Naiveté is no substitute for idealism

Naiveté is no substitute for idealism.  Which is why I've got some real issues with this diary on the rec list.  The author seems like a nice person and I hate picking on nice people, but as a progressive I hold "reason" to be one of my ideals and this diary offends that principle.

This whole diary was based on biased assumptions and generalities not reasoned arguments.  The arguments posited here are based on the assertion that something we disapprove of "always turns out badly".  That kind of generalization is a logical fallacy in and of itself. This diary aptly depicts the bias of its author, biases that I share for the most part, but it is not well reasoned.  Lets take the arguments point by point:

"Inserting your religion into the public discourse always turns out badly.  It may take a couple of centuries of murder and mayhem, but in the end, saner heads always prevail, your passion is forgotten or sneered at, and the horrors you cause weaken your mission."

Religion has been at the center of public discourse in most societies throughout humanity's history.  Those who ruled claimed t do so with some measure of religious authority whether it was the "divine right of kings" asserted in the west or "the mandate of heaven" claimed by Chinese emperors.  In ancient societies it was not uncommon for rulers to claim some measure of divinity for themselves.  The pharaohs of Egypt and the god-kings of Mesopotamia are prime examples of this.  These rulers may have established and maintained their rule primarily through force of arms, but religious assertions of their right to rule helped keep the populace obedient and loyal.

Religious discourse has even fueled the progress of our own society.  The abolitionist and civil-rights movements in our nation's history had strong religious components, as does the peace movement.  The most consistent advocates of peace through out the history of our nation have been Quakers whose principles are based in their religious beliefs.

If I may make an inference of my own here, I think what the author is really complaining about is religious demagoguery.  Demagogues have risen to power on the basis of religious fervor in many societies.  They often inspired warfare and persecution in the name of religion and can do great damage to their society or to its neighbors.  But here's the thing,  it works for them.  The demagogues often reap great personal profit from the use of religion to advance their agendas.  By that measure it "turns out" pretty good for them.

Socially, politically, historically, and psychologically religion is a powerful force.  Progressives ignore that power at their own peril and at the peril of the societies they wish to improve.  Caution is required when addressing religious matters, but that is no excuse for shunning religious discourse altogether.  That is why the author's dismissive tone towards religion here worries me.  It is not enough to deride religious discourse, you must be prepared to engage and defuse it.

next...

"Assuming that you can do, or say, anything you wish, and no one will notice, always turns out badly.  You may have a few years in which to practice your deceit and bluster, but in the end the truth will be uncovered, and your value, and the value of your ideas to society, will tank."

Firstly the author is making assumptions about the assumptions of others, which tricky at best.  Dissecting this argument is hard because the author names no specific target, which makes the statement itself the worst kind of vague generalization,  but I'll give it a try anyways.  

People who practice "deceit and bluster" don't hope "no one will notice".  They hope that everyone will notice and be fooled by their deceit or intimidated by their bluster.  In fact that's kinda the whole point of deceit and bluster.  It's called the art of the big lie and yes my friends it does work.  What they are really hoping is that no one will realize that there are lying and bluffing, or at least that no one will realize it in time to do anything about it.   Can arguments based on the big lie implode when the lie is proved false?  Yes, but first it has to be proved false.  This brings me to my next point.

The author's claim that "in the end the truth will be uncovered" is dangerously naive.  Truth does not reveal itself, especially not when it is being actively hidden by others.  Think of all the scandals that have only come to light do to the work of investigators.  Unless lies are aggressively challenged and refuted they can stand for all time.  To blindly accept that the truth will out is to abandon the moral imperative to prove it for yourself.  

Finally,  there is this gem "and your [the lier] value, and the value of your ideas [the lies] to society, will tank."  The best example of why this is so extremely wrong is Oliver North.  He lied to congress in an effort to hide the Iran-Contra scandal and he is now a hero to the right-wingers.  Why?  Because George Bush senior pardoned him and all the rest on the basis of the lie that they acted out of patriotism.  Their patriotic act?  They sold weapons to our worst enemy in the middle-east and used the proceeds to fund right-wing death squads in Central America.  And that makes them patriots, you know, just like the founding fathers.  North and the scum who worked with him should have been hung for treason, instead they are free men.    

People lie because lies work.  There will always be those who would rather believe lies than face the truth.  Those of us in the "reality based community" who value the truth must work ceaselessly to hold such deceivers accountable or they will get away with it.  Why?  Because Lincoln was right, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Moving on...

"Every war of aggression always turns out badly.  Lots of people die, infrastructure is destroyed stripping the treasuries of all participants to rebuild the destruction, and the aims of the "conquerer" are always subverted by time, by culture, and by the growing human consciousness that relegates the war monger to the dust bin of history."

I'd be nice if it was true, bur sadly it's not.  Most wars throughout history have been fought for fun and profit.  Wars of aggression used to be waged by armies fueled by plunder for the sake of gaining control of some valuable resource or territory.  In fact wars are rarely waged except when there is something to gain by them, and often, if you win, you can gain a great deal.  Rome's war of aggression against Carthage gave the Romans dominance over the Mediterranean Sea for generations.    The United States' war of aggression against Mexico gave us California and the "American" south-west.  War for profit, for material gain, is one of the oldest human traditions because it works.  If you are going to argue against it you need more than blind idealism.

The author may be willing to consign "the war monger to the dust bin of history", but I suspect most historians would not agree.  Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar these "war-mongers" reshaped the world in their times, they made history.  

Why am I picking on the author of that post like this?  Simple, I'm a progressive I want to make the world a better place.  The first step towards that goal is recognizing the flaws in the world as it really is.