law and soft security,
And now to be so close, lacking but one vote
to implement my plans and put to flight
the sweaty hordes of dark liberalism's slaves.
But how to bring about this triumph deft
Is difficult to see, my brain's bereft.
There is a knock and Dr. Tom enters.
Tom: Why look so glum young fella mine?
We're going to win the day, you know.
Did not I raise you from a pup
to look the future direct in the eye,
and take what can be wrested from those dupes
who're brought to heel with dreams
of self-importance grand? Your triumph is but hours away.
Harpo: And yet I need one vote.
Tom: T'is not a problem son. They taught me well back home
of human weakness and the rule of cash
when deftly offered, a thing of wondrous power
toRepublicans and Christians both.
I know of one,Carlos by name, once one of ours
but exiled for his independent thought,
reputed honest, yet whom chance hath made
quite possibly our friend.
Harpo: I know of him. He's lost to us.
Tom: Not so fast young Harp. The man is ill and
death approaches quick, his thoughts turn to his wife
who is bereft if this vote falls our way.
My own good nature tells me that he votes
for pension only, and if we do make up
the difference, he surely will belong to us.
Harpo: Your strategy gives sudden hope,
t'is illegal but far too good to miss.
And so I would that you go soft and not
betray my interest in this wondrous plan.
Tom: Have courage son, no man will e'er discover
our charitable work, nor connection vile
will make with you, Dear Leader.
I'll take with me Dugaldo and tempt the man
with sureties that can't help but him beguile.
Tom leaves the office. Harpo gazes out window.
Harpo: It seems somehow too shabby a design
to bring such turmoil to the mind of one
who stares death in the face, and must
now balance honour with the welfare of beloved spouse.
And yet, if we win through, this island will be mine
A nation grand will I construct, on plans entirely new.
No more coddling of the poor, no Nanny State,
the blind and lame will find their nat'ral place,
the market will ensure that goal. And a grand space
for players we shall build, where players win and
all but players lose. My poor eyes weep with joy
at thoughts of imminent success, and of my place as Leader dear,
a man of certain honesty and habits pure.
I ask my God to help me in my task,
so to ensure my steadfast purpose he will cause
a cherished citizen to die
if ever I am found to tell a lie.
Act I Scene 2: Later the same day in the office of Don Carlos, a much shabbier room with no view. Don Carlos talks on the phone.
Carlos: I'm fine dear, thanks, yeah I'm ok,
the trip was long and I miss home already.
I can't talk long, some bozo friends of Harpo
Have called me for a meeting, Wonder why? Haha.
Take care, I'll call after the vote. (Hangs up phone)
I hope they don't take long, time suddenly
means more to me. When death stalks closer with each day
I've less concern for occupation and career.
Pain and weariness of limb
bring fuller heart and clarity of mind.
It is a life of which I have been proud,
made wild music, danced and ventured far,
loved and married for it,
turned stark tragedy to public good,
gained honour for integrity,
what more could I have asked?
And now to bring it to an end with honour,
serve my constituents wants, retire to family
and meet death face to face is all I ask.
Door opens. Enter Dr. Tom and Dugaldo.
Tom: Hi Carl, long time no see. Dugaldo's here.
our money man. Tell us if we intrude,
I'm sure you're busy, thinking of constituents
and all.
Carlos: No, no, come on in, welcome both
What's on your mind so sudden? It's been years
since last I saw you in my humble room.
Tom: To tell the truth, our Leader asked
about you Carl, he heard about your illness and
he pondered if t'was time to offer his concern
and welcome you back home into the party.
He tells us that we can ensure you'll be
our candidate on the election day, or if you
wish to stay apart, may run un'pposed by us.
Carlos: That's generous I'm sure, but not of use
to me. I plan no future part in parliament's affairs,
but from my home will watch with interest
the vainly striving world.
Tom: But wait, there's more.
Dugaldo here has crunched the numbers fine
and notes that if the government does fall
then you, no longer in employ, will stand
to lose large benefits upon your death
which would be paid by your insurance firm
if you did die in office.
Carlos: And so what?
Dugaldo: We do not say that thoughts of benefit
would sway your stand in th'afternoon's close vote,
and yet suspicion might be noised about
with harm to reputation and regard.
But if you were to stand with us, old friend,
your honourable nature would show well
and on our part, compassion holding dear,
we could remove all fear of loss and thus
free your mind of family's distress.
Carlos: Let's cut the bullshit boys. How much?
Tom: Do not be crude my friend,
such matters require elegance of touch.
No sum is offered and no sum gained,
we just explore requirements and express
our sympathetic need to provide help.
Dugaldo: I see discrepancy between
your family's requirements and their funds,
an estimate, I must confess, would run
a million Yankee dollars, more or less.
Carlos: Now I have a measure of my worth,
I need no longer take your valued time
Your sympathy for my family I note
and you will have my answer at the vote.
Exit Dr. Tom and Dugaldo. Don Carlos slumps in his chair.
Carlos: Oh what a shallow fool I've been,
pretending to myself that I
would make last stand for principle,
the will of my constituents reflect.
and be remembered for integrity.
And now I see how enemies may twist
my stance to one of low self-interest,
betray those who in me put their trust
for love of those who surely trust me more,
my own sweet wife and child whom I would guard
from penniless abandonment. How can
a man face death with conscience clear
when love and duty so conflict with fear?
Don Carlos closes his eyes.
Act I scene 3: Later in the same day, in the legislative chamber. Don Carlos takes his seat in the back row, stage left. The Speaker rises from his chair.
Speaker: Gentles and Ladies, be quiet and take note
the time has come to call the fateful vote.
Clerk: (reading roll of names)Señor Bocardi..Señor Jacko..Don Martini..Don Carlos..
Don Carlos stands painfully but straight as pandemonium erupts. The Government will not fall.Señor Harpo sits alone stage right
Harpo: (aside) God curse the honest little shite
Hard may he now feel the black crab's bite.
Act II scene 1: Several months later, after Don Carlos' death. The home of Doña Dona in a distant city.
Doña Dona: (stands at window)I wonder what that little man now wants
From me? He has his distance kept since our
dear Carlos did defy his wishes and deprive
him from the power to rule this land.
I don't complain, I find I can't forgive
the offer that did so conflict my dearest's mind
and cause such turmoil in the weeks before
his tragic death. But here he is, I must
disguise my loathing and pretend…
Harpo: (entering) Hello!What a lovely home! I do see everywhere
the tokens and momentos of my dear friend Carlos,
now so sadly missed by all his colleagues true.
His name still does redound
among constituents and friends, and so
dear Dona (if I may) my party wish to honour memory
by offering to you the candidacy in his riding, so once more
a name so bound with honour and integrity
shall represent the people of this land.
Dona: I am, to say the least, surprised. I'd thought
that you and Carlos were at odds o'er politics
and even life itself, how honour is defined
and place of principles in conduct of one's life.
I must confess my feelings of distress
relating to your party and yourself
are strong, and rise from offer that was made
to Carlos e'er expected death, and which did cause
such turmoil in his mind that did destroy his ease
and that of family in weeks that should have been
a celebration of a life well lived.
Now tell me true, was't you who set upon
my Carlos dear those minions of dishonour?
Harpo: Not me, I knew nothing of this. Come look
into my eyes, what do you see?
Dona: Nothing.I see a blank, as twe're the eye of some great fish.
Harpo: Do you see a lie?
Dona: Fish tell no lies.
Harpo: Well then there is no lie to see.
Of any offer to Don Carlos I knew nought.
The room fills with flashing light, the sound of a dying siren and slamming of truck doors. Harpo goes to the window and looks out.
Harpo: Just another junkie overdose
Who'er it is tis no concern to us.
And now I go to stand for my election
I hope that you will ponder on my words
And read in them a happier reflection.
Harpo leaves the room as Doña Dona sinks into a chair.
Act II scene 2: Immediately after, on the driveway outside Doña Dona's house where Zitarro waits for Señor Harpo with tape recorder in outstretched hand.
Zitarro: A payment of a million dollars
offered in exchange for Carlos' vote.
Do youknow anything of that?
Harpo: Not much. Is this for publication may I ask?
Zitarro: Not for the paper. This is for the book.
Harpo: I know no details, just that I assumed
that Carlos had by then made up his mind.
But they saw finance pressing on the man.
I told them not to go, I said that will not change…
Sound of screeching tires, a thump, a female shriek and a body hitting pavement. Harpo looks around.
Harpo: Just another careless hookerN
ow the police won't have to book her.
Zitarro: That's two deaths in twenty minutes, and
such a quiet neighborhood it looks
Harpo: I've noticed in past weeks how death rates seem
to climb whenever I'm around.
Zitarro: You said before, I do believe,
that offer may have been only made by Carlos' friends?
Harpo: No, no, they were legitimate, our party's representatives.
I said don't press him, make the case,
the offer to Don Carlos was just to replace
financial benefits he might have lost
due to election.
Zitarro: Oh, ok. Well, thank you very much. Harpo gets into his car and drives away.
Act III scene 1: Two years later, after Señor Harpo has been elected Presidente Harpo. The legislative chamber from Act I, but Presidente Harpo is now stage left. He rises to address the legislature.
Harpo: Mr. Speaker,I rise today
to speak the truth of allegations vile
and monstrous. It's claimed that I
did at some time past
conspire to buy the vote of one Carlos,
an act contemptible and rightly judged illegal.
I now declare that I knew nothing of such work…
As Harpo continues to speak, a member behind him reaches for a buzzing Blackberry and quickly scans the message. Her face goes ashen, she rises and stumbles from the chamber with tears streaming from her face.
Harpo: And if perchance rogue elements did try
to sway a crucial vote with favour proffered,
I can assure you that such favour was
within the bounds of parliamentary norms,
the offer of a riding unopposed,
the sort of things my enemies know well
from their own actions vile.
No finance was on offer from our side…
As Harpo continues, a member behind him clutches at his chest. His face goes ashen and he slumps forward to his desk.
Harpo: And now that I have cleared that up, let's get
to work remodelling our nation. But
there's one more thing to keep in mind:
Mention this and I will sue you blind.
Act IV: (Currently in process, awaiting factual inspiration) In which Dugaldo and Dr. Tom trail through various legal and quasi-legal venues; the head of the Milicia Federale ponders his duty to his country and himself; and Presidente Harpo continues to silently depopulate his nation.
- Robert McGhee
The entire affair has a tragic quality that demands a Shakespearean treatment. The Tragedy of Don Carlos was originally published in The Metaball April 2008 (http://www.metaball.ca/2008/ball_Apr-08/0408_c01.html)
A play in three or more acts, depicting the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of a beloved politician.
Characters in order or appearance:
Señor Harpo: Politician, leader of the opposition party in the island nation of Canadeo
Dr. Tom: American academic, chief mentor and architect of Señor Harpo's career
Dugaldo: Top official of the opposition party.
Don Carlos: Dying politician, once a member of the opposition party but now exiled.
Doña Dona: Wife of Don Carlos
Zitarro: Reporter and biographer of Don Carlos
Act I Scene 1: The office of Señor Harpo, who muses while gazing through the window at the towers of the Capital.
Harpo: How many months now have I tried
to teach this nation what it needs.
The glory of the market drive
o'er rule of law and soft security,
And now to be so close, lacking but one vote
to implement my plans and put to flight
the sweaty hordes of dark liberalism's slaves.
But how to bring about this triumph deft
Is difficult to see, my brain's bereft.
There is a knock and Dr. Tom enters.
Tom: Why look so glum young fella mine?
We're going to win the day, you know.
Did not I raise you from a pup
to look the future direct in the eye,
and take what can be wrested from those dupes
who're brought to heel with dreams
of self-importance grand? Your triumph is but hours away.
Harpo: And yet I need one vote.
Tom: T'is not a problem son. They taught me well back home
of human weakness and the rule of cash
when deftly offered, a thing of wondrous power
toRepublicans and Christians both.
I know of one,Carlos by name, once one of ours
but exiled for his independent thought,
reputed honest, yet whom chance hath made
quite possibly our friend.
Harpo: I know of him. He's lost to us.
Tom: Not so fast young Harp. The man is ill and
death approaches quick, his thoughts turn to his wife
who is bereft if this vote falls our way.
My own good nature tells me that he votes
for pension only, and if we do make up
the difference, he surely will belong to us.
Harpo: Your strategy gives sudden hope,
t'is illegal but far too good to miss.
And so I would that you go soft and not
betray my interest in this wondrous plan.
Tom: Have courage son, no man will e'er discover
our charitable work, nor connection vile
will make with you, Dear Leader.
I'll take with me Dugaldo and tempt the man
with sureties that can't help but him beguile.
Tom leaves the office. Harpo gazes out window.
Harpo: It seems somehow too shabby a design
to bring such turmoil to the mind of one
who stares death in the face, and must
now balance honour with the welfare of beloved spouse.
And yet, if we win through, this island will be mine
A nation grand will I construct, on plans entirely new.
No more coddling of the poor, no Nanny State,
the blind and lame will find their nat'ral place,
the market will ensure that goal. And a grand space
for players we shall build, where players win and
all but players lose. My poor eyes weep with joy
at thoughts of imminent success, and of my place as Leader dear,
a man of certain honesty and habits pure.
I ask my God to help me in my task,
so to ensure my steadfast purpose he will cause
a cherished citizen to die
if ever I am found to tell a lie.
Act I Scene 2: Later the same day in the office of Don Carlos, a much shabbier room with no view. Don Carlos talks on the phone.
Carlos: I'm fine dear, thanks, yeah I'm ok,
the trip was long and I miss home already.
I can't talk long, some bozo friends of Harpo
Have called me for a meeting, Wonder why? Haha.
Take care, I'll call after the vote. (Hangs up phone)
I hope they don't take long, time suddenly
means more to me. When death stalks closer with each day
I've less concern for occupation and career.
Pain and weariness of limb
bring fuller heart and clarity of mind.
It is a life of which I have been proud,
made wild music, danced and ventured far,
loved and married for it,
turned stark tragedy to public good,
gained honour for integrity,
what more could I have asked?
And now to bring it to an end with honour,
serve my constituents wants, retire to family
and meet death face to face is all I ask.
Door opens. Enter Dr. Tom and Dugaldo.
Tom: Hi Carl, long time no see. Dugaldo's here.
our money man. Tell us if we intrude,
I'm sure you're busy, thinking of constituents
and all.
Carlos: No, no, come on in, welcome both
What's on your mind so sudden? It's been years
since last I saw you in my humble room.
Tom: To tell the truth, our Leader asked
about you Carl, he heard about your illness and
he pondered if t'was time to offer his concern
and welcome you back home into the party.
He tells us that we can ensure you'll be
our candidate on the election day, or if you
wish to stay apart, may run un'pposed by us.
Carlos: That's generous I'm sure, but not of use
to me. I plan no future part in parliament's affairs,
but from my home will watch with interest
the vainly striving world.
Tom: But wait, there's more.
Dugaldo here has crunched the numbers fine
and notes that if the government does fall
then you, no longer in employ, will stand
to lose large benefits upon your death
which would be paid by your insurance firm
if you did die in office.
Carlos: And so what?
Dugaldo: We do not say that thoughts of benefit
would sway your stand in th'afternoon's close vote,
and yet suspicion might be noised about
with harm to reputation and regard.
But if you were to stand with us, old friend,
your honourable nature would show well
and on our part, compassion holding dear,
we could remove all fear of loss and thus
free your mind of family's distress.
Carlos: Let's cut the bullshit boys. How much?
Tom: Do not be crude my friend,
such matters require elegance of touch.
No sum is offered and no sum gained,
we just explore requirements and express
our sympathetic need to provide help.
Dugaldo: I see discrepancy between
your family's requirements and their funds,
an estimate, I must confess, would run
a million Yankee dollars, more or less.
Carlos: Now I have a measure of my worth,
I need no longer take your valued time
Your sympathy for my family I note
and you will have my answer at the vote.
Exit Dr. Tom and Dugaldo. Don Carlos slumps in his chair.
Carlos: Oh what a shallow fool I've been,
pretending to myself that I
would make last stand for principle,
the will of my constituents reflect.
and be remembered for integrity.
And now I see how enemies may twist
my stance to one of low self-interest,
betray those who in me put their trust
for love of those who surely trust me more,
my own sweet wife and child whom I would guard
from penniless abandonment. How can
a man face death with conscience clear
when love and duty so conflict with fear?
Don Carlos closes his eyes.
Act I scene 3: Later in the same day, in the legislative chamber. Don Carlos takes his seat in the back row, stage left. The Speaker rises from his chair.
Speaker: Gentles and Ladies, be quiet and take note
the time has come to call the fateful vote.
Clerk: (reading roll of names)Señor Bocardi..Señor Jacko..Don Martini..Don Carlos..
Don Carlos stands painfully but straight as pandemonium erupts. The Government will not fall.Señor Harpo sits alone stage right
Harpo: (aside) God curse the honest little shite
Hard may he now feel the black crab's bite.
Act II scene 1: Several months later, after Don Carlos' death. The home of Doña Dona in a distant city.
Doña Dona: (stands at window)I wonder what that little man now wants
From me? He has his distance kept since our
dear Carlos did defy his wishes and deprive
him from the power to rule this land.
I don't complain, I find I can't forgive
the offer that did so conflict my dearest's mind
and cause such turmoil in the weeks before
his tragic death. But here he is, I must
disguise my loathing and pretend…
Harpo: (entering) Hello!What a lovely home! I do see everywhere
the tokens and momentos of my dear friend Carlos,
now so sadly missed by all his colleagues true.
His name still does redound
among constituents and friends, and so
dear Dona (if I may) my party wish to honour memory
by offering to you the candidacy in his riding, so once more
a name so bound with honour and integrity
shall represent the people of this land.
Dona: I am, to say the least, surprised. I'd thought
that you and Carlos were at odds o'er politics
and even life itself, how honour is defined
and place of principles in conduct of one's life.
I must confess my feelings of distress
relating to your party and yourself
are strong, and rise from offer that was made
to Carlos e'er expected death, and which did cause
such turmoil in his mind that did destroy his ease
and that of family in weeks that should have been
a celebration of a life well lived.
Now tell me true, was't you who set upon
my Carlos dear those minions of dishonour?
Harpo: Not me, I knew nothing of this. Come look
into my eyes, what do you see?
Dona: Nothing.I see a blank, as twe're the eye of some great fish.
Harpo: Do you see a lie?
Dona: Fish tell no lies.
Harpo: Well then there is no lie to see.
Of any offer to Don Carlos I knew nought.
The room fills with flashing light, the sound of a dying siren and slamming of truck doors. Harpo goes to the window and looks out.
Harpo: Just another junkie overdose
Who'er it is tis no concern to us.
And now I go to stand for my election
I hope that you will ponder on my words
And read in them a happier reflection.
Harpo leaves the room as Doña Dona sinks into a chair.
Act II scene 2: Immediately after, on the driveway outside Doña Dona's house where Zitarro waits for Señor Harpo with tape recorder in outstretched hand.
Zitarro: A payment of a million dollars
offered in exchange for Carlos' vote.
Do youknow anything of that?
Harpo: Not much. Is this for publication may I ask?
Zitarro: Not for the paper. This is for the book.
Harpo: I know no details, just that I assumed
that Carlos had by then made up his mind.
But they saw finance pressing on the man.
I told them not to go, I said that will not change…
Sound of screeching tires, a thump, a female shriek and a body hitting pavement. Harpo looks around.
Harpo: Just another careless hookerN
ow the police won't have to book her.
Zitarro: That's two deaths in twenty minutes, and
such a quiet neighborhood it looks
Harpo: I've noticed in past weeks how death rates seem
to climb whenever I'm around.
Zitarro: You said before, I do believe,
that offer may have been only made by Carlos' friends?
Harpo: No, no, they were legitimate, our party's representatives.
I said don't press him, make the case,
the offer to Don Carlos was just to replace
financial benefits he might have lost
due to election.
Zitarro: Oh, ok. Well, thank you very much. Harpo gets into his car and drives away.
Act III scene 1: Two years later, after Señor Harpo has been elected Presidente Harpo. The legislative chamber from Act I, but Presidente Harpo is now stage left. He rises to address the legislature.
Harpo: Mr. Speaker,I rise today
to speak the truth of allegations vile
and monstrous. It's claimed that I
did at some time past
conspire to buy the vote of one Carlos,
an act contemptible and rightly judged illegal.
I now declare that I knew nothing of such work…
As Harpo continues to speak, a member behind him reaches for a buzzing Blackberry and quickly scans the message. Her face goes ashen, she rises and stumbles from the chamber with tears streaming from her face.
Harpo: And if perchance rogue elements did try
to sway a crucial vote with favour proffered,
I can assure you that such favour was
within the bounds of parliamentary norms,
the offer of a riding unopposed,
the sort of things my enemies know well
from their own actions vile.
No finance was on offer from our side…
As Harpo continues, a member behind him clutches at his chest. His face goes ashen and he slumps forward to his desk.
Harpo: And now that I have cleared that up, let's get
to work remodelling our nation. But
there's one more thing to keep in mind:
Mention this and I will sue you blind.
Act IV: (Currently in process, awaiting factual inspiration) In which Dugaldo and Dr. Tom trail through various legal and quasi-legal venues; the head of the Milicia Federale ponders his duty to his country and himself; and Presidente Harpo continues to silently depopulate his nation.
- Robert McGhee
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Canadian Government Votes to Withdraw Troops from Afghanistan
Ottawa, April 1. After months of increasingly acrimonious debate, the Canadian parliament voted today on the future of Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan. The vote was to be on an extension of the current engagement until 2011, but in a surprise move the government introduced a bill calling for the immediate withdrawal of all armed forces. With opposition parties either voting with the government or abstaining, an overwhelming majority of members voted in favour of an unphased immediate withdrawal. The Minister of Defence stated that "The futility of prolonging this costly exercise in aiding the warlords and druglords of Kandahar Province in their fight against fundamentalist religious fanatics has finally dawned on us." The Prime Minister noted that he hoped that Canada's leadership will be followed by that of other allied governments. He added that Canada's commitment to supporting the people of Afghanistan remains as strong as ever, and that the funds that would have been expended in continuing the military engagement will be invested in development projects after the Afghanis have sorted out among themselves all issues regarding governance of the nation.In a subsequent statement, the Prime Minister noted that all surplus weapons and equipment has been donated to the Afghan National Army. He also reported that a decision has been taken to provide landed immigrant status and resettling assistance for the families of up to 500 Afghani nationals who have worked as translators or have otherwise provided assistance to Canadian forces, and who wish to immigrate to Canada. These families will travel to Canada with the returning soldiers, in an airlift that is expected to be underway by the end of the week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
