Jerry Brown says that his new budget is designed to insure that there is “shared sacrifice” throughout the state, but this is false. California has twice as many millionaires as any other state in the union, and they are not being asked to make any sacrifices whatsoever. Their taxes will remain the same, even though the “sacrifice” required of them would only affect a few numbers in their bank account, and have no significant effect on their lifestyle. Furthermore, the sales taxes that Brown is fighting to keep (which the Republicans are calling “tax increases”, even though they are already in place) are proportionally the same for all income levels. Because 65% of all income growth between 2002 and 2007 went to the top 1 percent, (Atlantic Magazine Jan 2011) and the rich have benefited disproportionately from the post 2008 “recovery”, this is not an efficient way of getting where the money is.
Brown is assuming that there is no way to make these people take on their fair share of the burden. The Republicans have made the “No New Taxes” mantra an article of faith, and they can supposedly impose their will on the Democratic majority because of the 2/3 rule for revenue increases. There is, however, a secret weapon that is now available to the majority, if they decide to use it. The last election has now made it possible for a simple majority to pass a budget, even though two thirds are still required to approve revenue increases. In other words, the taxophobic minority can decide how big the pie is, but now the majority gets to decide how the pie is divided. This mean the majority can say to the minority “You don’t want to pay for Government? Then no government for you”. In other words, not a dime from Sacramento goes to any district whose representative refuses to vote for revenue increases. No public funded building projects, no libraries, no convention centers. Jerry Brown has plans which will increase his power to use Sacramento money as carrots. He wants to transfer more responsibilities to the states, and then send revenue to the individual cities and counties to perform what were formerly state government duties. There is however, an opportunity for using sticks as well as carrots. Transfer the responsibilities to every county and/or city, but only send money to areas whose representatives are willing to vote for revenue increases. Let the Republican districts pay for these responsibilities with local tax increases, or do without.
There are two possible outcomes that can arise from this action.
1) The Republican Districts stoically tighten their belts and deteriorate into little western approximations of Somalia, with little or no functioning government. I don’t think this is very likely, but even if this happens the rest of us will still be able to use the extra revenue to keep our parks and schools open.
2) The people in those districts will protest that they are being unfairly treated, and demand their services back. The rest of us then say “Write to your representative and state senator and tell him or her to vote for revenue increases. If they refuse, replace them next term with someone who will take a realistic approach to revenue issues. Until you do this, the fairest place to make government service cuts is to those who think that government is unnecessary.”
I can regretfully understand why President Obama has been forced to compromise with the new Republican majority in congress. Governor Brown, however, is under no such pressure. California withstood the nation-wide Republican onslaught by electing no Republicans to statewide office, and electing fewer Republicans to the statehouse. It is absurd and unjust that a minority perspective that has been decisively defeated at the polls should continue to maintain a stranglehold because of the two-thirds rule. In a recent poll, California voters were asked if we should “increase state funding for California’s community colleges and public universities.” 82% said yes. To call this approval “overwhelming” is an understatement. Those extremists who have repeatedly cut state funding for public colleges are clearly out of sync with the rest of the public. They have forced their will on us for decades because of the old budget rules. Now that the majority controls the budget, we can take back the power of self-government. They have never compromised with us, and now there is no need to compromise with them. It is time to play hardball.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Astroturf for Rent
The term ‘Astroturf” usually refers to fake “grassroots” movements that are actually fronts to support the agenda of a few wealthy backers. There’s a new species of Astroturf, however, which is even more unprincipled: “organizations” that have no agenda of their own whatsoever, and send out fliers that support whatever cause or candidates will pay them. One of the worst is Cops voter guide, which as far as I can tell has no connections with any policeman or police organization. It supports Jerry Brown, even though the Policeman’s union has come out for Whitman (in exchange for a promise to not touch their salaries or pensions). It also urges no on all measures that allegedly increase taxes—except for Prop 21 which would increase Car License fees. It also supports prop. 19 (which legalizes recreational pot). It’s pretty hard to find a coherent ideology in this voting pattern. Should we call this organization DPLTEEC? (Democratic Potheads for lower taxes on everything except cars? ). I think the slogan that best expresses their values would be a paraphrase from the Sting song about streetwalkers: “If you’ve got the money, I’ve got the space.” A visit to the blog political blotter reveals even more inconsistencies, including the fact that a previous mailer sent around May 2010 supported Gavin Newsom for Lt. Governor, even though the one I just received supports Abel Maldonado for the same office.
A visit to the cops voters guide website reveals that it is run by a political consultant named Kelley Moran. Moran has also gotten into trouble by working for both gay rights organizations and accepting money for advocating yes on proposition 8. Moran is apparently gay himself, which makes this behavior considerably more odious, I think. A search on his name revealed this article, which has more details on his numerous flipflops for hire. Thanks also to blogger Greta for revealing the connections that Moran has to an Animal rights group call Petpac, as well as connections to another dubious political organizer named William Hemby.
I am also suspicious of an organization called Californians Vote Green. They take the appropriately green stances on most ballot measures (yes on 21, and no on 23). But they also say yes on 26, widely referred to as the polluter protection act because it would make it much harder to pass new pollution restrictions. It also supports all the Democrats except for one. The fine print reveals that this Republican is the only candidate who paid to be on this mailer. When you go to the Californians Vote Green Website, there is nothing but a page with two links to completely unrelated sites to help oil spill victims and Sea Otters. In short, a bit of Green Window dressing, and no information whatsoever about the organization itself. Blogger Dan Brekke reveals that they used to have a more detailed website, back when they took money from PG&E to support proposition 16 (Which would have obstructed attempts to form public utilities, had it passed.) Apparently the founder of Californians Vote Green is named Rick Taylor. Brekke gives you contact information on his page, if you feel like emailing him or calling him.
None of these activities are illegal. There are fortunately campaign laws which require these mailers to state they are not affiliated with any official organization, and identify which candidates and campaigns paid to be in the mailer. You don’t need to do much research to discover which of these organizations are bogus. All you need are a few critical thinking skills, and a willingness to read some fine print.
A visit to the cops voters guide website reveals that it is run by a political consultant named Kelley Moran. Moran has also gotten into trouble by working for both gay rights organizations and accepting money for advocating yes on proposition 8. Moran is apparently gay himself, which makes this behavior considerably more odious, I think. A search on his name revealed this article, which has more details on his numerous flipflops for hire. Thanks also to blogger Greta for revealing the connections that Moran has to an Animal rights group call Petpac, as well as connections to another dubious political organizer named William Hemby.
I am also suspicious of an organization called Californians Vote Green. They take the appropriately green stances on most ballot measures (yes on 21, and no on 23). But they also say yes on 26, widely referred to as the polluter protection act because it would make it much harder to pass new pollution restrictions. It also supports all the Democrats except for one. The fine print reveals that this Republican is the only candidate who paid to be on this mailer. When you go to the Californians Vote Green Website, there is nothing but a page with two links to completely unrelated sites to help oil spill victims and Sea Otters. In short, a bit of Green Window dressing, and no information whatsoever about the organization itself. Blogger Dan Brekke reveals that they used to have a more detailed website, back when they took money from PG&E to support proposition 16 (Which would have obstructed attempts to form public utilities, had it passed.) Apparently the founder of Californians Vote Green is named Rick Taylor. Brekke gives you contact information on his page, if you feel like emailing him or calling him.
None of these activities are illegal. There are fortunately campaign laws which require these mailers to state they are not affiliated with any official organization, and identify which candidates and campaigns paid to be in the mailer. You don’t need to do much research to discover which of these organizations are bogus. All you need are a few critical thinking skills, and a willingness to read some fine print.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Hitler again?
There's a joke that says every internet conversation brings up Hitler within 15 posts. With that in mind, I recently read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in hopes of getting some understanding of the reality behind this frequently evoked historical bogeyman. I found out that these tired comparisons of Hitler and Chamberlain to everything that happens today need to be brought back to reality with some actual historical facts.
We already have more weapons than almost all the rest of the world put together. Hitler rebuilt his military over a period of several years, while Britain stood by, until Hitler's army was several times the size of England's There is no one like Hitler one the world scene at the moment, despite some people's willingness to see him everywhere. If another Hitler appeared, there would be plenty of time to build a larger military in response to his build up. That's all that Churchill was asking for, and if Britain had done so, Hitler would never have had a chance of conquering England. Even after the long irresponsible delay caused by Chamberlain's naivete, Britain still managed to hold off Hitler's army, and eventually beat him. It is ridiculous for the US to maintain an army of this size when there is no immediate danger, and compare this situation to Hitler and Chamberlain
We already have more weapons than almost all the rest of the world put together. Hitler rebuilt his military over a period of several years, while Britain stood by, until Hitler's army was several times the size of England's There is no one like Hitler one the world scene at the moment, despite some people's willingness to see him everywhere. If another Hitler appeared, there would be plenty of time to build a larger military in response to his build up. That's all that Churchill was asking for, and if Britain had done so, Hitler would never have had a chance of conquering England. Even after the long irresponsible delay caused by Chamberlain's naivete, Britain still managed to hold off Hitler's army, and eventually beat him. It is ridiculous for the US to maintain an army of this size when there is no immediate danger, and compare this situation to Hitler and Chamberlain
Saturday, January 9, 2010
The California Democracy Act and the Polls
John Burton would love to see Majority rule in California. He still says so on his website. But he read a set of polls that convinced him that we could never get that, so now he’s asking for less. What Burton is asking for now is a 55% majority rule for Budget only, and 2/3 for Revenue. Budget votes decide how to divide the pie. Revenue votes decide how big the pie is. The problem with California is that the pie isn’t big enough. The cuts that were put in the California Tax system during the last boom period have lowered revenue to a completely unsustainable level. Consequently, getting power over the budget won’t solve the problem. It will just create feeding frenzies in which the parks, the schools, the police force, and all the other vital services will have to fight over an inadequate revenue pool. But Burton would rather fight a battle that makes no difference and win it, then fight an important battle that he might lose.
The majority of Democrats in California disagree with Burton on this. Back in July, the state party passed a resolution calling for majority rule for budget and revenue. And it passed unanimously. Burton spoke against it, but the rank and file supported it utterly. Burton has been working against this measure since then. I’ve even heard that he talked a big contributor out of giving money to the CA Democracy act campaign. But there are a lot of people in the party who think he’s being too cautious, and it’s pretty clear to me that if he saw that there was strong support for this, he would climb on board. (Particularly since he himself agrees with the idea, no matter what he is sayig now.)
I’ve read the data that made Burton give up, and I think he’s misinterpreted it.
First of all, there’s the Field Poll taken in 2009. It supposedly showed 43% in favor and 52% opposed to majority rule on Budget. It also showed 27% in favor and 69% against revising the majority rule on Revenue. This looks scary at first, but consider the following factors.
It’s been shown many times that you can shift a vote as much 20% by redescribing the same position with differently slanted language. These are the exact words of their question and they are clearly very different from the 14 words of the California Democracy Act. "Proposition 13 generally requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to increase state taxes. Would you approve or disapprove of changing Proposition 13 to enable the legislature to increase state taxes by a simple 50 percent majority vote?"
First, what in the world is a "50 percent majority"? When the question is worded to indicate that the questioner does not understand the issue, it takes away confidence in the response. A majority, of course, is more than 50 percent. There is no such thing as a "50 percent majority," even though the Field Poll uses the phrase repeatedly in these questions. If we took the phrase literally it would mean a tie. I certainly wouldn't vote for an initiative that said we could increase taxes whenever there is a tie vote.
Second, the answer is pushed by framing it in terms of Proposition 13, which remains highly popular -- and which, to most people, means protecting against high property tax rates. So if you ask people whether they want to change Proposition 13, most people will say no. This distorts the results, because an actual ballot measure to change the 2/3 rule on taxes would not mention Proposition 13. It would simply state a new rule on how taxes are determined, and ask for a yes or no.
The Question about budget made no reference to Proposition 13, the Question about Taxes did. This could have accounted for much of the difference right there. (Particularly since most people don’t understand the difference between budget and revenue anyway.)
Third, the answer is pushed by using the term "increase state taxes." That is only one possible outcome of changing the 2/3 majority, Majority rule doesn't just permit the majority to raise taxes, it permits the majority to either raise them, or lower them, or keep them the same. Mentioning only tax increases provokes a kneejerk response.
Why didn't they ask, "Is it fair for a small minority to determine the budget and taxes of the state, or should this be determined by majority rule?" This would obviously have produced a very different result, which is why George Lakoff wants to have a new poll.
And finally, what people believe now is going to be very different from what they believe after the campaign gets underway. Prop 56 was winning easily when the campaign began. By the end of the campaign, the vote had shifted by over 20 points. That’s why people campaign.
There’s also the September 2009 report of an institution called the public policy institute of California or PPIC. Here are the facts which appear to support Burton’s position.
1)A slight majority (53%) say it would be a good idea to lower the threshold needed for budget passage to 55 percent of the legislature (38% bad idea). Note that there’s a 10% between this figure and the results of the Field poll for what is essentially the same question. These polls always say they are accurate to 2 to 3 percentage points, even when they disagree with each other by 10%.
Because this poll didn’t even mention the possibility of revenue issues, but only discussed budgets, Burton concludes that there’s no evidence that there will be support for having a majority rule on revenue.
I think, however, that there’s lots of other information in the poll which shows that we already have good reason to be hopeful.
2)When Californians are asked about their preferences regarding the role of government, a little more than half (51%) would prefer to pay higher taxes and more services, while 39% would prefer lower taxes and fewer services. Once again there’s a huge undecided contingent, which could be easily swayed.
3)Nearly all (96%) Californians view the budget situation as a problem, with 78 percent seeing it as a big problem and 18 percent calling it somewhat of a problem.
4) 87% of all Californians are very concerned (60%) or somewhat concerned (27%) about the effects of spending cuts in their local government services—those provided by city and county governments and public schools. Concern over these cuts is far greater today than when PPI asked a similar but less detailed question five years ago (35% August 2004, 60% today).
What this means to me is that when you ask a Californian an empty question about services in the abstract and taxes in the abstract, You still get a very slight edge for services. When you ask about removing some aspect of the 2/3 you get a slight edge in favor of removing the only part asked about. When you consider that 96% of the people in the state feel that the budget situation is a problem, and 87% of the people are concerned about the effects of spending cuts on local services, it seems likely that when people think carefully about the budget mess and the cuts and services, a lot more people are going to decide to vote for this, even though they don't like the idea of tax increases. There are parents who are furious because their children are being given a substandard education. There are students who are furious because their tuition has doubled and their access to classes and teachers has been greatly reduced. Once a substantial number of these people can see that the 2/3 rule is at the root of these problems, (and it seems likely that they will, because this is the truth) they will vote for this measure and it will win. If a campaign can shift a vote level by 20% one way, as it did with prop 56, we can shift it the other way as well.
This is reason for hope, and hope is all we need to move forward, because this is our only real alternative. It’s not certain that we will win, but there is no other way out of this budget mess, no other way to turn California away from this path of self destruction.
The majority of Democrats in California disagree with Burton on this. Back in July, the state party passed a resolution calling for majority rule for budget and revenue. And it passed unanimously. Burton spoke against it, but the rank and file supported it utterly. Burton has been working against this measure since then. I’ve even heard that he talked a big contributor out of giving money to the CA Democracy act campaign. But there are a lot of people in the party who think he’s being too cautious, and it’s pretty clear to me that if he saw that there was strong support for this, he would climb on board. (Particularly since he himself agrees with the idea, no matter what he is sayig now.)
I’ve read the data that made Burton give up, and I think he’s misinterpreted it.
First of all, there’s the Field Poll taken in 2009. It supposedly showed 43% in favor and 52% opposed to majority rule on Budget. It also showed 27% in favor and 69% against revising the majority rule on Revenue. This looks scary at first, but consider the following factors.
It’s been shown many times that you can shift a vote as much 20% by redescribing the same position with differently slanted language. These are the exact words of their question and they are clearly very different from the 14 words of the California Democracy Act. "Proposition 13 generally requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to increase state taxes. Would you approve or disapprove of changing Proposition 13 to enable the legislature to increase state taxes by a simple 50 percent majority vote?"
First, what in the world is a "50 percent majority"? When the question is worded to indicate that the questioner does not understand the issue, it takes away confidence in the response. A majority, of course, is more than 50 percent. There is no such thing as a "50 percent majority," even though the Field Poll uses the phrase repeatedly in these questions. If we took the phrase literally it would mean a tie. I certainly wouldn't vote for an initiative that said we could increase taxes whenever there is a tie vote.
Second, the answer is pushed by framing it in terms of Proposition 13, which remains highly popular -- and which, to most people, means protecting against high property tax rates. So if you ask people whether they want to change Proposition 13, most people will say no. This distorts the results, because an actual ballot measure to change the 2/3 rule on taxes would not mention Proposition 13. It would simply state a new rule on how taxes are determined, and ask for a yes or no.
The Question about budget made no reference to Proposition 13, the Question about Taxes did. This could have accounted for much of the difference right there. (Particularly since most people don’t understand the difference between budget and revenue anyway.)
Third, the answer is pushed by using the term "increase state taxes." That is only one possible outcome of changing the 2/3 majority, Majority rule doesn't just permit the majority to raise taxes, it permits the majority to either raise them, or lower them, or keep them the same. Mentioning only tax increases provokes a kneejerk response.
Why didn't they ask, "Is it fair for a small minority to determine the budget and taxes of the state, or should this be determined by majority rule?" This would obviously have produced a very different result, which is why George Lakoff wants to have a new poll.
And finally, what people believe now is going to be very different from what they believe after the campaign gets underway. Prop 56 was winning easily when the campaign began. By the end of the campaign, the vote had shifted by over 20 points. That’s why people campaign.
There’s also the September 2009 report of an institution called the public policy institute of California or PPIC. Here are the facts which appear to support Burton’s position.
1)A slight majority (53%) say it would be a good idea to lower the threshold needed for budget passage to 55 percent of the legislature (38% bad idea). Note that there’s a 10% between this figure and the results of the Field poll for what is essentially the same question. These polls always say they are accurate to 2 to 3 percentage points, even when they disagree with each other by 10%.
Because this poll didn’t even mention the possibility of revenue issues, but only discussed budgets, Burton concludes that there’s no evidence that there will be support for having a majority rule on revenue.
I think, however, that there’s lots of other information in the poll which shows that we already have good reason to be hopeful.
2)When Californians are asked about their preferences regarding the role of government, a little more than half (51%) would prefer to pay higher taxes and more services, while 39% would prefer lower taxes and fewer services. Once again there’s a huge undecided contingent, which could be easily swayed.
3)Nearly all (96%) Californians view the budget situation as a problem, with 78 percent seeing it as a big problem and 18 percent calling it somewhat of a problem.
4) 87% of all Californians are very concerned (60%) or somewhat concerned (27%) about the effects of spending cuts in their local government services—those provided by city and county governments and public schools. Concern over these cuts is far greater today than when PPI asked a similar but less detailed question five years ago (35% August 2004, 60% today).
What this means to me is that when you ask a Californian an empty question about services in the abstract and taxes in the abstract, You still get a very slight edge for services. When you ask about removing some aspect of the 2/3 you get a slight edge in favor of removing the only part asked about. When you consider that 96% of the people in the state feel that the budget situation is a problem, and 87% of the people are concerned about the effects of spending cuts on local services, it seems likely that when people think carefully about the budget mess and the cuts and services, a lot more people are going to decide to vote for this, even though they don't like the idea of tax increases. There are parents who are furious because their children are being given a substandard education. There are students who are furious because their tuition has doubled and their access to classes and teachers has been greatly reduced. Once a substantial number of these people can see that the 2/3 rule is at the root of these problems, (and it seems likely that they will, because this is the truth) they will vote for this measure and it will win. If a campaign can shift a vote level by 20% one way, as it did with prop 56, we can shift it the other way as well.
This is reason for hope, and hope is all we need to move forward, because this is our only real alternative. It’s not certain that we will win, but there is no other way out of this budget mess, no other way to turn California away from this path of self destruction.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Heidegger and Nazism
There was recent revival in the controversy over Heidegger's connection with Nazism. I did quite a bit of research on this a few years ago, so I thought it might be useful to someone to summarize what I found out, and the conclusions I reached.
Some people think that Heidegger was simply a liar and a hypocrite, who cooperated with the Nazis to further his career and/or save his skin. Other people claim that he wasn't a hypocrite, and that this makes his behavior even worse. He joined the party before Hitler came to power, and because he never formally apologized for joining, many people think he remained a Nazi for the rest of his life.
The first group gets to say that Heidegger, like Charlie Parker or Richard Wagner, was a schmuck who happened to be a great creative thinker, and there is therefore no reason to think that his ideas are contaminated by his Nazism. The second group concludes that Heidegger was a sincere Nazi, and therefore no one should read his work anymore.
As usual, the reality is more complicated. Heidegger was a schmuck, but he was not a coward. His relationship with the Nazis actually showed a considerable amount of moral courage. He was also in a sense a sincere Nazi, but that does not mean that no one should read his books. It does, however, reflect badly on his character, but not in the usual ways he is criticized. Here is a summary of what I consider to be the essential facts. I have not gone back to check my research so I may have a few details wrong. Nevertheless, I think this summary captures essentially what happened.
Heidegger was a great admirer of both Hitler and the Nazis before they came to power. This was why they made him Chancellor of Freiburg University, and why the the most famous speech he gave as Chancellor was so optimistic. That speech is pretty clearly in Heidegger's style, and was in my opinion written entirely by him. That speech contains few statements that would freak people out if it had been written at any other time in history, but it looks pretty scary when you realize he is talking about the Nazis. Over the next year, Heidegger signed (and in my opinion did not write) a variety of other pronouncements which sound like general issue boiler plate Nazi propaganda, calling for the burning of books, the expulsion of Jews etc. These speeches have been collected in a book called something like "German Existentialism". Although they are obviously important historical documents, I don't think they tell us anything about what Heidegger was thinking at the time.
After about a year of this, Heidegger resigned as Chancellor. The reason he gave was that the Nazis were not living up to their own ideals. Over the next few years, Heidegger frequently criticized the Nazis, so much so that his books were eventually banned and he lost many of the privileges that he once had. Heidegger was never jailed or physically punished for his criticisms. He was the only intellectual of any stature the Nazis had, and they didn't want to completely disassociate themselves from him. He was, however, forced to work on a labor crew when he was over fifty, lifting rocks and doing other kinds of hard menial labor. Some of his critics have pointed out that essentially all German boys and men were pressed into these labor crews as the war was winding down. However, it's obvious that an important figure like Heidegger would have been exempted from this kind of treatment if he had simply kept his mouth shut, so he really did pay a price for not being silent.
All this looks pretty good for him until you consider a few other factors. His criticisms of Nazism were limited almost exclusively to their misinterpretations of Nietzsche. No mention of the imprisonment, torture, and murder of Jews. He did not even speak up against the firing of his Jewish teacher Edmund Husserl, and editions of Being and Time published in Nazi Germany removed the original dedication to Husserl. Also, what about this claim that the Nazis were not living up to their ideals? For the Nazis, this seems like it would be a good thing, considering how vile their ideals were. To understand what Heidegger meant by this, however, you have to consider another statement attributed to him: That Hitler himself didn't really understand Nazism.
Here is where we can see that Heidegger's big character flaw was not cowardice, but hubris. Heidegger had a very special gift for reinterpreting the great classic texts of western philosophy, particularly the pre-Socratics. He believed that he was uncovering the true meaning of these texts that had been lost for centuries. The rest of us who admire this work usually see these re-interpretations as brilliant original creations,and don't worry about how accurate they might be. Heidegger apparently had an interpretation of Nazism which was as original and idiosyncratic as his interpretations of Parmenides and Heraclitus, which apparently made Nazism look pretty good. He thought that his interpretation was the only one that mattered. Perhaps he was aware of Nazism's innumerable evils and believed that eventually he could purge those out and come up with a more essential Nazi ideology that was humane and decent. This is not as preposterous as it would be for you or me to believe. Heidegger really was one of the greatest thinkers of all time, and he had a profound effect on the minds of thousands of people. This particular delusion is also not a problem when you're reinterpreting the ideas of someone who has been dead for thousands of years. But Marty, when Hitler is alive and his troops are marching across Europe, you don't get to decide what Nazism is. It's his ball, so you have to play by his rules.
Surprisingly, Heidegger never seemed to have grasped this obvious point. Apparently he believed to his dying day that he was the only person who really understood what Nazism was, (or at least could have been) and that is why he never apologized for being a Nazi. He felt that he had stood up for his beliefs, and therefore he had nothing to apologize for. However, to understand why he felt this way, you have to give a meaning to Nazism shared by no one but him, and also believe that this idiosyncratic interpretation is the only one that mattered.
Richard Mcdonough's Martin Heidegger's Being and Time has a chapter on the relations between Heidegger's ideas and Nazism which is the best work I have seen on this topic. It shows pretty clearly that Heidegger's idea of Nazism was so different from anyone else's that it was only Heidegger's scholarly hubris that enabled him to ignore the numerous evils and stupidities in Nazism, and focus only on the parts he liked.
Some people think that Heidegger was simply a liar and a hypocrite, who cooperated with the Nazis to further his career and/or save his skin. Other people claim that he wasn't a hypocrite, and that this makes his behavior even worse. He joined the party before Hitler came to power, and because he never formally apologized for joining, many people think he remained a Nazi for the rest of his life.
The first group gets to say that Heidegger, like Charlie Parker or Richard Wagner, was a schmuck who happened to be a great creative thinker, and there is therefore no reason to think that his ideas are contaminated by his Nazism. The second group concludes that Heidegger was a sincere Nazi, and therefore no one should read his work anymore.
As usual, the reality is more complicated. Heidegger was a schmuck, but he was not a coward. His relationship with the Nazis actually showed a considerable amount of moral courage. He was also in a sense a sincere Nazi, but that does not mean that no one should read his books. It does, however, reflect badly on his character, but not in the usual ways he is criticized. Here is a summary of what I consider to be the essential facts. I have not gone back to check my research so I may have a few details wrong. Nevertheless, I think this summary captures essentially what happened.
Heidegger was a great admirer of both Hitler and the Nazis before they came to power. This was why they made him Chancellor of Freiburg University, and why the the most famous speech he gave as Chancellor was so optimistic. That speech is pretty clearly in Heidegger's style, and was in my opinion written entirely by him. That speech contains few statements that would freak people out if it had been written at any other time in history, but it looks pretty scary when you realize he is talking about the Nazis. Over the next year, Heidegger signed (and in my opinion did not write) a variety of other pronouncements which sound like general issue boiler plate Nazi propaganda, calling for the burning of books, the expulsion of Jews etc. These speeches have been collected in a book called something like "German Existentialism". Although they are obviously important historical documents, I don't think they tell us anything about what Heidegger was thinking at the time.
After about a year of this, Heidegger resigned as Chancellor. The reason he gave was that the Nazis were not living up to their own ideals. Over the next few years, Heidegger frequently criticized the Nazis, so much so that his books were eventually banned and he lost many of the privileges that he once had. Heidegger was never jailed or physically punished for his criticisms. He was the only intellectual of any stature the Nazis had, and they didn't want to completely disassociate themselves from him. He was, however, forced to work on a labor crew when he was over fifty, lifting rocks and doing other kinds of hard menial labor. Some of his critics have pointed out that essentially all German boys and men were pressed into these labor crews as the war was winding down. However, it's obvious that an important figure like Heidegger would have been exempted from this kind of treatment if he had simply kept his mouth shut, so he really did pay a price for not being silent.
All this looks pretty good for him until you consider a few other factors. His criticisms of Nazism were limited almost exclusively to their misinterpretations of Nietzsche. No mention of the imprisonment, torture, and murder of Jews. He did not even speak up against the firing of his Jewish teacher Edmund Husserl, and editions of Being and Time published in Nazi Germany removed the original dedication to Husserl. Also, what about this claim that the Nazis were not living up to their ideals? For the Nazis, this seems like it would be a good thing, considering how vile their ideals were. To understand what Heidegger meant by this, however, you have to consider another statement attributed to him: That Hitler himself didn't really understand Nazism.
Here is where we can see that Heidegger's big character flaw was not cowardice, but hubris. Heidegger had a very special gift for reinterpreting the great classic texts of western philosophy, particularly the pre-Socratics. He believed that he was uncovering the true meaning of these texts that had been lost for centuries. The rest of us who admire this work usually see these re-interpretations as brilliant original creations,and don't worry about how accurate they might be. Heidegger apparently had an interpretation of Nazism which was as original and idiosyncratic as his interpretations of Parmenides and Heraclitus, which apparently made Nazism look pretty good. He thought that his interpretation was the only one that mattered. Perhaps he was aware of Nazism's innumerable evils and believed that eventually he could purge those out and come up with a more essential Nazi ideology that was humane and decent. This is not as preposterous as it would be for you or me to believe. Heidegger really was one of the greatest thinkers of all time, and he had a profound effect on the minds of thousands of people. This particular delusion is also not a problem when you're reinterpreting the ideas of someone who has been dead for thousands of years. But Marty, when Hitler is alive and his troops are marching across Europe, you don't get to decide what Nazism is. It's his ball, so you have to play by his rules.
Surprisingly, Heidegger never seemed to have grasped this obvious point. Apparently he believed to his dying day that he was the only person who really understood what Nazism was, (or at least could have been) and that is why he never apologized for being a Nazi. He felt that he had stood up for his beliefs, and therefore he had nothing to apologize for. However, to understand why he felt this way, you have to give a meaning to Nazism shared by no one but him, and also believe that this idiosyncratic interpretation is the only one that mattered.
Richard Mcdonough's Martin Heidegger's Being and Time has a chapter on the relations between Heidegger's ideas and Nazism which is the best work I have seen on this topic. It shows pretty clearly that Heidegger's idea of Nazism was so different from anyone else's that it was only Heidegger's scholarly hubris that enabled him to ignore the numerous evils and stupidities in Nazism, and focus only on the parts he liked.
The Twilight Movies
My sister-in-law (a scholar of medieval romance) and my nieces are crazy about the Twilight books and movies, and my wife suggested we see both of them. So I did, and was quite impressed at how they managed to imbed the classic Gothic myths into the lives of modern young girls. Here is the rather prosaic story that underlies them. I do not mean to disparage them by uncovering this story, because I am genuinely impressed at how the author has given this story such epic resonance. That is part of what artists are supposed to do: "See infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour". Here's the grain of sand that the author of these stories is working with. You'll have to see the movies, or read the first two books, to see what she has done with it so far.
1) The sensible thing to do is to date boys in your own social class. However, the kids in your social class are boring, partly because they're a lot like you, and partly because you seem to want something more than they want. Consequently, you are going to be attracted primarily to upper class boys with pale skin and high cheekbones, and secondarily to lower class boys with dark skin and big biceps.
2) The first movie dealt with the problems of being attracted to the upper class boys. Most of them will see you as food, to be chewed up and spit out for their temporary pleasure. The best you can hope for is a boy who will want to treat you this way, but loves you so much that he stops himself from doing so by shear force of will. His brother, however, will not have the will power that he has, so don't ever let him see parts of your body that are ordinarily covered. Your upper class boyfriend will protect you from his brother, but this will result in bad family tensions. Eventually you will want your upper class boyfriend to do the terrible thing that would destroy you, but he won't, no matter how much you beg him to, because he loves you too much. He believes that if he does this terrible thing, you will be damned for all eternity. You're willing to risk that, he's not.
3) If your upper class boyfriend leaves you (as he does in the second movie) you can turn to the lower class boy with brown skin and big biceps. He will not force himself on you, but he will do things like fix your motor cyle. Unfortunately, his friends travel in gangs that are bad tempered, dangerous and violent. Eventually he will join one of those gangs himself, because this kind of violence is in his genes. He realizes this, however, and so refuses to get emotionally involved with you, even though he loves you. He knows that other members of his gang have committed domestic violence against the women they love, and he is afraid he will do the same thing to you.
The good news is that the upper class boy eventually agrees to do the terrible thing that you both want him to do, but only if you agree to marry him. The bad news is that if you do this, the lower class boy will get very angry, and there's no telling what he'll do when he gets angry.
The one character I found myself identifying with was the girl's father. He loves his daughter deeply, but the only way he has ever learned to relate to women is romantically, and he knows that this is highly inappropriate in her case. Consequently, he keeps his distance from her, and expresses his feelings only in stiff formal utterances and the giving of carefully chosen gifts. This shows my age of course, as does the fact that the last time I saw Romeo and Juliet (performed by my own students) I couldn't identify with Romeo any more. Instead, I identified with Friar Lawrence, the childless scholar who finds himself surrounded by teenagers hopped up on hormones and existential angst, doing everything he can to stop them from killing themselves. I hope I have more success than he did. Perhaps watching movies like Twilight will help.
1) The sensible thing to do is to date boys in your own social class. However, the kids in your social class are boring, partly because they're a lot like you, and partly because you seem to want something more than they want. Consequently, you are going to be attracted primarily to upper class boys with pale skin and high cheekbones, and secondarily to lower class boys with dark skin and big biceps.
2) The first movie dealt with the problems of being attracted to the upper class boys. Most of them will see you as food, to be chewed up and spit out for their temporary pleasure. The best you can hope for is a boy who will want to treat you this way, but loves you so much that he stops himself from doing so by shear force of will. His brother, however, will not have the will power that he has, so don't ever let him see parts of your body that are ordinarily covered. Your upper class boyfriend will protect you from his brother, but this will result in bad family tensions. Eventually you will want your upper class boyfriend to do the terrible thing that would destroy you, but he won't, no matter how much you beg him to, because he loves you too much. He believes that if he does this terrible thing, you will be damned for all eternity. You're willing to risk that, he's not.
3) If your upper class boyfriend leaves you (as he does in the second movie) you can turn to the lower class boy with brown skin and big biceps. He will not force himself on you, but he will do things like fix your motor cyle. Unfortunately, his friends travel in gangs that are bad tempered, dangerous and violent. Eventually he will join one of those gangs himself, because this kind of violence is in his genes. He realizes this, however, and so refuses to get emotionally involved with you, even though he loves you. He knows that other members of his gang have committed domestic violence against the women they love, and he is afraid he will do the same thing to you.
The good news is that the upper class boy eventually agrees to do the terrible thing that you both want him to do, but only if you agree to marry him. The bad news is that if you do this, the lower class boy will get very angry, and there's no telling what he'll do when he gets angry.
The one character I found myself identifying with was the girl's father. He loves his daughter deeply, but the only way he has ever learned to relate to women is romantically, and he knows that this is highly inappropriate in her case. Consequently, he keeps his distance from her, and expresses his feelings only in stiff formal utterances and the giving of carefully chosen gifts. This shows my age of course, as does the fact that the last time I saw Romeo and Juliet (performed by my own students) I couldn't identify with Romeo any more. Instead, I identified with Friar Lawrence, the childless scholar who finds himself surrounded by teenagers hopped up on hormones and existential angst, doing everything he can to stop them from killing themselves. I hope I have more success than he did. Perhaps watching movies like Twilight will help.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Roman Polanski
For some reason, I keep rereading the news items and posted comments about Roman Polanski. These texts get very repetitious very quickly, but I still feel the need to keep reading and thinking about this, because I can't seem to feel comfortable with the intense emotions of either side. I don't want to join the mob condemning him, or the mob who wants to free him. I did read an article in the London Telegraph, however, and the reader comments I read on that article did give me some clarity on the issue.
This article described many of the horrible things that have happened to Polansky in his long and painful life. Wife killed by Charles Manson, Mother killed by Nazis etc. The comments were people who claimed that this writer is claiming that Polansky is innocent, or deserves to be forgiven. Not once does he say any such thing in the article. He simply tells Polansky's story. This I've decided, is why I can't feel comfortable with either side of this controversy. It seems that everyone feels it is necessary to assume that anyone who has done anything bad must be bad all the way through. What this article shows is that talented people, who have had terrible things done to them, sometimes do terrible things themselves. Some people are threatened by this kind of moral ambiguity in the world, and don't want to feel sympathy for someone who deserves to be punished. That's too bad, the world is a morally ambiguous place.
This article described many of the horrible things that have happened to Polansky in his long and painful life. Wife killed by Charles Manson, Mother killed by Nazis etc. The comments were people who claimed that this writer is claiming that Polansky is innocent, or deserves to be forgiven. Not once does he say any such thing in the article. He simply tells Polansky's story. This I've decided, is why I can't feel comfortable with either side of this controversy. It seems that everyone feels it is necessary to assume that anyone who has done anything bad must be bad all the way through. What this article shows is that talented people, who have had terrible things done to them, sometimes do terrible things themselves. Some people are threatened by this kind of moral ambiguity in the world, and don't want to feel sympathy for someone who deserves to be punished. That's too bad, the world is a morally ambiguous place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)