[extropy-chat] Enlightenment and the election

[Emlyn]

Greg, I know it's rude to ask someone to explain their vote, so mea
culpa, and it's only a request, feel free to ignore it.

However, if you are ok with it, could you please explain why you would
vote for Bush in the circumstances you outlined below? Quite
seriously, I can't understand why an extropian would make that choice,
but also I am uninformed when it comes to US domestic politics, and
maybe there's something I can learn from your position.

In the spirit of reciprocity, I voted in the recent Aussie elections
for the Australian Labor Party, in some way similar to the Democrats
in the US (our equivalent of the GOP is the Coalition, made up of the
Liberal and National parties, with the Libs being the major partner).

Like your election, the Aussie election brought another term for the
conservatives, but unlike yours, which was pretty close, ours was a
total wipeout for Labor.

As to why I voted the way I did, I've been unhappy with the
conservatives since they gained power. I think they play to the fears
and predjudices of our people, and have contributed to a cultural
shift toward mean spiritedness. That's only my opinion, but that's the
major part of my quibble. Another issue I do have with our government
is that they strongly support the war in Iraq, which I most certainly
do not, so there's another reason to go against them to my mind.

On the economy, while I think our hospitals and public schools are
underfunded, a lot of this is pretty minor stuff; mostly I think both
parties are pretty similar there (as they are in most of the Western
world these days I think). Both parties are into big spending, just in
slightly different places, but the conservatives like to pretend that
they are all about fiscal responsibility.

So I guess as far as running the country internally, I don't see much
to divide the two major parties here. If anything, Labor was more
interested in talking about bigger public spending, which I didn't
necessarily see as a good thing, but on the other hand the Liberals
were happy to go on a major vote buying spree which amounted to the
same thing.

What I object to in the conservatives is that I see them as primarily
responsible for what I think of as a continuing political/social lack
of confidence on the part of the people of the country, which I would
now call a world wide depression. It leads to support for these
policies of warring overseas, closing the borders, viewing foreigners
and each other with suspicion, and a generally bleak view of the state
of the world. Blanket pessimism. It's the opposite to what I'd like to
see as an extropian, because extropianism *requires* optimism.

So, as a transhumanist and extropian, that's my reasoning for voting
Labor on this side of the world. Reading back over what I wrote above,
it's negative reasoning, isn't it? I voted against the conservatives,
not for the "progressives". Labor these days to me feels like a party
without much personality.

Emlyn

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:56:01 -0600, Greg Burch <gregburch at gregburch.net> wrote:
> I've kept my mouth shut here (but certainly not elsewhere -- on my blog, for instance) since the election.  I've seen that the Europeans and the Americans who voted for Bush need to vent: They're tired and scared.  But I can't go on without registering that things like this article are part of the problem.  It's hysterical nonsense from people who live entirely encased in a cultural bubble that includes zero contact with anyone with whom they disagree.  Frankly, all the preaching about tolerance and diversity from people who live in such bubbles seems ironic at least and outright hypocritical at worst.  How many times have I read and heard in the last few days that people in New York and San Francisco and Seattle and London and Brussels can't understand how America elected Bush?  They can't understand because they have no intercourse with the people who voted for Bush.  Their conception of huge swaths of American culture is a shallow caricature that would be funny if it wasn!
> 't so sad.
> 
> I'm an atheist.  I'm a libertarian.  I don't suffer from a lack of literacy or even education; I know that humans evolved over a period of billions of years -- imagine that!  I didn't have to vote for Bush because I live in the capital of Red State America, Houston, Texas, so I had the luxury of voting symbolically for the libertarians.  But if I'd lived in Florida or Ohio, I'd have voted for Bush.  My liberty to be irreligious and follow Enlightenment values has not been curtailed and, contrary to what one would think from reading the New York Times, the LA Times, watching all but one of the major American news networks or reading basically all of the press in Europe, my liberty to be irreligious is not in immediate danger.
> 
> GB
> http://gregburch.net/burchismo.html
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Fred C.
> > Moulton
> > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 2:17 PM
> > To: ExI chat list
> > Subject: [extropy-chat] Enlightenment and the election
> >
> >
> >
> > I saw this on a newsgroup and thought I would pass it on.  While I doubt
> > anyone would agree with it in its entirety I think it expresses some
> > ideas in a way that I have not seen in the discussion of the past few
> > days.
> >
> > > From: XXXXXXXXXXXXX.com (XXX XXXXXX)
> > > Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
> > > Subject: NY Times: The Day the Enlightenment Died
> > > Date: 4 Nov 2004 07:41:41 -0800
> > >
> > > I read this in today's NY Times and found it depressing but worth
> > > sharing. I can't believe how depressed I am over this election.
> > >
> > >   The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
> > > By GARRY WILLS
> > >
> > >
> > >   Wills, Garry
> > >
> > > Evanston, Ill.
> > >
> > > This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political
> > > strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they
> > > could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the
> > > plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in
> > > all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove
> > > understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe
> > > in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.
> > >
> > > This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in
> > > which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept
> > > of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led
> > > many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But
> > > they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court
> > > decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and,
> > > now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc
> > > was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment
> > > banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).
> > >
> > > The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not
> > > long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on
> > > the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators
> > > beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is
> > > too often greeted with deference or flattery.
> > >
> > > The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your
> > > country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would
> > > disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I
> > > later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the
> > > Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy
> > > America its Enlightenment heritage.
> > >
> > > Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
> > > in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
> > > nation?
> > >
> > > America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of
> > > Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for
> > > evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders
> > > differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then
> > > modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the
> > > Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions
> > > of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when
> > > a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr.
> > > Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or
> > > was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
> > >
> > > The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the
> > > fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had
> > > experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble
> > > those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
> > >
> > > Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity,
> > > religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France
> > > or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim
> > > world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans
> > > wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so
> > > single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear
> > > jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
> > >
> > > It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We
> > > torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one
> > > American general put it, in words that the president has not
> > > repudiated.
> > >
> > > President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country,
> > > be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism
> > > compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time.
> > > He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest
> > > aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation.
> > > In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and
> > > ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and
> > > abroad, with real respect.
> > >
> > > In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he
> > > would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for
> > > John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the
> > > constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He
> > > must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments.
> > > His helpers are also his keepers.
> > >
> > > The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to
> > > nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too
> > > early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.
> > >
> > >
> > > Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern
> > > University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *