On the Value of Symbols

At some point in the fairly distant past, I recall reading a philosophical parable which impressed me greatly. As best I can remember, it went like this:

The Devil has convened a meeting in Hell of all the lesser demons. He demands that all of them come forward and explain what progress is being made for the corruption of mankind. All his minions talk excitedly of the wars that have been started, the unnatural acts committed, the cruelties, the injustices of man against man. The The Devil finds this all unsatisfactory; this is the same tired routine he's been hearing since the dawn of time. Finally, the last demon stands up and says "My lord, i believe we have failed to dehumanize people because we have focused so much on crimes against God and Nature. We have failed to alienate Man against things."

The Devil is confused. "But in a modern society, Man has more things than ever. Are you suggesting we deprive him of them?"

The demon shakes his head. "No, sir. What I mean is that we should replace his things with a series of abstractions, outlines, and spirituality. Man must see objects as symbols; he must learn to use them for effect. They should never be given value in themselves. And, of course, the door to joy must always be firmly shut."

At that, Satan leaned back and smiled. "Brilliant." He said. "Let the work go foreward."


This little story has stayed with me for some time. Ever since reading it, I've been increasingly aware of the way people latch on to tiny, significance-laden fragments of larger beliefs and enlarge these fragments beyond anything reasonable or healthy.

I don't mean worthles slogans that are repeated over and over again; I mean when a 'slogan' of any type becomes more important in people's minds than what that slogan was originally supposed to embody.

Take the recent House approval of a bill to ban flag-burning. To those who support it, the American flag is supposed to represent the freedom and promise of America. Maybe it does, but in the end it's still only a piece of cloth. To sacrifice our civil liberties for the sake of a cloth is lunacy, no matter what mystical properties you ascribe to it.

In the furor over Mel Gibson's 'The Passion', the line was drawn with liberals protesting anti-Semitism and religious conservatives denying it, while neither side at all understood the concerns of the other. The reason is that, to the film's detractors, the murderous, jeering, vile Jews of the 'The Passion' were just who they appeared to be, and this translated to a certain hostility against Jews today. To Gibson's devotees, nobody in the film was a real person and it didn't matter if what was shown in the movie never happened. It was all symbolic, showing the cruelty suffered by Jesus before his death. Quite possibly that's how it was intended, but it never even occurred to them how anyone could be upset at the sight of hook-nosed Pharisees mingling with the Devil or little curly-haired Jerusalem boys suddenly becoming red-eyed vampires. The disconnect between symbolism and reality was complete.

The examples of this type of thing are endless, whether one uses icons (the cross, the flag), verbal or written mantras (the Ten Commandments), honorifics ('Greetings, Comrade'), pieces of clothing (headscarves) or even political systems ('democracy' or 'communism' as the answer to all ills).

What we end up with is a society where nothing matters in itself. I think we're all poorer for it, and should endeavor as best we can to rid ourselves of attachments to things that cloud our ability to see the country behind the flag, or the meaning behind the chants.

Edit: I remember now that I came across that fable in an essay entitled Enjoying this So-Called Iced Cream: Mr. Burns, Satan, and Happiness. Don't ask.

This Just Made Me Laugh

There are doubtless very few people who be seriously amused by these comics . I'm proud to be one of them.

You're A Better Chairman Than I Am, Howard Dean

In most right-wing forums, DNC chairman Howard Dean is rarely, if ever taken seriously. This isn’t something for Democrats to worry about; when tapping into a major political movement, it is sometimes better to start off as a bit of a joke. Reagan and Clinton certainly did, to name just two.

Still, the flippant dismissal of the strength of Dean’s message rather annoys. The people who are so casual to label Dean a ‘nut’ haven’t spent days, weeks, and months talking to members of the Democratic Party in an effort to determine where they stand. I have, and I can tell you that the core of the party feels furious and betrayed over the endless efforts to compromise towards a ‘center’ that seems much further toward the right than should be possible for anyone calling him or herself a Democrat. This ‘core is bigger than you’d think; I’ve met plenty of people who described themselves as ‘not interested in politics’ who began fuming when asked if the Dems were moving to far to the right. For ten years, we tried to fight the GOP slime machine by seeking solutions to make everyone happy. We should’ve known that the more we offered, they greater the demands.

Now and then, Dean says a number of things that are impolitic, in that they are true, but it would be embarrassing for people to admit it. Take his statement about the GOP being a ‘white, Christian party’. Well, is he wrong? The most stunning development in non-white voting in 2004 – much touted in conservative circles – was that Bush managed to gain a majority of the Hispanic vote in one state, while still losing the Latino vote by 9 points nationally. By ‘Christian’, it can be assumed that dean is referring to hard-line evangelicals, who have more or less total control of the GOP at all levels.

Following his ‘gaffes’, some foolish Democrats (say, Lieberman and Biden) will try and earn points among their Republican buddies by condemning Dean. Silly rabbit, Republicans aren’t going to vote for you. Attacking your own party just makes it weaker.

Of course, Dean isn’t perfect; he recently announced that we ought to ‘stay into Iraq until the job is done’, whenever that is. I wish he hadn’t embraced the spectacularly unpopular and defeatist attitude shared by the White House. But that’s a different story…

V for Victory

WE WON!

Byrne, Bolling Take Lt. Governor's Races

Virginia voters yesterday chose two nominees with strong appeal for core loyalists in their respective parties as candidates for lieutenant governor this November.

State Sen. Bill Bolling (R-Hanover), a veteran state lawmaker and a leader of the legislature's antitax contingent, convincingly defeated a well-funded challenge from Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Sean T. Connaughton to win the Republican Party nomination.

On the Democratic side, former state delegate, senator and U.S. representative Leslie L. Byrne beat back three competitors, including Del. J. Chapman Petersen of Fairfax, for her party's nomination. Byrne, 58, has long been known for her outspoken style in support of abortion rights and gay rights, as well as expanded health care and the environment. Yesterday's win represented the first step of a political comeback for Byrne, who lost her state Senate seat in 2002 when district lines were redrawn.

"We put together a grass-roots effort, and it paid off," Byrne said. "We won in places like Staunton, in places like Winchester, not just in Northern Virginia."

Byrne had perhaps the best name recognition in her party from more than two decades in politics. Voters at several polls said they felt comfortable with her long record.

"I know her -- she's a woman and she's been good for Fairfax," said county resident Elyse Galik, 51.

I knew all those hours stuffing envelopes, scanning data, and making phone calls - hundreds, thousands of phone calls - would pay off. The margin isn't as wide as I would like, but in a four-way competitive race you can't expect too much. Especially when turnout was as abysmal - 8 percent, by some counts - as it was.

The victory party was held at an Italian restaurant which served us all the bruschetta and priscuitto we could ask for, with a big dry-erase board on one wall to tally up the vote returns as they came in. Leslie was in the lead from the very beggining, and never fell less than six points ahead.

When it became clear that victory was imminent, attorney general candidate Creigh Deeds and gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine showed up to offer their congratulations. Deeds is a personable guy who greeted me by name (we had met before at the Memorial Day parade) while Kaine simply shook hands and made what I assume is the standard what-a-great-team-we're-gonna-move-(this state)-forward speech. Leslie then got up and began to thank all of her supporters who were crowding the room, but quickly had to retire lest she start crying. It was an illuminating moment.

Now, on to the general. It'll be a battle of polar opposites - or, at least, as far apart as two mainstream American politicians can get. But that's the primary system for you, even though Virginia has an open primary.

Unfortunately, I won't be involved with the campaign anymore - they're moving the office to Mclean, Virginia, and I have no way of getting there. Ah, well, it's nice to be part, and I wish her all the bets in November.

Aux Armes, Citoyens

We have not eternal allies and we have not perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and those interests it is out duty to follow.

- Lord Palmerston

Something that's been troubling me lately is the widespread notion that being born in a country makes you a representation of everything that country has ever done, and able to call in 'debts' from other countries for past services. And I cannot for the life of me understand the rage that occurs from the more jingoistic when another country fails to follow that idea.

That's not very well put. I'll use a current example to illustrate what I mean: the relationship between the US and France. Who gave us vital military and strategic support during the Revolutionary War? The French. Who lost over a million men in the trenches before the US decided to step in? They did. Who fought the Nazis while America was too scared to face reality or too selfish to think that Hitler concerned them? You guessed it.

And yet, you can barely spend five minutes in a 'patriotic American' crowd without hearing the French described as the most cowardly, contemptible, surrender-happy people in the world who owe the US eternal obedience for the liberation of Paris.

But let's look at what else happened in WWII. The country that sacrificed the most, suffered the most, and fought the longest against the most overwhelming odds, was the Soviet Union. The Red Army suffered losses on a scale that would've set the US Army in full retreat before the slaughter was 1/10 over. Could Vladmir Putin today stride into Poland or East Germany and declare "We saved you from the Nazis. Now do as we say!"? I doubt it.

In the end, it's all fairly irrelevant. Even if the French (or any other country) had passively sat by and it was the US alone who had fought Hitler, what does that mean for Americans today? Most of the people who fought in WWII are dead. Brave deeds aren't inheritable.

Further, the constant whine of "Those socialist wimps hate us now, but just wait till they need us again!" belies a basic misunderstanding of the situation on all levels. First of all, the Europeans do not 'hate us'. They despise the reckless and arrogant behavior of the current administration. And yes, there are some cultural snobberies, but we make up for them with out own. Second, it's not as if the EU has trade sanctions on us; we still trade, visit, and embark on international aid ventures together. And finally, 'we' need 'them' as much as the other way around, both economically and in terms of much of our shared cultural and philosophical heritage. This marriage can yet be saved.

Yet this I think is a problem with the personification of countries; the idea that each nation is, in effect, a single person, transferring the words, deeds, sins and virtues of each citizen of that nation into every citizen of said nation, and making the people who happen to be born in one place somehow the heirs of those who lived in the same place over half a century ago. For a writer of travelouges, this might be a charming literary device. As a way to decide foriegn policy, it is sentimental nonsense at best.

But don't let that stop you from ordering your freedom fries. Getting heart disease is as American as hot dogs and apple pie (both of which probably also cause heart disease).