Submitted to a Candid World
Culture wars
David Addington’s Decidedly Un-Christian Lies about the “Christmas Tree Tax”
The war on Christmas started early this year, with a post from David Addington — yes, the same David Addington who participated in the vindictive outing of a CIA agent to score some political point, and authorized warrantless wiretapping of American phone lines without congressional oversight — charging that President Obama just “couldn’t wait” to impose a $0.15 per tree tax on live Christmas trees. Because Lord knows our Muslim President loves nothing more than messing with Christians.
Pretty tone-deaf, right? At least, it would be, if Addington’s story were true as written. Addington spins the “tax” as another instance of senseless, anti-business regulation from a White House oblivious to the real causes of unemployment; and as further proof that the President either doesn’t “get” or simply doesn’t care for America’s Christians. Except the program was created at the request of the live Christmas tree industry, to help them compete with the artificial-tree industry, whose market share “increased 655 percent from 1965 to 2008,” and as such, threatens to crowd out traditional “choose-and-cut” growers. The order itself offers a full explanation, which Addington apparently overlooks in his haste to spin the American President as (somehow) un-American:
The Christmas tree industry has tried three different times to conduct promotional programs based on voluntary contributions. Each time, after about three years, the revenue declined to a point where the programs were ineffective. The decline in revenue is attributable to the voluntary nature of these programs. Therefore, the proponents have determined that they need a mechanism that would be sustainable over time. They believe that a national Christmas tree research and promotion program would accomplish this goal.
Like all federal regulations, the announcement takes pains to list and explain those comments received both for and against the proposal. Naturally, Addington’s specific objections were presented to the USDA, and specifically rejected. At the Christmas tree industry’s request:
Another commenter stated that the proposed rule should be withdrawn as it was an inappropriate use of government power citing free markets, limited government, and individual freedom. The Proposed program was presented to the Department by an industry wide group of producers and importers who requested that such an industry-funded program be implemented. USDA has concluded that a research and promotion program for fresh cut Christmas trees is within the scope of its authority under the 1996 Act, and therefore is establishing this industry supported program.
Can a regulation be anti-business, when it’s written and implemented by the very businesses it burdens? I suspect not. And it’s pretty tough to be anti-Christmas when your stated goal is preserving the idyllic Christmas-tree-buying scene depicted to the left, in Watterson’s classic example of Christmastime Dad-trolling. In fact, the fairer argument is that the Obama administration sold out to “Big Natural Christmas Tree Agribusiness” to save the pleasant, bucolic live tree tradition from modern, insurgent, blandly technical artificial tree-makers. If there’s a story about government abuse here, it’s that the Obama administration put its finger on the scale of the free market to preserve the sight, smell, and feel of Christmas as Watterson and Norman Rockwell imagined it. To save rather than steal Christmas.
But that’s not the story Addington (or Heritage) want to tell. Instead, they want to convince you that America’s sitting President has it out for both America’s beloved traditions, and for America’s “marginalized” Christian majority. They want to use religion to cultivate a persecution complex, deepen the culture wars, and set brother against brother at a time when we’re supposed to learn to love and come to terms with our enemies. It’s hard to spin that choice as anything but naughty. For the Heritage Foundation’s sake then, let’s hope — as in Calvin’s rhyming dream sequence — that Santa’s decided to reward rather than punish such petty mendacity.
Moderates, Atheism, and Mutual Cooling in the Culture Wars
It’s fair to say I have mixed feelings on the atheist movement. On the one hand, more than a few of my closest friends count themselves as leading lights in skeptic circles, and the work they do, pushing back the fog of fundamentalism and bigotry, serves an invaluable counterweight to the type of religious militarism that’s almost as dangerous under cross as it is under crescent.
On the other hand, there’s a tendency at the movement level for atheism to lapse into a new kind of dogma and, like fundamentalist Christianity, reject the very pluralism that the movement used to hold out as a goal. Ross Douthat notes the problem, and I tend to agree: atheists and religious moderates should be able to find common ground in rejecting fundamentalism, both as a worldview, and in validating those parts of organized religion that tend to actually create better people. I object to, and take offense at, the notion that humanity needs a divine being to provide an objective morality substantial enough to quash our naturally selfish impulses. To men and women of a certain conviction, a decent respect for the life and property of others should flow naturally — without any need for recourse to some heavenly notion of punishment and reward – from the simple fact that we are, in fact, bound together in our destinies. But for those who need the crutch of religious morality, let them have it.
But if we see an angry, militant type of atheism emerging as a dominant force in the movement, we shouldn’t overlook the role religious fundamentalists have had in creating that wing. Any alliance between religious moderates and non-theist moderates would face fire from both sides: militant atheists who view religion as a plague to be eradicated, and militant theists who see atheists as something less than human. Productive dialogue requires two willing players; arguably, we don’t have either.
Cultural Leadership
Rick Warren, the halfway-liberal evangelist briefly involved in the President’s inauguration, offers two tweets on cultural leadership, for those who believe the task can (and should) be undertaken:
Politics is always downstream from the source of culture. By the time a law is proposed, the water’s already contaminated.
If you’re serious about changing culture, start with music. Its power is unequalled. That’s why I mentor musicians.
I read these together, as a syllogism, which I think is probably correct:
(1) If your goal is to influence national politics, (2) remember that culture is prior to, and more powerful than, politics. (3) Therefore, to change politics, one must change culture.
The law rarely leads. In most cases — like in desegregation — it lags far behind, waiting for the ascendancy of a newer and more progressive generation to write their lifestyle and beliefs into law. And when the law leads, even if it effects cultural change, it rarely prompts the kind of consensus that results from organic development. To that extent, the preacher is on to something, but for one serious problem: I don’t think it’s possible to affirmatively lead the culture in the top-down manner he assumes. Put another way, I don’t think one can countermand organic cultural change through the counseling of individual players, or even through aggressive activism.
This is the flawed background assumption of the “culture wars”: that leaders, or groups largely disconnected from the dominant popular culture, can arrest the pace of its change. To my knowledge, it’s simply never happened in human history — and certainly not in a free society — but for whatever reason, it’s still an act played out in every generation, the culture going in one direction, and some remnant of the old guard attempting to “stand[] athwart history” yelling “Stop!” Maybe the background culture comes from a more genuine place; maybe, as an amalgamation of multiple influences, it’s less susceptible to voices narrowly focused on a single theme.
Whatever the reason, I don’t believe that cultural conservatism, as an ideology, has ever won a battle, despite hewing to Warren’s playbook. Rome hellenized despite the Catos, and was later Christianized despite Julian & his elites; the Catholic church lost its temporal influence despite the Papacy; the Beatles drowned out Cole Porter; the South desegregated despite Thurmond & Helms; and America will come to accept gay marriage despite her Santorums. Who’s to say whether it’s good or bad, but it is the course of history. “Politics is always downstream from the source of culture,” and the current’s too swift to paddle backwards.
The Reinforcing Stereotype
A few years back, an (ex-)girlfriend and I were in line at, I think, the New England Aquarium, when we wound up talking to a couple from Atlanta — my home, and where we’d just come from. My companion was from nearby Philadelphia, so naturally, we two couples were trading stories of things to do, and see, in our respective geographies, when one of our new friends asked me — “so where are you from in Atlanta?”
I’ve since come to dread this question, and learned to either hedge, or lie. Because with my answer – Buckhead – the conversation ended. You see, Buckhead is a wealthy neighborhood, and infamous for producing smarmy, entitled types. Neither I nor my family fit that mold, but it didn’t matter. I’d suddenly become a new person in the eyes of our line companions. The stereotype trumped an interaction that had been, until then, quite pleasant.
Similarly, leaving Texas yesterday afternoon, I was absolutely unable to convince a flight attendant that, yes, I was sad to be returning to New York. I miss my college friends! And Texas beauty is something that New York can’t replicate, for all of its charms. But she was having none of it. What could a New Yorker see in Texas?! Best hurry back to the big city… with an implied, “where you belong.”
It’s axiomatic that stereotypes are sad, limiting, and never do justice to the individuals they describe. But they’re also persistent, and very real. This, I think, is what’s always bothered me about the “culture wars” — “real” vs. “fake” America, and red meat appeals to small-town vs. big-city values. The more we’re told we’re different, the more we become different.
Un-Common White Angst
Fox News’ latest jihad against the rapper Common is a creation of such spectacular idiocy that it really deserves a monument of some kind. Jon Stewart’s takedown of the whole thing — which Bill O’Reilly basically concedes, but then strives to cover up with a smug tone and some handwaving — is probably as good a one as any, but truly, when again will we witness such an obvious confluence of so many of the worst parts of the culture wars? Probably not in this generation. It’s like the Halley’s Comet of inane social cleavages. You’ve got new art/music vs. old art/music (I mean, kids these days!), young vs. old, cities vs. heartland, and probably some I’m missing, all against a background of black vs. white, and rolled up to drive home this central point:
Middle America: The Obamas Are Not Like You!
Who else but Fox News could carry this “story”? It was practically written to fit their business strategy of alternately scaring and soothing anyone threatened by the pace of cultural change. Listen to any anchor carrying the story, and you can practically hear Fox’s go-to rhetorical baseline: ”get off my lawn!” Remarkable.
One point feels worth addressing: is Common specifically, and rap music generally, “poetry,” worthy of joining the White House’s poetry night? I don’t feel particularly equipped to answer the question. I actually don’t like rap a whole lot — ask my little sister about our epic battles over the radio — but maybe that makes me an even better judge. So, one response.
Most to ask this question don’t actually answer it. Instead, they respond to the question of whether rap is good poetry. But to steal from my chosen profession, doesn’t that go to weight, rather than admissibility? Art can be really quite bad while still remaining art; and it strikes me that, if rap speaks to a certain individual, no matter how slapdash the rhyme scheme, I don’t know who anyone else is to deny that power. Imagine for a moment the wide breadth of creative experiences that have moved you: for me that would involve the basics of paintings, sculptures, literature, music you would expect, but also music you would not expect, and things farther afield, like video games. No, not like MarioKart. Like the original Knights of the Old Republic – one of the best examples, I think, of a game’s ability to tell a compelling story — or more recently, Fallout 3. That’s a new thing for my generation, but it’s no less valid.
Patrons of art, like heads of state, are within their rights to use the position to endorse a particular type of art, and if the opposition doesn’t like it, well, maybe they should win more elections. More, I expect heads of state are free to endorse art without endorsing the underlying message, too. Unless we’re to presume President Nixon’s hearty endorsement of parties in the county jail.
Divorcing Fiscal Restraint from Social Conservatism
The GOP hasn’t done it. So far, we’ve seen attempts to defund:
Here’s a serious question, to answer an unserious group of legislators: can the Republican Party address budget cuts, without framing it as a culture war issue, and without letting literally insignificant savings on hot-button issues take center stage, and drown out any potentially meaningful debate? We’re quickly gearing up for the healthcare debate, redux, with Republicans offering inflammatory, off-topic counters to stymie actually important reform. Again.
The War on Christmas Enters Adolescence: What To Do About “Grinch Alert”?
A Dallas Baptist church provides “Grinch Alert,” a website where you can “report” businesses and establishments that apparently offend Christians by failing to cater to the absurd belief that an entire season, somehow, belongs to fundamentalist Christians exclusively.
My friend Evan (himself Jewish) suggests overwhelming the site, and diluting its effectiveness, by recommending synagogues as “naughty.” I entirely support this initiative.
Did the Tea Party Actually Win?
A look through the headliners suggests, “no.” Rubio took Florida and Paul took Kentucky, but these expected wins exhaust tea party gains in most-watched races. Joe Miller in Alaska fell to Lisa Murkowski as a write-in. Sharron Angle, of course, substantially underperformed. Carly Fiorina and Christine O’Donnell went down as hard as expected. John Raese lost by double-digits in West Virginia, after being caught referring to his would-be constituents as “hicky.”
These last three races could have been won by almost any other Republican — a mainline Republican — but voters in these key states resoundingly rejected radicals in favor of professional, competent politicians. To make matters worse, those three wins, plus two more, could have flipped the Senate. Absent tea party “populism,” Republicans could be sitting on a 49-vote bloc, and waiting on the remaining undecided races to see whether they would either receive a 50/50 split, or a narrow majority.
Oh, and in New York’s 23rd, Doug Hoffman’s late drop-out deprived Republicans of an easy gain against vulnerable Democratic congressman Bill Owens. Hah!
It’s hard to say for certain how much tea party “populism” helped Republicans energize their voters, and win close races with mainline candidates. But the bloc’s ability to actually send one of its own to Congress seems, at least this morning, pretty disappointing. This puts tea party partisans in the familiar role, always occupied by conservative culture war partisans, of delivering elections for mainline Republicans, and then being disappointed, when the establishment inevitably turns its back on them. Seeing so many of her favorites go down also seriously blunts Sarah Palin’s star power. All in all, things could be much worse.
The Circularity of Controversy
In the course of the “Ground Zero mosque” debate, I’ve seen a number of intelligent, moderate minds fall prey to one of the more infuriating arguments I’ve ever heard: whether or not the Cordoba Initiative set out on a peaceful mission, the theory goes, this current furor proves that mission will never succeed. Because the “mosque” will always offend, and always generate controversy, it must be recognized as a failure and abandoned.
This argument has a superficial reasonability to it, doesn’t it? And yet it’s not entirely on the level. In the words of the First Baronet Ruddigore, “fallacy somewhere, I fancy.” But where’s the problem?
I can identify two. First, it seems wrong to imagine that the “mosque” will always offend. These culture war spats never last long. Their proponents can summon an impressive amount of outrage on ridiculously short notice, but it’s always just as transient. Compare President Obama’s recent address to schoolchildren, entirely ignored, with the insistence, last year, that the annual exercise approximated (or equaled) fascism. The peculiar villainy of the Cordoba House “controversy” is just how little its architects actually care about the outcome, and how willing they are, instead, to play off of the tempers of others.
Second, when it comes from the Cordoba House’s opponents, the assertion that the building inflames needless controversy seems rather circular. At best, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that provides meaningful information about the combatants, but not the project.
This is the problem with arguments about “offense.” When drawn out, we let the debate’s existence legitimize itself, and become a self-sustaining system of irrational hate. To prevent this danger, we need to agree — as I thought we had, a long, long time ago — that rules suborning rights to ephemeral notions of offense should be, in a free society, few and far between.
A Trenchant Tract to Counteract a Clear Exaggeration
With apologies to Fred Tipson.
The National Review displays a worrying bit of candor in its latest discussion of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” It’s not about location, it’s not about 9/11, and it’s not about national honor. It’s about Islam:
The Ground Zero mosque project is not about religious tolerance. We permit thousands of mosques in our country, and Islam is not a religion. Islam is an ideology that has some spiritual elements, but strives for authoritarian control of every aspect of human life — social, political, and economic. The Ground Zero mosque project is a stealth step in the ” Grand Jihad,” the term used by the Muslim Brotherhood and its confederates for what they describe as a “civilizational” battle to destroy the U.S. and the West from within, by sabotage.
The choice of the word “permit” speaks volumes, for how thoroughly it misunderstands the basic concept of “religious liberty.” Medieval Islam, under the Caliphate, “permitted” hundreds of Christian temples and Jewish synagogues within the dar al-Islam, so long as non-Muslims (dhimmi) paid the religious tax (the jizra). Similarly, fundamentalist ideologues like The Corner would “permit” Muslims to live and worship freely, so long as they keep to themselves, and avoid any interaction with the community that surrounds them. That’s not freedom, and that’s not tolerance. The point of a free country like ours is that the minority doesn’t have to ask the majority’s permission before worshiping as they see fit.
As to the rest, we should decline the invitation — also offered by Gingrich — to treat isolated offenses, perpetrated in the name of Islam, as a causus belli justifying some new crusade against the entire religion. Surely Osama bin Laden agrees with his Christian fundamentalist counterparts that America and Islam are locked in existential conflict, to be resolved only by the utter annihilation of one or both. But we as a country needn’t engage in their shared delusion, and shouldn’t, at the risk of legitimizing him.
Curious, too, to hear The Corner complaining about a religion that “strives for authoritarian control over every aspect of human life,” when some of its authors seem to understand America only as an outgrowth of, and a vehicle for Christianity.
