What do you believe is his thesis statement?

Grim · Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:48 am

Yes, and to make a correction while further clarify my position he was saying freedom=consumption (good or bad), which is what you wanted him to say, freedom=morals(good or bad meaning no freedom) is the view you support, American freedom is fact and something I am going to prove.

When you take two concept ideas (democracy + freedom very close ideologically) and say that each is different from a moral or pattern (corporation + consumption very close anyway) are you not creating categories that create a equitable relationship? With no freedom there would be no American consumption, and with no democracy no American corporations.

Freedom and democracy should go together, they are supposed to, neither may function properly right now but here that is really besides the point, together they should work. The point is that to say that a problem in American is poor consumer moral judgment, you are really saying that freedom and democracy is such because that's what America became as a free and democratic state. Even so fact would still remains that (and this is what I take from your argument) you think that in America freedom+democracy= poor consumer morality + consumption. To argue against freedom would be then to make the equation inequitable.

The design of corporate efficiency in America is to maximize popular freedom to enjoy the product. Corporations feed on freedom, this is why democracy and capitalism is currently so inseparable (apart from the need for sector regulation).

I imagine that the idea of freedom can survive even if it is not shared, if the non-free had no freedom they would have no ability to improve their execution of will. Hard to argue against woman's rights (thankfully). In the most basic sense I would guess that anything above your fulfillment of your basic needs would become a certain freedom from a life of survival.

GentleReader9 · Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:20 am

Grim said:


	Quote: Yes, and to make a correction while further clarify my position he was saying freedom=consumption (good or bad), which is what you wanted him to say, freedom=morals(good or bad meaning no freedom) is the view you support, American freedom is fact and something I am going to prove.

Good morning Grim. You make three assertions above and then a resolution or rhetorical promise about where you will go from here.

I'm glad to see your first assertion, reflecting that we agree on at least part of what Bacevich is saying, although it isn't so much that I want him to say it; I'd rather he said something I like better. It is what I thought he said, though.

Second, I've never been comfortable with the way you restate my position (second assertion). Freedom isn't morals, exactly. I would call freedom an abstraction of the capacity to act without impediment to the fullest possible expression of one's nature. When we interact among others we need to negotiate a boundary line where my freedom to act intersects with yours -- what will we do when these interests conflict? What rules will we make about it so we don't have to just kill each other to get our way? We could have a moral answer, an economic answer, or a political answer, but whichever kind we have, I want us to be clear about which kind it is and what sacrifices, responsibilities and facts of existence it entails, for whom, why, when we choose to answer in those terms. Democracy is a system that negotiaties political freedoms between members in an electorate or collective by vote or by consensus, depending on how pure it is. Capitalism is an economic organizational structure that functions on the principles of competition for maximum profit and (hopefully enlightened) self-interest. Each of these implies a different morality. The former is essentially cooperative and seeks to be just; the latter, is underpinned by a rationalist belief that the best in us emerges when we compete rather than cooperating. I don't believe this last principle of capitalism is entirely true. This is partly a moral disagreement, but it is also a genuinely pragmatic disagreement about what functions best when we act reasonably and intelligently together. If you look at game theory, you can see that a whole group acting cooperatively can do better than a group where too many people act in self-interest. The only way for an individual to do better than cooperating is for a very small minority to betray and cheat the group; i.e., to do better at the expense of the group. This is what happens in U.S. democracy/capitalism today, insofar as I can understand it. I think we can all do better by some of us not being such pigs. I would rather get as close as possible to genuine consesus. I know how hard that is with ten to thirty people, so I settle for our much less pure system of voting in this country. I want to push it further toward consensus building, honoring the ideas of every piece of the puzzle and away from manipulation, exploitation, subterfuge -- cheating the group and oneself of what we could be if we were honest. People will tell me that can't work. Eh! This doesn't either.

Your last thing, you don't need to struggle to prove by me. I think we're certainly free enough to bear some responsibility for what our country does in the world. I think people do choose addiction and greed as long as they can before it stops working. It's about to stop working for the U.S., which what I think Bacevich's thesis is about. I agree. But I may disagree about why it isn't working, what we will have to give up and what our responsibility in it is as citizens as opposed to corporate entities.

Dissident Heart · Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:57 pm

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or the "Jeffersonian Trinity" as Bacevich describes the American mission statement...was coined in the context of revolution: armed revolt against an unwelcome and illegitimate force of political and economic oppression. These "inalienable rights" were not, as far as Jefferson was concerned, crafted out of social contracts or political discourse: no, they were "endowed by our Creator"...thus showing his (Jefferson) penchant for a kind of liberation theology...or at least a Deity who showed a preferrential treatment for those seeking freedom from under the boot of coercive tyranny.

It seems to me freedom, in this context, is not a general notion floating in abstract thought: but a clear designation of legitimate power in political, economic and social contexts...with a theological foundation.

DWill · Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:09 pm

GentleReader9 wrote:


	Quote: I can already see where I am probably going to take issue with Bacevich. Like many people in the U.S., Bacevich in the above passage seems to confuse freedom with consumerism or democracy with capitalism. Freedom, democracy, civil rights have not caused us to dominate the globe. ...I feel I should admit that I was aware when reading his contention that the rights of women and "minorities" were only funded as a result of our global militarism that my father (an Indian immigrant) worked for a defense contractor for thirty years...

I thought the underlined word in the Bacevich quotation should be heedless freedom. I don't think he is confusing freedom with consumerism, but rather he's saying that we have. He's telling us that the spin we put on freedom is in the sense of license to do and have whatever we please.

But I'm glad you brought up his "contention that the rights of women and 'minorities'" were dependent on abundance, and that this abundance depended on our military dominance in the world. I haven't found much to question in Bacevich in terms of logic or hidden agenda, but you are right to bring this to attention. I cannot see the basis for this supposed unholy alliance of civil rights and the military-industrial complex. If his point is that only a prosperous nation will be able forge ahead with extending freedoms more equitably, that is perhaps true, but I'm uncomfortable with the implication that greater freedoms represent something gone wrong. If we never made the mistake of trying to rule the world, we wouldn't have had to have to be bothered with all these rights issues? Explain, Mr. Bacevich.

GentleReader9 · Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:34 pm

Dissident Heart,

I am so grateful to have someone else put in a new two cents, especially someone who writes as engagingly as you do, always a pleasure to read.

Dissident Heart wrote:


	Quote: These "inalienable rights" were not, as far as Jefferson was concerned, crafted out of social contracts or political discourse: no, they were "endowed by our Creator"...thus showing his (Jefferson) penchant for a kind of liberation theology...or at least a Deity who showed a preferrential treatment for those seeking freedom from under the boot of coercive tyranny.

Interesting re-contextualization, to characterize Jefferson as a liberation theologist. I've never read a history of liberation theology, but I thought it was newer than that. Perhaps some of the ideas of the American Enlightenment inform or contribute to contemporary U.S. understanding of liberation theology? What other texts, liberation theologians or evidence would you put beside Jefferson to show the commonalities and what their cross-textual relationships are? I'll bet you could write a brilliant comparative essay exploring the relationships between Jefferson and the liberation theologians. And then tell me why we need to relate that to Bacevich. I'd like to read it.

I've always heard Jefferson was a Deist, not actually so religious and certainly not devout or observant, but this is total hearsay from probably biased sources. Again, a secondary source or two are likely in order. Does anyone know any? Or for that matter any writings on the relationship between Rousseau's writing on the social contract and Jefferson's, Thomas Paine's or other "founding fathers'" concepts of liberty? I think there is some notion of consent by the governed and the limit of tyranny, which implies the belief in a social contract, in Jefferson's writing. People have multiple influences.


	Quote: It seems to me freedom, in this context, is not a general notion floating in abstract thought: but a clear designation of legitimate power in political, economic and social contexts...with a theological foundation.

Well, by saying "freedom is an abstraction of the capacity to act without impediment to the fullest expression of one's nature" I was obviously not defining what I thought Jefferson meant by liberty; I was trying to create a discursive bridge from the way Grim was thinking and talking about freedom to the way I think and talk about freedom so that we could discuss Bacevich without absolutely driving each other insane what with meaning different things by the same words. Check out the exchange even briefly and extend me some Christian compassion, Dissident Heart.

In order to talk to you about it, I am going to have to look back at the text to see how Jefferson comes into it and what might be at stake for you in this discussion, read further and get back to you. In the meantime, tell me more about how you read Bacevich.

Dissident Heart · Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:04 am

Gentle Reader: Interesting re-contextualization, to characterize Jefferson as a liberation theologist. I've never read a history of liberation theology, but I thought it was newer than that.

The liberation theologian will argue that they are presenting what is most ancient, and lasting, about God's demand for justice and promise for freedom: placed in contemporary context, given a present urgency, and infused within the actual struggles of real people fighting existing opression and tyranny...so it is new, and it is old, it is timeless, it is eternal.

Jefferson tapped into this ancient coordinate when culling the forces made possible by a Creator who wills something quite wondrous and seemingly impossible for its creation: a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson's faith is as impossible as any ever imagined: a life free of tyranny and happy...happy freedom: really, who could ask for a better religion?

What does this have to do with Bacevich? I think Bacevich is making the case that to avoid worst case devastation, we must adhere to lasting values and foundational principles; that in doing so we will reap the blessings of liberty for today and future generations; that much of our domestic malaise is a result of abandoning the sources of our freedom, thinking we can have the fruits of liberty without the sacrifice of citizenship. He is also clearly confronting the age-old vice of hubris in our foreign policy: the delusional fantasies of global power and omni-present hegemony across the planet...claiming god-like wisdom and force, we will shape the world into our own image, providing salvation and peace to an ignorant planet starving for our blessings.

Dissident Heart · Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:14 pm

Grim: Freedom designated is no freedom at all.

Then why even use the word...considering language is our first line of designation.

Grim · Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:29 pm

"Jefferson tapped into this ancient coordinate when culling the forces made possible by a Creator who wills something quite wondrous and seemingly impossible for its creation: a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson's faith is as impossible as any ever imagined: a life free of tyranny and happy...happy freedom: really, who could ask for a better religion?"

Yeah maybe a few but not many. :up:

Is it because I said fart? Language defines more than designates, unless you are trying to push a idea structure on people.

:shutup:

- censorship emoticon

DWill · Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:56 am


	Dissident Heart wrote: Jefferson tapped into this ancient coordinate when culling the forces made possible by a Creator who wills something quite wondrous and seemingly impossible for its creation: a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson's faith is as impossible as any ever imagined: a life free of tyranny and happy...happy freedom: really, who could ask for a better religion? I think Bacevich is making the case that to avoid worst case devastation, we must adhere to lasting values and foundational principles; that in doing so we will reap the blessings of liberty for today and future generations; that much of our domestic malaise is a result of abandoning the sources of our freedom, thinking we can have the fruits of liberty without the sacrifice of citizenship. He is also clearly confronting the age-old vice of hubris in our foreign policy: the delusional fantasies of global power and omni-present hegemony across the planet...claiming god-like wisdom and force, we will shape the world into our own image, providing salvation and peace to an ignorant planet starving for our blessings.

I can't agree with the thrust of your assessment of Jefferson as a theologian based on that one phrase "endowed by their Creator." It was common for Providence or the Creator to be mentioned in important state documents. Though I'm no expert on Jefferson, my bet is that a full survey of his thought--as well as of the way he lived--would not show us a man who speculated much about theology. Much of his discussion of religious doctrine was critical of it. His most notable achievement in this realm was to excise from the bible all passages that cast Jesus as divine. To Jefferson, Jesus was a great moral philosopher. The word deist might accurately describe his religion; even that word might be going too far, for Jefferson was pretty firmly in the rationalist camp. He was, however, known for supporting religion, believing it to have a salutary influence on public life. He was of course extremely broad-minded, unlike those who insist that the world adopt their own beliefs.

I think you're right about Bacevich being the kind of conservative who reminds us of our origins and basic principles in the manner of a prophet. You've stated the case in that paragraph better than I can.
DWill

Dissident Heart · Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:26 pm

DWill: I can't agree with the thrust of your assessment of Jefferson as a theologian based on that one phrase "endowed by their Creator." It was common for Providence or the Creator to be mentioned in important state documents.

Jefferson was practicing theology in this statement, which I believe is something substantially different than the customary mentioning of Providence in state documents: this was not an act of state bureaucracy... but a revolutionary manifesto and declaration of independence. It was a high stakes, provocational challenge to all: where everything was on the line for a seemingly impossible event...which is really what faith entails. And at its source was an invocation of implied ancient scriptures where inalienable rights are given by the Creator who wills that all men are created equal: a deeply provocative and revolutionary invocation.

DWill · Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:03 pm

Well, lacking in scholarship, I'm not able to prove otherwise. I do have a book I got many years ago and never read, titled What Did the Declaration Declare. Maybe wanting to be more knowledgeable on this subject will spur me to read it. My hypothesis is that the wrangling that occurred in the convention had nothing to do with theology, a lot to do with ideas of natural rights, and of course something to do with self-interest. Remember the desire to change the famous phrase to "life, liberty, and property"? I think that the Declaration is not far in spirit and secular focus from our Constitution, which of course is godless.
DWill

Grim · Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:29 pm

http://www.citizensalliance.org/links/p ... merica.htm

Dissident Heart · Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:33 am

An important part of Bacevich's thesis is the demystification of American Exceptionalism: the notion that the US is exceptionally gifted and thus requiring exceptional perogatives. American exceptionalism can be traced to John Winthrop speaking/preaching to Puritans en route to the Massachusettes Bay Colony: their efforts at building their new lives would be a "City on the Hill" with all the world watching. Whereas it was originally meant as a moral challenge and call to constant vigilance and perpetual sacrifice, it devolves into a special priviledge with extraordinary perogative and elite, exclusive status.

Bacevich argues that this exceptionalism has never been true (meaning we have never been morally or intellectually exceptional) but it has been useful in the past. Now, he states, it is neither true nor useful, and is actually pernicious.

Bacevich also makes the case that most empires have held to this kind of exceptionalism: justifying their hegemonic violence and imperial brutality as morally necessary and fundamentally for a good cause.

Grim · Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:59 pm

Kudos, very nicely put. :up:

Forum rules

What do you believe is his thesis statement? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!