My blog is about how American Christianity has morphed into a way for Republicans to morally justify the greed of their economic policies and violence of their foriegn policy, and how Evangelical teachings no longer has much to do with Biblical doctrine. It seems to me Republicans, who are almost universally Evangelical Christians, have evolved into something less like a Christians, and strangly have adopted many of the ideas posited by philophers such as Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. Nietzsche's life affirming message seems to mirror some modern Christian dogma. Yet the new Evangelicals seem oblivious to the fact that they have become adherents to a philosophy written by a man who dismissed Christian morality as a product of self deception. Ironic?
Central to Nietzsche's writing is the notion that power is mankind's main motivator. In a Capitalist society power is most tangibly represented by wealth, but can take other forms. Certainly Fame, and Political Influence weild mighty swords upon our society's power scale.
In other words, if one sets out to achieve wealth, and that goal becomes that individual's obsession, or to put it more kindly, his main line of thought, then it is inevitable that individual will achieve some level of wealth. Nietzche does not attach riders to his philosophy such as "based up intelligence" or "based upon background, family wealth, etc.." but rather bases his notion upon how well a person can come to terms with the awareness that rests within all of us. This is a similar message to what prosperity Christianity leader Joel Osteen preachs. Look at these two quotes
You've got the very nature of God on the inside of you. Joel Osteen There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophies. ~Friedrich Nietzche
Notice how they both allude to some knowledge each of us possess within ourselves, though I feel neither of them view that knowledge as being magical or even difficult to access.
For Nietzche, I think, the access to our inner knowledge comes by casting away the mores of society, religion, etc... and listening most closely to our instinctual inner I.
For Osteen the process is much the same, we cast off the voice of the world and listen carefully to ourselves. In Osteen's case, however, the voice we hear is not our own, but rather the voice of God whispering in our ear.
I'm not certain which is true of course, but I will say this. By attributing that instinctual voice to God, Christians can avert any guilt they may feel when it becomes clear their decision was wrong. The prime example being George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. It seems completely possible to me that Bush listened closely to his inner "I" voice, deemed it to be the voice of God telling him to wage war in Iraq. Now that the war has gone terribly wrong, he can reason that he was only following God's lead. This same reasoning works on a larger scale for the greater populace as they tacitly accept the notion that despite the horrors in Iraq, God must have some reason beyond their reckoning for the thing to have occured. This lends a moral rightness to the situation that cannot be achieved through solid reasoning. So Christianity, and the inner voice of God become cemented into their consciences as a means to forgive any poor decision they might make. So they blend the inner I of Nietzche to excuse their human weaknesses by calling that voice, the voice of God.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Social Darwinism and the Flaw of NeoConservative thought
Social Darwinism is the notion that competition, whether it be economic, athletic, etc... leads to a superior and more refined mankind. In other words, by struggling to defeat one another in terms of business, religion, sports, education, etc... we sharpen our sensibilities in ways that might not occur otherwise.
Putting aside the arguement that competition actually refines mankind in a positive way -- I will leave that for subsequent posts -- I would like to focus instead upon an aspect of Social Darwinism that I feel has negatively impacted our world.
It seems to me that most Neocons have reached the conclusion that economic success is an indicator of individual character. In other words, in their minds, one who possesses great wealth is, in most cases, morally superior to one who is less wealthy. This also affects their view of intellect. It would not be uncommon to hear a neocon spouting George Bernard Shaw's line from Man and Superman (and I quote it correctly) "He who can does, he who cannot teaches". Neocon Social Darwinists would interpret this line to indicate that some are suitable for real work, while others can only manage what they might regard as low paying women's work. They would also add the insult of mentally assuming a degree of moral superiority that accompanies the ability to do really important work rather than somewhat less important work. The importance of the work, and degree of moral correctness are, of course, determined by the income one makes.
Switching gears, lets look for a minute at the problems of health care and the average salaries of some individuals within that industry. An average doctor in Amarillo earns 109,000 dollars a year. A good salary. Doctors should be well paid. The same doctor in Canada earns about 98,000 a year, still pretty good. If doctors in both country average about the same pay, then why is health care so much more expensive here. Lets look at some other salaries that factor into our health care dollar. Here in Amarillo, the average Medical Insurance Salesman makes a whopping average salary of 188,000 dollars per year, quite a bit more than the doctor. In Canada...well I couldn't find a figure, because in their system no one has to sell insurance, it's simply provided. What about Pharmacuetical sales? The average salary of a salesperson working for one of the big drug firms is a whopping 254,000 dollars a year, over twice as much as a doctor makes. Why aren't Republicans screaming for profound changes in our medical industry?
I believe the answer is Social Darwinism. Neocons instinctively believe that anyone who makes a large salary must have some degree of moral rectitude. While I agree that God does bless his followers, I don't think his blessings take form of salaries that serve to harm the poor. His blessing are there so we have enough...so our needs are met...so our thoughts can be on him and not on our empty stomachs.
In my opinion God doesn't bless us with profits beyond our wildest imaginings. God doesn't give us houseboats and lavish vacations to sex clubs in the Bahamas where we can hang out with the likes of Rush Limbaugh (his penchant for Caribbean adult resorts is well documented).
I'm sick to death of the notion that the rich are somehow morally superior, harder working, and generally better people than the poor. When one reads the numerous warnings of the dangers of wealth found in the bible, and when one sees the relative poverty of Christ's life, one can only conclude that Social Darwinism and the notion that wealth equals righteousness are false idols that an entire political party has focused upon.
Putting aside the arguement that competition actually refines mankind in a positive way -- I will leave that for subsequent posts -- I would like to focus instead upon an aspect of Social Darwinism that I feel has negatively impacted our world.
It seems to me that most Neocons have reached the conclusion that economic success is an indicator of individual character. In other words, in their minds, one who possesses great wealth is, in most cases, morally superior to one who is less wealthy. This also affects their view of intellect. It would not be uncommon to hear a neocon spouting George Bernard Shaw's line from Man and Superman (and I quote it correctly) "He who can does, he who cannot teaches". Neocon Social Darwinists would interpret this line to indicate that some are suitable for real work, while others can only manage what they might regard as low paying women's work. They would also add the insult of mentally assuming a degree of moral superiority that accompanies the ability to do really important work rather than somewhat less important work. The importance of the work, and degree of moral correctness are, of course, determined by the income one makes.
Switching gears, lets look for a minute at the problems of health care and the average salaries of some individuals within that industry. An average doctor in Amarillo earns 109,000 dollars a year. A good salary. Doctors should be well paid. The same doctor in Canada earns about 98,000 a year, still pretty good. If doctors in both country average about the same pay, then why is health care so much more expensive here. Lets look at some other salaries that factor into our health care dollar. Here in Amarillo, the average Medical Insurance Salesman makes a whopping average salary of 188,000 dollars per year, quite a bit more than the doctor. In Canada...well I couldn't find a figure, because in their system no one has to sell insurance, it's simply provided. What about Pharmacuetical sales? The average salary of a salesperson working for one of the big drug firms is a whopping 254,000 dollars a year, over twice as much as a doctor makes. Why aren't Republicans screaming for profound changes in our medical industry?
I believe the answer is Social Darwinism. Neocons instinctively believe that anyone who makes a large salary must have some degree of moral rectitude. While I agree that God does bless his followers, I don't think his blessings take form of salaries that serve to harm the poor. His blessing are there so we have enough...so our needs are met...so our thoughts can be on him and not on our empty stomachs.
In my opinion God doesn't bless us with profits beyond our wildest imaginings. God doesn't give us houseboats and lavish vacations to sex clubs in the Bahamas where we can hang out with the likes of Rush Limbaugh (his penchant for Caribbean adult resorts is well documented).
I'm sick to death of the notion that the rich are somehow morally superior, harder working, and generally better people than the poor. When one reads the numerous warnings of the dangers of wealth found in the bible, and when one sees the relative poverty of Christ's life, one can only conclude that Social Darwinism and the notion that wealth equals righteousness are false idols that an entire political party has focused upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
