Under The Sun

What led US neoconservatism into its catastrophic adventure in Iraq, when this was arguably an exercise in the use of Government power to effect social engineering that contradicted the very core of neocon doctrine? Writing in the NY Times, Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History, looks for an explanation in the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War:

This overoptimism about postwar transitions to democracy helps explain the Bush administration’s incomprehensible failure to plan adequately for the insurgency that subsequently emerged in Iraq. The war’s supporters seemed to think that democracy was a kind of default condition to which societies reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred, rather than a long-term process of institution-building and reform.

American right-wingers like Tom Tancredo who want to destroy Muslim holy sites are showing how little they understand Islamic fundementalism — the Wahhabists are doing the job themselves:

Almost all of the rich and multi-layered history of the holy city is gone. The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades. Now the actual birthplace of the Prophet Mohamed is facing the bulldozers, with the connivance of Saudi religious authorities whose hardline interpretation of Islam is compelling them to wipe out their own heritage.

The War On Terror as viewed from the Bourne shell

[via]

A Melanie Phillips article contains the interesting juxtaposition of a Labour MP (Fank Field) identifying the collapse of religion and morality as causes of poverty in Britain, and Phillips, a right-winger, agreeing that Conservative government policies, particularly under Thatcher, damaged the fabric of British society by destroying the industries that gave employment and dignity to working men.

Field, who has spent his life campaigning for the poor, understands the most important point of all — that the poverty from which his constituents suffer so grievously is principally moral, spiritual and emotional.

Discussing the complete collapse of civility and respectability which has taken place, Field suggested that seven major factors had contributed to the collapse of decent behaviour.

The first was the collapse of religion, the greatest force that had shaped the British character. The second was the disappearance of the strict rules of discipline enforced by British factories which had dispensed rough justice and thus tamed and civilised their workers. Third was the disappearance of manufacturing industry under Mrs Thatcher and the consequent wiping out of the ethos of work in areas where employment had collapsed. Fourth (this provoked some controversy) was that education had enabled potential community leaders to move away, thus denuding those communities of leadership. Fifth was the loss of the sense of duty to others, the ethical glue that inspired idealism and kept societies together. Sixth was the nationalisation of what should have been collective endeavour not under state control, such as pensions. And seventh was the welfare system, not the cause but the magnifier of other problems, not least because it had come to promote the raising of children in ways that were not in their best interests.

Phillips rejects the idea that getting single mothers off welfare is the answer:

This is tantamount to accepting a new social order consisting of a matriarchate at the bottom of the social ladder, with female-headed broken families instituted as a way of life on the basis that everything’s ok if mom is working. Well, it’s very much not ok. The core problem to be addressed is the exile of men from the family. The overriding task is not to get lone mothers out to work. It is to recalibrate these women’s interests so that marriage becomes once again to their advantage and having children outside marriage becomes very much not to their advantage. That means, among other things, concentrating on providing work in the first instance for men; and it means providing help for young unmarried mothers to enable them to become responsible mothers rather than setting up a system of incentives, as we have done in the UK, which makes a baby appear to be a passport to an independent life.

This is, as Phillips notes, a moral and cultural problem. Government can play a role in adopting policies that strengthen rather than weaken families. In this respect, the free-market economic liberalism that currently sets the political agenda is as damaging as state welfare (possibly more so).

Biblical Christianity teaches dignity in work, stability and caring in the family and respect and compassion in society, underpinned by a moral framework that has its basis in the authority of God and the love of Christ. As long as our society rejects God and his Word, it is doomed to be dysfunctional.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary: More honoured in the breach than the observance?

It’s no use arguing that the Uzbek regime is a key ally in the war against terror. The whole point of the Bush doctrine is that relying on a psychopath to control other psychopaths is a Faustian pact which almost inevitably results in complicity in the slaughter of innocents and the perpetuation of the very global terror that such an alliance was intended to combat.

A doctrine that is only selectively applied is not a doctrine at all. It is humbug.

Earlier this week the Bluewater shopping mall banned the wearing of hooded tops (”hoodies”) and baseball caps on the grounds that youths with their faces obscured were intimidating shoppers. The Prime Minister and his deputy added their approval to that of the tabloid press; the Daily Express leader excelled itself with the demand that anyone wearing a hooded top should be treated in the same way as a person carrying an offensive weapon.

This is a ridiculous case of attacking the symptom rather than the cause, particularly since it brands a whole section of society as dangerous thugs simply based on their appearance. Banning hoodies would just make that clothing even more de rigueur for the seriously anti-social, without doing anything to modify anyone’s behaviour.

In the Queen’s Speech today the government promised to restore a “culture of respect” in British society, but the actual measures proposed smack of government by focus group and tabloid leader column rather than any real understanding of the causes of antisocial behaviour.

Too many children are brought up in vast housing developments with no public leisure facilities, conditioned from an early age to see every stranger as a threat. Town centres have ceased to be public spaces and have become soul-destroying private temples to consumerism. We poison our children with junk food, and their minds with junk entertainment. Welfare without obligations destroys responsibility, and unrestrained capitalism has destroyed the fabric of social cohesion (it was Margaret Thatcher who said that “there is no such thing as society”).

The real, root causes of anti-social behaviour and a dysfunctional society are deeper still. They are spiritual. No amount of government legislation will cure this. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; only when we recognise the love and authority of God do we truly love and respect ourselves and our neighbours.

“The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.” — Daniel 4:17

Robert Williams at Dead Man Blogging has a post on God’s Sovereignty Over Creation which coincides nicely with the aftermath of last Thursday’s UK General Election. Quoting Daniel 4:17, he writes:

The Bible says that God gives rule to “whomsoever he will”. Now, what happened to our free will in voting? We don’t believe God is magically changing ballots or sending His angels to stuff ballot boxes or fool with hanging chads. He sets up rule in this kingdom, anyway, by ruling over voters. The election results - which are apparently dependent on millions of indpendent actions by “free moral agents” - are under God’s control. God rules over the supposedly free will of men to carry out His plans.

We are by nature creatures of rebellion. More often than not we look for leaders who will serve our own self-interest. At times God blesses us with good and wise government. Sometimes he withdraws his hand and leaves us with the government we deserve. Governments are invariably flawed but from our limited perspective it isn’t always easy to discern why God should decree that one party rather than another should be given office.

We have a Labour government returned to power. This is the government that God has appointed for a time to bear the sword of restraint and justice. It may be that our nation needs a government that seeks to turn us away from greed and self-interested nationalism towards a concern for all people, especially the disadvantaged and vunerable. The fact that the government has a greatly reduced majority should force Blair to act in a less “presidential” manner, seeking greater consensus and hopefully restoring the parliamentary nature of our democratic system. God willing, this will give more voice to Christians on both sides of the house, and restrain those policies which are clearly against Gods law.

It’s 3 a.m. and the signs are that Labour will win a “historic” 3rd term, with a majority halved from 160 to about 80. Tony Blair in his re-election speech acknowledged the message that the country was sending, and the need to respond “sensibly and wisely and responsibly”, and Gordon Brown promised that “we will listen and learn”.

If the predictions hold true, the result will be pretty much what many people, myself included, were hoping for, with Labour given a mandate to continue their largely successful progressive economic policies but forced to listen to the electorate when it comes to the more contentious moral and civil rights issues.

The Conservatives will have failed, it seems to me, because they presented no grand ideas but relied on a negative and contradictory campaign, with little visibility of party members other than Michael Howard. The Liberal Democrats have gained largely at Labour’s expense and will be looking for considerably increased influence in Parliament.