THE GLASS CEILING

Here’s something to consider: Authoritarianism is male-dominated.

While we may see authoritarian behaviors from women in our workplace or in social settings, we do not see women at the top of authoritarian regimes.  It never happens.  There may be female power “behind the throne,” but the front man is always that: a person of the male gender.

But might this be changing?  There are strong expectations in America that in 2016 a woman will rise to the highest levels of our government.  Many in the Democratic Party want to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as President of the United States.

While it may not be apparent that this involves an opportunity for Authoritarianism, the associated factors are too strong to ignore.

Is there a Political-Religious Movement in place?  Not completely, but the Democratic Party is moving in that direction.  The political component of the movement is the Democratic Party itself, and it has a strong philosophical stance.

That philosophy can be seen in the idealistic intentions of its followers.  Members of the Democratic Party want to stop war, end violence and eliminate inequality.  They want to curtail climate change, end discrimination and eliminate hunger.  If an individual has an idealistic intent (perhaps with a Utopian slant) the Democratic Party is very welcoming.

However, rather than having a defined orthodoxy, the Democratic Party simply validates good intentions.  It is a political party that is “always trying to do the right thing.”

Note that I am describing the party from a humanist standpoint.  This has nothing to do with historical perspective or policy.  It is simply the way human beings view a Political-Religious Movement.

While the political component promotes the high ideals of the followers, what about the religious component?  The Democratic Party has traditional support from Jews and Catholics, but there is no institutional sect associated with it.

As a substitute, the Democratic Party welcomes any belief system, from Atheism to Secularism.  The guiding principle is the power and authority of the Democratic Party itself.  The primacy of the Democratic Party is what transforms it into a religion of its own being.  Everything becomes “political.”  The separate spheres of politics and religion coalesce.

The transformation of the Democratic Party into a Political-Religious Movement is an evolving process.  Because it is happening as a current event, we do not fully appreciate its significance.

We see its cultural impact, where many, but not all, are caught up.  But since each and every American is a part of that culture, we have difficulty “stepping back” and objectively analyzing the transformation.

That’s where it becomes important to look at the Object of Hate.  Followers of the Democratic Party have high ideals, and derive a sense of moral authority from that feeling.  But that is not what distinguishes them.  The feature that stands out is the hatred directed at Republicans.

The Democratic Party spends a great deal of effort characterizing Republicans as bad people.  The Party teaches Americans that Republicans are racist, homophobic bigots.  The Party sees Republicans as trying to destroy the environment, turn the economy into a catastrophe, shred the Constitution, harm our children and steal from our Seniors.  Republicans are liars and cannot be trusted.  Republicans must be destroyed.

That last sentence may be figurative, but it describes the intensity of anti-Republican feeling that is fostered by the Democratic Party.  That intensity is particularly evident in the Democratic Party Base.

You might be surprised to find that the Democratic Party Base sees a perfect world as a place where there are no Republicans.  They internalize that artful remark, “The Only Good Republican is a Dead Republican.”

The implication is ominous (at least for Republicans) but the feelings are based in idealism: If there were no Republicans, the resulting unity of thought would be a thing of beauty.

I realize that setting forth this construct in a few paragraphs seems extreme.  It helps to examine it within historical context.  Other Political-Religious Movements have employed the same mix of idealism and hatred to energize their movements.  We’ve seen it in Germany’s National Socialist Movement and most recently in the Ukraine and Nigeria. The philosophical duality of idealism paired with hatred is commonplace.

One aspect of the Democratic Party’s evolution into a Political-Religious Movement worth noting is its sophistication in the use of themes.  I mentioned the characterization of Republicans as bad people, but the manner in which the Democratic Party accomplishes this task is significant.  The Party teaches Americans that Republicans may not exhibit the racism or homophobia of which they are accused, but they have sinister intent.  Republicans want to hurt these people.  Republicans want to do bad things.

While Americans may not see actual instances of the suggested Republican behavior, they know what Republicans want to do.  That is an attitudinal aspect that simply cannot be underestimated.  It has great power to energize human feelings.

Again, I must emphasize that we are watching the evolution of a Political-Religious Movement here in America.  It is a work in progress, and is unfolding before us.  It provides a unique opportunity for study.

A musical group acts out the disembowelment of Sarah Palin.  Mitt Romney is characterized as being callous toward women dying from cancer.  Should we be concerned about the legitimacy of these cultural portrayals?  Are there bounds for decency?  What determines the limitations?

This is American politics, and it is fertile ground for authoritarians.  We have a ringside seat as the opportunities are exploited.

Whether Hillary Clinton is the person to rise to the top of the Democratic Party Movement remains to be seen.  If she does, we will be witnessing the ascension of a person of the female gender to a position of authoritarian domination in the United States of America.

That will be a “first.”

1. I SEE AUTHORITARIANS

2. WHO ARE THOSE GUYS?

3. IAIN MCGILCHRIST

4. WHY DO THEY HATE US?

5. THE GLASS CEILING

6. THE 21^ST CENTURY

THE 21ST CENTURY

Authoritarians are a fact of life.  Human beings have brains with two hemispheres, and the left hemisphere strives to become dominant.  It causes us to exhibit authoritarian tendencies and sometimes extreme behaviors.

What to do about it?  The first step is recognition.

Authoritarians are not subtle.  Their quest to “never be wrong” and to “act with impunity” is a dead giveaway.  We should be able to recognize these behaviors in the school bully or in the spoiled child.  Corrective action can be applied at an early age.

But there is one other aspect of authoritarian behavior that should be addressed: Human beings are attracted to authoritarian individuals and organizations.  We want to be a part of the action.

Maybe it makes us “cool” or is fun and exciting, but we want to join the authoritarians.  It is not a particularly noble facet of human behavior, but it is who we are.

This implies that a major cultural issue is the socialization associated with authoritarians.  Why are we attracted to individuals who teach us to hate?

Is it possible that the “enemy” is us?  Do human beings have a cultural bias in favor of authoritarians?  Is it something to do with the left hemisphere of our brains?

I think that if we find we are being taught to hate, we should be on high alert.  If we are drawn to an individual or organization because of the targeting of other people, we should be concerned.  Let’s step back and evaluate what is happening.

Please note that there is a difference in the “type of hate.”  Contrast Christianity with Islam.  In one religion, the object of hatred is abstract.  Christians are taught to hate the Devil and the dark forces that provide temptation.

In the other religion, the object of hatred is other human beings.  That’s a significant difference.

Human beings haven’t changed much over the centuries.  We should learn from human behaviors and adapt our actions.

Let’s make the 21^st century a good time to be less accommodating toward authoritarians.

1. I SEE AUTHORITARIANS

2. WHO ARE THOSE GUYS?

3. IAIN MCGILCHRIST

4. WHY DO THEY HATE US?

5. THE GLASS CEILING

6. THE 21^ST CENTURY

Labeling Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Photo of Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Gianluca Colla/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a label attached to her.  It is “Women’s Rights Activist.”

She is in the news this week because she was scheduled to speak at the Brandeis University 2014 commencement ceremony in Waltham, Massachusetts, outside Boston.  The university wished to award her an honorary degree.

That all changed on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 when Brandeis withdrew its offer.  The university said that Ms. Ali makes statements that are inconsistent with the university’s core values.  They label Ms. Ali an Islamophobe.

I commented on the use of that label in a post titled “A New York Mosque.”  That was in 2010.  Here is where we are today…

Abdullah Antepli posted an article yesterday titled “Hats off to Brandeis University!”  Mr. Antepli is a Muslim chaplain at Duke University.  This is the concluding paragraph from his Duke Chronicle article:

From the bottom of my heart, thank you, Brandeis University, President Frederick Lawrence and all others who are behind this exemplary moral act. Thank you for not damaging already fragile, Jewish-Muslim relations any further. Thank you for not pulling the rug from under the feet of people who are admirably trying to repair the relationship and bridge the gap between these divided communities. As my Jewish brothers and sisters say, “Yashar Koach!” Well done, hats off to all of you and thank you.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a piece in The Wall Street Journal this morning.  It is titled, “Here’s What I Would Have Said at Brandeis.”  This is the complete text of Ms. Ali’s article:

One year ago, the city and suburbs of Boston were still in mourning. Families who only weeks earlier had children and siblings to hug were left with only photographs and memories. Still others were hovering over bedsides, watching as young men, women, and children endured painful surgeries and permanent disfiguration. All because two brothers, radicalized by jihadist websites, decided to place homemade bombs in backpacks near the finish line of one of the most prominent events in American sports, the Boston Marathon.

All of you in the Class of 2014 will never forget that day and the days that followed. You will never forget when you heard the news, where you were, or what you were doing. And when you return here, 10, 15 or 25 years from now, you will be reminded of it. The bombs exploded just 10 miles from this campus.

I read an article recently that said many adults don't remember much from before the age of 8. That means some of your earliest childhood memories may well be of that September morning simply known as "9/11."

You deserve better memories than 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. And you are not the only ones. In Syria, at least 120,000 people have been killed, not simply in battle, but in wholesale massacres, in a civil war that is increasingly waged across a sectarian divide. Violence is escalating in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Libya, in Egypt. And far more than was the case when you were born, organized violence in the world today is disproportionately concentrated in the Muslim world.

Another striking feature of the countries I have just named, and of the Middle East generally, is that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day.

Especially troubling is the way the status of women as second-class citizens is being cemented in legislation. In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to 9 the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house.

Sadly, the list could go on. I hope I speak for many when I say that this is not the world that my generation meant to bequeath yours. When you were born, the West was jubilant, having defeated Soviet communism. An international coalition had forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The next mission for American armed forces would be famine relief in my homeland of Somalia. There was no Department of Homeland Security, and few Americans talked about terrorism.

Two decades ago, not even the bleakest pessimist would have anticipated all that has gone wrong in the part of world where I grew up. After so many victories for feminism in the West, no one would have predicted that women's basic human rights would actually be reduced in so many countries as the 20th century gave way to the 21st.

Today, however, I am going to predict a better future, because I believe that the pendulum has swung almost as far as it possibly can in the wrong direction.

When I see millions of women in Afghanistan defying threats from the Taliban and lining up to vote; when I see women in Saudi Arabia defying an absurd ban on female driving; and when I see Tunisian women celebrating the conviction of a group of policemen for a heinous gang rape, I feel more optimistic than I did a few years ago. The misnamed Arab Spring has been a revolution full of disappointments. But I believe it has created an opportunity for traditional forms of authority—including patriarchal authority—to be challenged, and even for the religious justifications for the oppression of women to be questioned.

Yet for that opportunity to be fulfilled, we in the West must provide the right kind of encouragement. Just as the city of Boston was once the cradle of a new ideal of liberty, we need to return to our roots by becoming once again a beacon of free thought and civility for the 21st century. When there is injustice, we need to speak out, not simply with condemnation, but with concrete actions.

One of the best places to do that is in our institutions of higher learning. We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged. I'm used to being shouted down on campuses, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today. I do not expect all of you to agree with me, but I very much appreciate your willingness to listen.

I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women's and girls' basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.

The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect.

So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Both Christianity and Judaism have had their eras of reform. I would argue that the time has come for a Muslim Reformation.

Is such an argument inadmissible? It surely should not be at a university that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust, at a time when many American universities still imposed quotas on Jews.

The motto of Brandeis University is "Truth even unto its innermost parts." That is my motto too. For it is only through truth, unsparing truth, that your generation can hope to do better than mine in the struggle for peace, freedom and equality of the sexes.

I come down on the side of Ms. Ali.  I get to be labeled an Islamophobe by our American academic community.

UPDATE 4/14/2014:
Zev Chafets, writing for Fox News, Characterizes Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a "Victim of an honor killing, Brandeis Style."

UPDATE: 5/9/2014:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali refuses to be silenced.

UPDATE 9/16/2014:
Yale University allows Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Teaching the Hate

Anti-Republican graphic from the 2/8/2014 DSCC e-mail

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Today is a day of caring for the people you love.  It is also a day that stands in contrast to the sentiments of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

The DSCC sends frequent e-mail messages to its subscribers.  The messages request money to help keep Democratic Party control of the United States Senate.

Here is a listing of the notes sent so far this year.  They are tabulated by date, showing the target of the campaign and some of the words used as descriptors for that person or entity.  It provides a glimpse of the tone favored by today’s Democratic Party:

Date                   Target                           Descriptors used by DSCC

01/03/2014      Republicans                stop Republican takeover

01/07/2014      John Boehner              (wants) people without food

01/10/2014      Donors                          happy birthday Michelle Obama

01/15/2014      Mitch McConnell        outrageous

01/15/2014      The Koch Brothers      brutal attacks

01/16/2014      The Koch Brothers      unusually aggressive; tearing down candidates

01/17/2014      The Koch Brothers      brutal attacks

01/18/2014      The Koch Brothers      they WILL take over the Senate

01/21/2014      The Koch Brothers      vicious attacks; barrage of attacks

01/22/2014      The Koch Brothers      every single disgusting Koch attack

01/22/2014      The Koch Brothers      every single revolting Koch attack

01/23/2014      The Koch Brothers      carpet-bombing…with absolutely vicious attacks

01/23/2014      The Koch Brothers      every single disgusting attack

01/24/2014      The Koch Brothers      outrageous attacks

01/24/2014      The Koch Brothers      outrageous attacks; despicable attacks

01/25/2014      The Koch Brothers      secret convention; scathing attacks

01/26/2014      The Koch Brothers      next onslaught of despicable attacks

01/27/2014      The Koch Brothers      viciously attack; scathing attacks

01/27/2014      The Koch Brothers      $6 million on despicable attacks

01/28/2014      Mitch McConnell        all the blame for 2013 dysfunction

01/28/2014      The Koch Brothers      UNPRECEDENTED early spending

01/28/2014      Mitch McConnell        outrageous gridlock; disgusting attacks

01/29/2014      The Koch Brothers      millionaire friends

01/29/2014      The Koch Brothers      scathing attacks

01/30/2014      The Koch Brothers      unprecedented early attack blitz

01/30/2014      Karl Rove                    dark and creepy; anonymous rich guys

01/30/2014      Republicans                 a sea of early attacks

01/31/2014      The Koch Brothers      unparalleled deluge of attacks; buy the Senate

01/31/2014      The Koch Brothers      attack onslaught; Republican takeover

01/31/2014      The Koch Brothers      nationwide attack onslaught

01/31/2014      The Koch Brothers      DOUBLED Democratic spending

02/07/2014      Mitch McConnell        477^th time he’s led a filibuster; disgusting

02/08/2014      The Koch Brothers      producers of carcinogens

02/10/2014      The Koch Brothers      absolutely brutal attacks; disgusting attacks

02/11/2014      Mitch McConnell        outrageous political tactics

02/12/2014      Mitch McConnell        saturate the airwaves with negative ads

02/13/2014      Karl Rove                    $138,000 worth of vicious attacks

I’ve not yet received the DSCC missive for this Valentine’s Day.  Maybe it will be something like 1/10/2014, wishing Michelle Obama a happy birthday.

As you can see, the odds don’t favor it.

UPDATE 4/3/2014:
Eliana Johnson at National Review Online provides background on the Koch-funded ads that are creating the intense reaction at the DSCC.  Charles Koch explains why he has become active in politics.  Both articles provide balance to the DSCC attacks.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Weaponizing Catherine Engelbrecht

 

 

 



Megyn Kelly anchors a nightly show on the FOX News Channel.  On February 6, 2014 she featured the testimony of Catherine Engelbrecht (pictured above).  Mrs. Engelbrecht had appeared before the House Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs.  Her testimony was cited as evidence she had been targeted for intimidation by agencies of the federal government.

Mrs. Engelbrecht (at 2:50 in the following clip) characterized the investigations of her business and political activities as “the weaponizing of government:”

In the 21^st century, our culture divides us.  Many Americans are invested in promoting the power and authority of the Democratic Party.  Mrs. Engelbrecht believes that as an individual, she is endowed with certain unalienable Rights, including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Mrs. Engelbrecht does not take kindly to intimidation.  She has filed an ethics complaint against Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and points to her testimony as justification:

Megyn Kelly, contrary to others in the field of political reporting, finds the experience of Mrs. Engelbrecht newsworthy.

UPDATE 7/2/2014:
Mrs. Engelbrecht is now suing the Mississippi Secretary of State over alleged voter fraud in the Republican Primary Runoff between Chris McDaniel and Thad Cochran.

She explains the reason for the suit: "All we are asking is that the MS State Republican Party follow the law."  (The "law" in question is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.)

Return to Top

Return to Bottom



Steven Hayward and The State of the Union

Illustration of Steven Hayward by Julian Puckett

Steve Hayward is the University of Colorado Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy.  It’s a title that smacks of academia and the attendant disdain, but it is a good thing for Colorado.

CU seems to acknowledge that conservative thought isn’t going away gently into the night.  The university has enlisted Dr. Hayward to teach undergraduate classes in the College of Arts and Sciences.  I imagine his classes are instructive and entertaining.

While not mentioned in the biographical information noted above, Dr. Hayward has roots in California (San Luis Obispo) and in the blogging community.  He regularly contributes articles to Power Line and has a particularly interesting post today.

Steve’s article highlights Kurt Vonnegut and the work of Bret Stephens.  The reference to Kurt Vonnegut is his short story “Harrison Bergeron.”  The reference to Bret Stephens is his column in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Stephens uses his column to predict the content of president Obama’s State of the Union address this evening.  He focuses on the equality theme that is sure to dominate the president’s remarks.

Dr. Hayward senses the historical impact, and provides background and visual context in the form of a trailer from Chandler Tuttle’s film.

This year’s State of the Union just might be an awakening for Americans!

UPDATE 4/4/2014:
Professor Hayward gets to experience those feelings of minority status so frequently visited upon Republicans.  The Chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly (Paul Chinowsky), the President of CU Student Government Student Affairs (Chris Schaefbauer) and the Director of Safety and Inclusion for CU Student Government (Caitlin Pratt) call out Dr. Hayward for not building a community where everyone is comfortable in the classroom, creating power dynamics where it is difficult for victims to express feelings of discomfort over unwelcome conduct, and failing to support all members of the university community.  They cite Dr. Hayward as being representative of a larger problem at CU where the rights of women (and LGBTQ individuals) are denied, dissected and refuted.  They declare that Dr. Hayward is bigoted and makes comments that border on hate speech.

They characterize their statements as being representative of the students and faculty at the University of Colorado and that the University of Colorado must never allow this behavior.  Dr. Hayward must be cast out!

This is what is "right and natural' at the University of Colorado.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Philomena and The Book of Mormon

Dame Judi Dench is an actress of fascinating ability.  She can play everything from the head of a spy agency to a little old lady.  Her latest movie “Philomena” has her playing the latter role with great sensitivity, depth and flair, and she does it while suffering from the real-life disability of age-related macular degeneration.

“The Book of Mormon” (now on national tour) came to Denver this past month.  It is a send-up of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and has received numerous honors.  When it opened on Broadway in 2011, it was awarded the Tony for Best Musical.

Both of these shows deserve acclaim for their creativity and entertainment value, but they also should receive notice for their political posturing.  “The Book of Mormon” leaves you with the notion that followers of the LDS faith are sexually naïve and cloistered in their understanding of national and international events.

That perspective created a powerful political theme leading up to the 2012 Presidential election.  Even now, one leaves the theater thinking, “Thank God one of those people didn’t become President of the United States!”

“Philomena” is a story about a personal search for reconciliation.  It deserves critical acclaim, but like “Julie and Julia” it takes a perfunctory swipe at Republicans, characterizing supporters of the Reagan presidency as homophobic.

Americans take these theatrical conventions in stride and without comment.

It’s just those with a more humanist view who are left wondering, “Why must these anti-Republican sentiments be so prevalent in American entertainment?”

Return to Top

Return to Bottom