The week that was: a bonfire of sanities

What can one say about a week in which a Republican Supreme Court affirmed the Heritage Foundation's Marxism of healthcare and the right of your gay neighbor to marry for love; a week in which the Confederate flag swiftly transmogrified from a symbol of "pride" to a movable scar of disgrace; and a week in which the most offensive man in America, Donald Trump, became the statistical presidential frontrunner in the party of Lincoln?

It doth fog and delight the mind, this flurry of decency, though it be entangled with the enduring darkness of the nation's dimmest.

There is, especially, something about the puritanical abomination of true love that excites the lower orders to summits of outrage. All around them God, if you like, has dropped inescapable hints as to the splendor of human and natural diversity, and yet the vocally pious scream Wrong, it's all wrong, it's as wrong as the fossil record. The champions of these earthly salts — the latter of whom I pity far more than disdain — are quite happy, of course, to rally ignorance and prejudice, and arm for the Apocalypse.

I won't trouble you long with the roster of such demagoguery. Trump's was — unsurprisingly — ineffably incoherent. Scott Walker's was bland and predictable, although we repeat ourselves: "The only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage." Mike Huckabee's was fiercely entertaining: "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny." Ted Cruz's was, I must admit, inventive: What this country needs is a "constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants," by which he means "judicial retention elections" that would "[render] the justices directly accountable to the people" — a kind of tea-party judicial branch which would have horrified the Madisonian ethic. Bobby Jindal's was hilarious: "The Supreme Court is completely out of control…. If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court." And Jeb Bush's, in a knowing conflict of conscience, read like a P.O.W. note from the Hanoi Hilton: "The Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision." In his next public appearance I expect that with his eyelids he'll tap out in Morse code, "H-e-l-p m-e."

The award for most intriguing reaction came, however, from the incomparable Louie Gohmert: "If Moses, Jesus, and contributors to the Bible were correct, God’s hand of protection will be withdrawn as future actions from external and internal forces will soon make clear. I will do all I can to prevent such harm, but I am gravely fearful that the stage has now been set." We do so appreciate Louie's vigilance and his apparent eagerness to fight the Divine Will, which is blasphemous enough. But what really fascinates is that Louie seems riddled with theological doubt and apostate wonderment: If Moses, Jesus, and contributors to the Bible were correct? Good God, I bet that lit up the Huckabee Hotline.

But back to some sanity. I suspect Anthony Kennedy had a bet going with Antonin Scalia that with Jim Obergefell he could bring Andrew Sullivan out of retirement. Kennedy won. Sullivan has returned, however briefly, to rejoice but also "to rebut the entire line of being 'on the right side of history.' History does not have such straight lines. Movements do not move relentlessly forward…. History is a miasma of contingency, and courage, and conviction, and chance."

From what a historian would call a synchronic view of history, Sullivan is correct. (See how it's done, Louie?) He's as correct as George Will is correct in limiting his survey of global warming to a decade or two. But from the more expansive diachronic view of history, I'd argue that Sullivan has it wrong. Human history, it seems to me in a quasi-Marxist sort of way, is an unstoppable force of progress. Its trajectory is depressingly jagged in the short term — meaning decades — but over the centuries it's essentially upward. In time, the convictions of the uncourageous are overwhelmed by courageous convictions, such as Sullivan's, such as yours, and such as mine (however Montaignean they may be). We as a species stagger and grope quite a bit and we've a helluva long way to go, but human decency — whether God-inspired or not — is much more vivid in the Age of Obama than it was in the Age of Ramses, Nero, Charlemagne or John C. Calhoun.

What we witnessed this week — a particularly high point of human decency — is sure to be followed by new lows. Of those, the uncourageous never run out. But in the greater scope of things, what we also witnessed this week was the inexorable meeting of both true progressivism and authentic conservatism, at the intersection of Sullivan and Sanders.

 

Comments

[Peter G]

So I have always observed in studying the history of the United States. Progress comes by fits and starts and is sometimes merely illusory. But most times it is not illusory at all. This week you have every right to celebrate the victory of your better angels. Enjoy it. I celebrate with you.

[Alex]

A very fine post, Mr. Carpenter. This truly has been a memorable week.

[Bob]

Thank you for a truly outstanding think piece connecting history, classical literature and language to our present condition with a generous topping of humor. Your style and subject are yin and yang.

Cruz might, just might have let slip he's a lower case "d" democrat. Between 1789 and 1913 senators were appointed by state legislatures and not subject to more direct will of the people. An elected SCOTUS is a real possibility, though I'd guess the subject will remain theoretical for a good number of years. Cruz seems to be acknowledging the possibility of social evolution, which the designers of the Constitution foresaw more definitely in their enlightened vision. He probably need not concern himself his audience will catch on.

Louie Gohmert predicting the Apocalypse is what makes him one of the most useful stupid men in politics. He's a completely accurate and reliable gauge for the depth of the bottom of the barrel. What would we do without him?

The religious angles could all be boiled down to this: The day "E Pluribus Unum" takes its rightful place back from its Cold War replacement will be a return to normalcy. It represents what the country has been and should be infinitely better.

In a specific way science takes your side over Sullivan's: "Anthropologists who have written about American kinship have long noted a tendency in US society to equate kinship with blood identity. Yet at the same time, in US society, adopted children are not supposed to be differentiated from children born of the biological union of their parents. Both today and historically, children have been incorporated in families through a variety of means. The idea that biological kinship is more authentic than kinship through fostering, feeding, care, and history would be offensive to many, I would hope most, people in the US today." http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2015/06/26/marriage-equality-as-evolution/

[David & Son of Duff]

How does that old song go? "It's only just begun ..."

"Lost in the celebrations over universal gay marriage, like abortion, being deemed a right found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution is the chilling effect the ruling has on religious liberty. In a telling exchange between the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, detailed by Tom Blumer at Newsbusters.com, in which Verrilli admitted that churches could lose their tax exemptions if they refuse to perform gay weddings:

Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

General Verrilli: You know, ­­I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is­­ it is going to be an issue."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/churches_could_lose_tax_exemption_over_gay_marriage.html#ixzz3eLOj9oK7

But hey, what do you lot care about, say, 'The Little Sisters of the Poor', a group of elderly nuns whose sole mission is to help the aged poor but who will not comply with the Oamacare ruling on contraception:

"Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

The Little Sisters contend ObamaCare not only violates the First Amendment's religious guarantees, but also the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That requires the government to implement its policies in ways that do not impose an unnecessary burden on the free exercise of religion …

If the Little Sisters lose their case, they'll either have to violate their religious conscience or face fines of around $2.5 million a year, or about 40% of what they beg for annually to care for the dying poor. Their ministry would be severely crippled, as would the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty."

Well, heh, who cares about a few old nuns and their dying patients?

[Peter G]

How many of the aged poor require contraception or abortions for that matter. If you are going to make an emotional appeal on behalf of nuns David try and make it sensible. And also try and remember that conservatives don't want any government standing between a doctor and their patients except when they do. You know what those nuns don't have? They don't have a right to stake out a piece of the health care field and demand the public conform to their religious standards.

I!ve always wondered why conservatives imagine that people who are gay don't have religious convictions. What gives you the right to impose your religious convictions on them?

[David & Son of Duff]

I don't have any religious convictions, Peter, but you and Bob 'et al' were trying to poo-poo my suggestion that it is only a matter of time before the progressive monolith begins to crush any signs of opposition however tiny;

"You know what those nuns don't have? They don't have a right to stake out a piece of the health care field and demand the public conform to their religious standards."

There speaks Big Brother!

[Peter G]

And as the actual decision makes clear, it won't. That will not stop nitwits from saying otherwise. And neither I nor Bob nor our host can stop nitwits from saying dumb things. But I do appreciate the perfect circularity of your argument. Ptolemy never described a more perfect epicycle of retrogression. Gays can't be allowed to have the same rights as you because you might say unfortunate things might happen. And to prove it you said those things that can't happen will happen. Though they haven't anywhere else in the world where gay marriage is allowed.

[Bob]

The Constitution is the highest law of our country. It protects, but also limits, all rights granted to operate within the public sphere. If The Church wants to operate publicly it must abide by the rules. This is nothing new or unique. Native Americans have been allowed by the courts to use peyote in religious rituals, however Rastafarians are currently prohibited from using marijuana. Obviously most judges fear everyone that likes pot will convert to Rastafarian. Conservatives, by nature, don't do well with complex or seemingly contradictory ideas, but we in the US will have to live with the situation.

[David & Son of Duff]

So can I look forward to you and Bob standing outside your local mosque and agitating for gay marriage, can I?

Nah, thought not! But, hey, old nuns and their elderly dying patients, well, they're a pushover, just set the IRS on 'em!

"The Land of the Free" -what a hoot!

[Peter G]

Nah I 'd be too busy forcing contraceptive pills down the throats of the dying elderly. Bwa ha ha! Actually David you need not look for me outside any religious edifice protesting anything. If I understand this magnificent piece of logic the fact that I wouldn't protest outside a church obligates me to protest outside of mosque? How the fuck does that work? I am pleased to know you do believe that Muslim institutions have the right to incorporate Sharia Law in those institutions. You're making progress. You used to be one of the nitwits protesting against religious tolerance vis-a-vis mosques weren't you?

[Bob]

And you'll be slamming people into iron maidens to promote your view of things I suppose. You're adorable, but I'm not so easily provoked. Try to make a point that's worth answering.

[David & Son of Duff]

So, gentlemen, are you readying yourselves for the next big progressive move - legalising polygamy by allowing group marriage?

If not, why not? I mean, it's their right, isn't it?

[Peter G]

It is de facto recognized in Utah where there are quite a few polygamist Mormons of the old school, excommunicated from their mother church. They even have their own reality television show. And if it should be decided at a future date that this is a decision between multiple consenting adults it will be no concern of yours or mine. Why should you give a damn what consenting adults do or how they arrange their lives? And even if you do give a damn why should anyone else be forced to abide by your prejudices. I thought you believed in personal liberty. Certainly the people who do engage in polygamy rely on biblical justification for their views. How dare you question their religious beliefs?

[Bob]

Snap.

[Peter G]

My next question was going to be about the Muslim faith. They are permitted four wives. Why does the government of the United States or the government of my country particularly oppress the religious beliefs of Muslms? It doesn't seem to bother God in Muslim counties where polygamy is practiced.