Friday, May 20, 2005
Two Nations Redefined
I often mention to people how India is becoming more like the U.S. and how the U.S. is becoming more like India – and, people who know both countries tend to agree. In the case of India, the comparison is both good and bad. The good can be found in the increasing high-tech industry found there. More and more young people are entering the technical field and doing very well financially and otherwise. The fall-out of this is both technical and cultural. Everyone I saw there had a cellphone, a home computer and cable TV. The roads have improved immensely as well. Whereas before, there were one-and-a-half-lane highways, there are now four-to-eight-lane autobahns. Overall, India has improved materially and is playing a quick catch-up to the western world.
In spite of all this, there are a few drawbacks, the major one being the materialism found among the young with their newfound wealth. Once they’ve acquired their well-paying jobs, they’ll often indulge themselves in buying the latest toy – cellphones being just one example. I saw more cars on the road, which means that there’s more traffic on those four-to eight-lane autobahns I had mentioned. Instead of driving scooters, they’ll drive cars. The problem is that they drive their cars like they’re driving scooters! The cultural fall-out is the brazen attitude that the young now have. When, once, they would have been more modest and respectful of their elders, the young in India decide to follow what they consider “western attitudes” and push the envelope of decorum.
So, India is becoming more like the U.S. in both good and bad ways. The only place where they don’t emulate the West is in politics – which brings me to the United States. Overall, the U.S. doesn’t emulate anyone. Here, we expect people to emulate us. However, in one disturbing way, the U.S. is following the examples of the developing world, and that is in the political arena.
My Indian-American friends and I often complain about the corruption found in India. Of course, corruption can be found in America too, but it wasn’t as open as it is in places like India. Now, I see a similar type of open-faced corruption. When, once it would have been hidden behind closed doors, today’s politicians seem to enthrall themselves in money. One famously claimed “I AM the Government!” (If there’s justice, he may rue the day he said that!)
This open corruption is bad enough, except there’s one other issue that I see both India and America now have in common, and this is communalism. In India, communalism is when people divide themselves into factions, usually religious, and would attack each other, first verbally, then physically. India’s newspapers would be filled with the latest communal riots between Hindus and Muslims. Granted, the majority would not be involved, but all it takes is a determined, vocal minority to make life a living hell for the rest.
Now, in the U.S. we don’t have any such riotous atmosphere – at least, not yet. What we do have is a growing communalism where one religious group – or one faction of a religious group – claims that it’s being persecuted and exerts its power in a bullying fashion. This is what was witnessed on Justice Sunday a few weeks ago. This was when a large group of conservative Christians gathered and claimed that the Democrats are anti-Christian because they oppose some judicial nominees to the federal courts. They were joined by no less than the leader of the U.S. Senate. Their solution – besides praying – is to have the Senate get rid of the filibuster – a long-standing Senate tradition used to help bring checks and balances in the government.
My criticism of the religious groups involved is not over their support for the judicial nominees, nor even their involving themselves in the way government works – which is bad enough. Religious people have a right to their opinion the same as anyone else. What I’m concerned about is the blatant communalism and demagoguery in the way this group is expressing these opinions. What’s worse is that they have influential politicians joining them in this line of argument.
How is someone anti-Christian when he opposes a judicial nominee? Why does a Senate leader even accept this view? Some people claim that the separation of church and state is a myth. They want more religious involvement, which is a good thing in itself. It becomes a problem when they use religion as a political tool.
This is what brought communalism in India – unscrupulous religious leaders and corrupt politicians who foment religious feelings among the masses. They claim that their religious views have been slighted by the opposition, so the only recourse will be to fight them – verbally, or, if need be, physically. The opposition could be religious or political. In India, it’s often religious (Muslim, Hindu, or even Christian). In our case, it’s political (“secular” Democratic politicians).
Many people – even religious people - are disturbed by this mix of religion and politics, but they don’t exactly know why it’s wrong. They just know that it can produce bad results for all involved. Obviously, the religious people who are mixing religion and politics don’t even have a clue as to what they’re getting into. Many naively believe that they’re doing what is right. After all, isn’t God on their side?
So, why do an increasing number of people wish to mix religion and politics? Many have the naïve belief that Godly people will always do what is right. For the leaders, their motives are mixed. Some are plain power-hungry and just hide behind the patina of faith to get their way. Others follow a philosophy called Dominionism where they believe that the U.S. government should follow biblical principles. Now, do you see why they believe that church-state separation is a myth?
First of all, the separation of church and state is not a myth. It was a policy given to us from the founding of this country – the main reason being to avoid the blatant demagoguery that we’re hearing now. The Constitution itself states that there will be no religious test for anyone working in government.
Even though all the founders were at least nominally Protestant, they knew that any introduction of sectarianism would produce enmity and animosity amongst each other. They may have had prayers when they opened their sessions, but they made sure that it was non-denominational. After all, if an Episcopal priest read from the Book of Common Prayer, how would the Presbyterians and Methodists feel, let alone the Baptists? So, the best way to avoid this was to not be specific in public about their beliefs. Thus, they avoided establishing a state church.
What this did was open religion to all. Churches had to compete for congregants, so began the uniquely American form of Revivalism with circuit riders and itinerant preachers roaming the countryside winning souls for the Lord. (We see the modern-day equivalent with television evangelists.) So, without an established religion or state church, faith became a personal choice. This is how America became more religious. If we had a state religion, it would have been seen as a burden and a chore, like it was in Europe. Instead, people had the freedom to choose whatever belief they wanted, and they weren’t under any obligation from the state.
What this did for government was that it allowed a more diverse group of people to get elected and work for the government. So, one didn’t have to be Episcopalian or Presbyterian or Congregationalist (the established church in Massachusetts and Connecticut). In fact, one didn’t have to be Protestant. So, Catholics, and later Jews and Eastern Orthodox could join. Even atheists can get elected!
With this (potential) diversity of views, no one group may impose its beliefs on others. Whenever one did (and it happened on occasion), a later session would overturn those laws. For example, back in the 1840s, when Congress was led by the Eastern-seaboard establishment, it passed a law banning mail delivery on Sunday since it was the Sabbath day. Well, this hurt the Western, rural crowd who lived for Sunday mail delivery because that was the only day that many of them had free. Since they had to get the mail at the post office, it was an opportunity to meet others as well. So, banning Sunday mail delivery put a damper on their lifestyles. Anyway, a later session of Congress, led by a Georgian Baptist, overturned the law. So, the westerners won out! (Western meant places like Kentucky and Illinois.)
Our government is made with many checks and balances. This was done in order to prevent tyranny. The founders of this country feared tyranny of any stripe. It wasn’t just the lone tyrant that they feared, but the tyranny of the majority as well. This was why we have three branches of government. It’s why we have a federal system where there are federal and state governments. It’s also why Congress made internal rules like the filibuster so the minority can have the chance to oppose the majority – sometimes successfully.
When the majority decides to impose its power over the minority using faith as a weapon, it’s demagoguery. It’s an abuse of power that will result in resentment. Most importantly, it will associate that religious faction with demagoguery and tyranny. The result of this will be that when the current majority finds itself in the minority, the people of faith who naively believed that they were doing the Godly thing will also find themselves out.
Politics is relative. It changes with the wind. Faith is absolute. It’s full of certainties. The danger becomes when you impose absolutes onto an institution run on expediency and compromise. When a politician claims to do something with absolute certainty (with God on his side), it’s the beginning of tyranny – even if it’s well-meaning. If we don’t understand or believe this now, we will eventually.
Politics is full of give-and-take, whether we like it or not. That’s why it’s messy. The irony is government works best when our leaders compromise. When government is run by uncompromising zealots, then we should conclude that tyranny has won out. After all, even uncompromising zealots somehow end up compromising something. As Lord Acton stated, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
In spite of all this, there are a few drawbacks, the major one being the materialism found among the young with their newfound wealth. Once they’ve acquired their well-paying jobs, they’ll often indulge themselves in buying the latest toy – cellphones being just one example. I saw more cars on the road, which means that there’s more traffic on those four-to eight-lane autobahns I had mentioned. Instead of driving scooters, they’ll drive cars. The problem is that they drive their cars like they’re driving scooters! The cultural fall-out is the brazen attitude that the young now have. When, once, they would have been more modest and respectful of their elders, the young in India decide to follow what they consider “western attitudes” and push the envelope of decorum.
So, India is becoming more like the U.S. in both good and bad ways. The only place where they don’t emulate the West is in politics – which brings me to the United States. Overall, the U.S. doesn’t emulate anyone. Here, we expect people to emulate us. However, in one disturbing way, the U.S. is following the examples of the developing world, and that is in the political arena.
My Indian-American friends and I often complain about the corruption found in India. Of course, corruption can be found in America too, but it wasn’t as open as it is in places like India. Now, I see a similar type of open-faced corruption. When, once it would have been hidden behind closed doors, today’s politicians seem to enthrall themselves in money. One famously claimed “I AM the Government!” (If there’s justice, he may rue the day he said that!)
This open corruption is bad enough, except there’s one other issue that I see both India and America now have in common, and this is communalism. In India, communalism is when people divide themselves into factions, usually religious, and would attack each other, first verbally, then physically. India’s newspapers would be filled with the latest communal riots between Hindus and Muslims. Granted, the majority would not be involved, but all it takes is a determined, vocal minority to make life a living hell for the rest.
Now, in the U.S. we don’t have any such riotous atmosphere – at least, not yet. What we do have is a growing communalism where one religious group – or one faction of a religious group – claims that it’s being persecuted and exerts its power in a bullying fashion. This is what was witnessed on Justice Sunday a few weeks ago. This was when a large group of conservative Christians gathered and claimed that the Democrats are anti-Christian because they oppose some judicial nominees to the federal courts. They were joined by no less than the leader of the U.S. Senate. Their solution – besides praying – is to have the Senate get rid of the filibuster – a long-standing Senate tradition used to help bring checks and balances in the government.
My criticism of the religious groups involved is not over their support for the judicial nominees, nor even their involving themselves in the way government works – which is bad enough. Religious people have a right to their opinion the same as anyone else. What I’m concerned about is the blatant communalism and demagoguery in the way this group is expressing these opinions. What’s worse is that they have influential politicians joining them in this line of argument.
How is someone anti-Christian when he opposes a judicial nominee? Why does a Senate leader even accept this view? Some people claim that the separation of church and state is a myth. They want more religious involvement, which is a good thing in itself. It becomes a problem when they use religion as a political tool.
This is what brought communalism in India – unscrupulous religious leaders and corrupt politicians who foment religious feelings among the masses. They claim that their religious views have been slighted by the opposition, so the only recourse will be to fight them – verbally, or, if need be, physically. The opposition could be religious or political. In India, it’s often religious (Muslim, Hindu, or even Christian). In our case, it’s political (“secular” Democratic politicians).
Many people – even religious people - are disturbed by this mix of religion and politics, but they don’t exactly know why it’s wrong. They just know that it can produce bad results for all involved. Obviously, the religious people who are mixing religion and politics don’t even have a clue as to what they’re getting into. Many naively believe that they’re doing what is right. After all, isn’t God on their side?
So, why do an increasing number of people wish to mix religion and politics? Many have the naïve belief that Godly people will always do what is right. For the leaders, their motives are mixed. Some are plain power-hungry and just hide behind the patina of faith to get their way. Others follow a philosophy called Dominionism where they believe that the U.S. government should follow biblical principles. Now, do you see why they believe that church-state separation is a myth?
First of all, the separation of church and state is not a myth. It was a policy given to us from the founding of this country – the main reason being to avoid the blatant demagoguery that we’re hearing now. The Constitution itself states that there will be no religious test for anyone working in government.
Even though all the founders were at least nominally Protestant, they knew that any introduction of sectarianism would produce enmity and animosity amongst each other. They may have had prayers when they opened their sessions, but they made sure that it was non-denominational. After all, if an Episcopal priest read from the Book of Common Prayer, how would the Presbyterians and Methodists feel, let alone the Baptists? So, the best way to avoid this was to not be specific in public about their beliefs. Thus, they avoided establishing a state church.
What this did was open religion to all. Churches had to compete for congregants, so began the uniquely American form of Revivalism with circuit riders and itinerant preachers roaming the countryside winning souls for the Lord. (We see the modern-day equivalent with television evangelists.) So, without an established religion or state church, faith became a personal choice. This is how America became more religious. If we had a state religion, it would have been seen as a burden and a chore, like it was in Europe. Instead, people had the freedom to choose whatever belief they wanted, and they weren’t under any obligation from the state.
What this did for government was that it allowed a more diverse group of people to get elected and work for the government. So, one didn’t have to be Episcopalian or Presbyterian or Congregationalist (the established church in Massachusetts and Connecticut). In fact, one didn’t have to be Protestant. So, Catholics, and later Jews and Eastern Orthodox could join. Even atheists can get elected!
With this (potential) diversity of views, no one group may impose its beliefs on others. Whenever one did (and it happened on occasion), a later session would overturn those laws. For example, back in the 1840s, when Congress was led by the Eastern-seaboard establishment, it passed a law banning mail delivery on Sunday since it was the Sabbath day. Well, this hurt the Western, rural crowd who lived for Sunday mail delivery because that was the only day that many of them had free. Since they had to get the mail at the post office, it was an opportunity to meet others as well. So, banning Sunday mail delivery put a damper on their lifestyles. Anyway, a later session of Congress, led by a Georgian Baptist, overturned the law. So, the westerners won out! (Western meant places like Kentucky and Illinois.)
Our government is made with many checks and balances. This was done in order to prevent tyranny. The founders of this country feared tyranny of any stripe. It wasn’t just the lone tyrant that they feared, but the tyranny of the majority as well. This was why we have three branches of government. It’s why we have a federal system where there are federal and state governments. It’s also why Congress made internal rules like the filibuster so the minority can have the chance to oppose the majority – sometimes successfully.
When the majority decides to impose its power over the minority using faith as a weapon, it’s demagoguery. It’s an abuse of power that will result in resentment. Most importantly, it will associate that religious faction with demagoguery and tyranny. The result of this will be that when the current majority finds itself in the minority, the people of faith who naively believed that they were doing the Godly thing will also find themselves out.
Politics is relative. It changes with the wind. Faith is absolute. It’s full of certainties. The danger becomes when you impose absolutes onto an institution run on expediency and compromise. When a politician claims to do something with absolute certainty (with God on his side), it’s the beginning of tyranny – even if it’s well-meaning. If we don’t understand or believe this now, we will eventually.
Politics is full of give-and-take, whether we like it or not. That’s why it’s messy. The irony is government works best when our leaders compromise. When government is run by uncompromising zealots, then we should conclude that tyranny has won out. After all, even uncompromising zealots somehow end up compromising something. As Lord Acton stated, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
When Idealists Go Bad
This past weekend marked the 30th Anniversary of the Fall of Saigon which ended the Vietnam War. It brings some bittersweet memories for me since I vividly remember the rush of refugees who desperately wanted to leave the invading (liberating?) army of North Vietnam. The bitter is the fact that it was a defeat for the U.S. The sweet was that the war was finally over – at least, the fighting was. Like many of you from that era, I remember the television images and the news anchor (Walter Cronkite or Chet Huntley) giving the daily body count. Now that the war was over, we didn’t have to hear that. So, the end was - and still is - bittersweet.
[Today also marks the 35th Anniversary of the massacre at Kent State University in Ohio where four students were killed by National Guardsmen. But, that’s another story for another time.]
For the victorious Communists, it must also be bittersweet. For them, they could say that they defeated two foreign invaders in 30 years – the French and the Americans. And, they also defeated the foreigners’ collaborators in the south. Then came the reality. Most Vietnamese who fought on the Communist side weren’t ideologues. To them, they were fighting against foreign aggressors. They also had their illustrious leader, Ho Chi Minh, to look up to.
Even though “Uncle Ho” was a Communist, he was more of a nationalist who would have rather reconciled with the South Vietnamese. But, Ho died in 1969, and the hardliners took over the party, and it was these hardliners who made life hard for the remaining people, north and south. Shortly after their final victory, many South Vietnamese were sent to “re-education camps”. Those who were deemed uncooperative were summarily executed. It was no wonder that millions of disillusioned Vietnamese left in desperation on even the flimsiest boats to what they hoped was freedom.
This whole tragic story had me wondering how an idealistic philosophy like Marxism could turn out adherents who were nothing more than murderous monsters. I had just finished The Motorcycle Diaries written by Ernesto Guevara about his trip with his friend Alberto Granado through South America in 1952. If you don’t know who Ernesto Guevara is, he’s more popularly known as Che Guevara, one of the revolutionaries who brought Communism and Castro to Cuba. Guevara was originally from Argentina where he trained as a physician. (Che was a popular term for someone from Argentina.) He wrote his Motorcycle Diaries shortly after he completed the trip, and shortly before he became a militant revolutionary.
Che Guevara is an iconic figure to many and strikes a heroic pose for his cause. He’s seen by many others as a murderous monster who was known for kangaroo courts and summary executions. (His method of choice was a bullet behind the head.) Yet, reading the Motorcycle Diaries makes one see another humane side to Guevara. In it, we see the physician-in-training whose heart broke for the poor throughout Latin America. He was especially moved by the native Indians who were so often exploited by those of European descent like himself.
Throughout the book are examples of Guevara’s concern for the plight of the minions in his homeland – and he considered all of Latin America as his homeland, not just Argentina. Reading it, one has to wonder what other paths could have been taken by the young Guevara. He was knowledgeable in Latin American history. His recounting of Peruvian and Incan history is very remarkable. He and his friend Alberto were especially concerned about lepers since leprosy was their medical specialty. So, how did a promising young physician become a militant Marxist?
The answer can be read between the lines. Since we know what was to become of young Ernesto, we can see that his deep concern for the poor and working class showed him to be an idealist. In fact, many a revolutionary followed Marxist thinking out of a sense of idealism. This isn’t to deride idealism. It’s just stating a fact. Jefferson was an idealist as was Lincoln. Yet, so were Marx and Lenin, Castro and Guevara. Even the early communist spies, Alger Hiss and Kim Philby, did their deed out of loyalty for a cause. (Later spies like John Walker and Aldrich Ames merely did it for the money.)
Somewhere in their quest for an ideal solution to help the working class, the Marxist idealists became militant. It probably started with the French Revolution where the idea came about that blood needed to be spilled. During the Terror, murder and executions were commonplace occurrences. So, future revolutionaries saw this, not as a precaution, but as a method to gain power and proclaim victory. This was the method of choice of Lenin in Russia, thus giving the new Bolshevik regime the sheen of gangsterism.
Yet, Marxist revolutionaries throughout the world didn’t see the Soviet Union and its minions as gangsters but as liberators of the working class (the Proletariat). Anyone who questioned their use of terror and violence were seen as pawns of the ruling class (the Bourgeoisie). This is where their idealism got twisted. Somehow, in their view, the ends justified the means. For them, it didn’t matter that people were killed along the way of fulfilling their workers’ paradise. After all, they probably deserved it, those silly bourgeois bastards!
This is what happened to Dr. Ernesto Guevara. His idealism was twisted when he decided that the solution was the violent overthrow of the ruling class – and their Yankee overlords in the north. At first, Guevara used conventional means by working at a clinic in Guatemala. Here, in 1954, he saw the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected government by a CIA-backed coup. (Apparently, U.S. foreign policy was more concerned with helping companies like United Fruit than with a democratic government that decided to nationalize these U.S.-owned companies. To them, nationalization meant socialism.) This action turned Ernesto Guevara into a militant.
[Even after 50 years, Guatemala hasn’t recovered from the coup. Even though there’s no more war (yet), there’s still fear.]
In 1956, the newly-reborn Che Guevara sailed into Cuba and joined a band of revolutionaries led by a young lawyer named Fidel Castro. Three years later, this ragtag guerrilla force led by a doctor (Guevara) and a lawyer (Castro) overthrew the U.S.-supported Batista regime. Although it wasn’t seen as a Marxist government at first, when Castro put Guevara in charge of “re-education”, it became one.
Che was an ideologue’s ideologue. He was more Marxist than most. If someone didn’t quite follow the revolutionary line, he would have that person placed in one of the labor camps he had set up. (They’re still there.) He would also have people summarily executed if he deemed them as enemies of the state. The ways of the gangster was his method of choice. It was no wonder that many democratically-minded people were disillusioned and left Cuba.
After a couple of years of this, Che seemed to be bored and wanted to spread more Marxist revolutions abroad. Thus, he went to Angola and other parts of Africa. Then, in 1967, he went on his final mission to his homeland of South America. There, in Bolivia, he hoped to start a peasant uprising that would spread throughout the continent, including his native country, Argentina. No such thing happened. The Bolivian Army caught him in an ambush, and, with CIA complicity, had him executed. (His remains were found 30 years later and are now buried in an elaborate tomb in Cuba.)
There are two Che Guevaras. One is the iconic hero of the revolution who is even admired by people who ought to know better. (The recent film version of The Motorcycle Diaries was produced by Robert Redford.) The other is the twisted idealist-turned-monster who ruined many lives for a benighted cause. (Not all people who opposed the Cuban Revolution were reactionaries who followed Batista.)
Even though Communism has fallen for the most part, its twisted version of an ideal still remains. (Cuba and Vietnam are just a few that remain Marxist, but even there, their hold is tenuous.) Leftists still see the world in secular and material terms. Most recently, a professor from Colorado named Ward Churchill made a statement about the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that have come back to haunt him. In it, he stated that the people who worked at the World Trade Center and Pentagon were “little Eichmanns”. Some mistakenly think that he was calling them Nazis, since Adolph Eichmann was a notorious Nazi who helped bring about the Final Solution of the Holocaust.
What Professor Churchill meant was that the WTC workers were part of the military-industrial complex, even if it was a small part. Adolph Eichmann wasn’t put on trial in Israel for running a concentration camp. He was put on trial because he set up the apparatus that ran the camps. And, the “little Eichmanns” were those who performed the little tasks like making the trains run on time. Thus, the people of the WTC were performing the equivalent of making the trains run on time in the American military-industrial complex.
The implication of this, according to the professor, is that the jihadists who caused 9/11 were merely revolting against the system that runs the United States, much like Che Guevara did when he flitted from one revolution to another in order to overthrow every U.S.-backed regime. After all, didn’t he witness a violent overthrow in Guatemala? What Prof. Churchill and others like him don’t seem to understand is that the jihadists are following a different line of thinking than the typical Leftist.
What many leftists don’t quite understand is that there are people who see things in a religious context. In the leftist secular and material way of thinking, religion is a form of delusion, thus it shouldn’t be seen as a factor. Their ulterior motive has to be political, and therefore secular, so religion isn’t that important.
Obviously, I strongly disagree. There are many who see the world through the eyes of faith, and, even though some of them might be delusional, many aren’t.
Even if they are delusional, like the jihadists, they take their beliefs very seriously that it becomes their prime motivation. When they attacked the U.S. on 9/11, they weren’t just going after the military-industrial “system”. They were going after a people. On top of that, they were doing it in the name of their faith. If we want to know and understand their motivations, we have to understand what their beliefs are, and not just dismiss them as delusional.
If possible, leftists like Prof. Churchill need to understand the religious motivations that people may have. If they don’t, then they’ll quickly become irrelevant.
[This isn’t just a problem with leftists. Much of what is taught in colleges ignores religious motives. In the Political Science courses that I took, not once was a religious point of view mentioned – and only one of my professors could be considered leftist.]
In The Motorcycle Diaries, Che Guevara often took the opportunity to deride religion in his descriptions of ignorant priests and tyrannical nuns. If only he had met someone like Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. Romero was an exponent of Liberation Theology, a philosophy and movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America that was meant to help the poor. It was also partly influenced by Marxism which became a negative factor for many. (Pope John Paul II had the movement put down because of this association.)
Archbishop Romero was among the strongest exponents of Liberation Theology and was loved by the poor in his native El Salvador. He also angered many in the ruling class. While he was performing Mass in his church in San Salvador, Romero was brutally murdered by right-wing death squads. (Apparently, there are people on the Right who don’t care for religion either.)
If only the young Ernesto Guevara had met someone like Romero instead of the ignorant priests and tyrannical nuns that he did see. If he did, then he might have used his burgeoning idealism as a physician for the poor, thus preventing many useless deaths, including his own. Instead, he chose the path that made him break his Hippocratic Oath of “Do no harm”.
[Today also marks the 35th Anniversary of the massacre at Kent State University in Ohio where four students were killed by National Guardsmen. But, that’s another story for another time.]
For the victorious Communists, it must also be bittersweet. For them, they could say that they defeated two foreign invaders in 30 years – the French and the Americans. And, they also defeated the foreigners’ collaborators in the south. Then came the reality. Most Vietnamese who fought on the Communist side weren’t ideologues. To them, they were fighting against foreign aggressors. They also had their illustrious leader, Ho Chi Minh, to look up to.
Even though “Uncle Ho” was a Communist, he was more of a nationalist who would have rather reconciled with the South Vietnamese. But, Ho died in 1969, and the hardliners took over the party, and it was these hardliners who made life hard for the remaining people, north and south. Shortly after their final victory, many South Vietnamese were sent to “re-education camps”. Those who were deemed uncooperative were summarily executed. It was no wonder that millions of disillusioned Vietnamese left in desperation on even the flimsiest boats to what they hoped was freedom.
This whole tragic story had me wondering how an idealistic philosophy like Marxism could turn out adherents who were nothing more than murderous monsters. I had just finished The Motorcycle Diaries written by Ernesto Guevara about his trip with his friend Alberto Granado through South America in 1952. If you don’t know who Ernesto Guevara is, he’s more popularly known as Che Guevara, one of the revolutionaries who brought Communism and Castro to Cuba. Guevara was originally from Argentina where he trained as a physician. (Che was a popular term for someone from Argentina.) He wrote his Motorcycle Diaries shortly after he completed the trip, and shortly before he became a militant revolutionary.
Che Guevara is an iconic figure to many and strikes a heroic pose for his cause. He’s seen by many others as a murderous monster who was known for kangaroo courts and summary executions. (His method of choice was a bullet behind the head.) Yet, reading the Motorcycle Diaries makes one see another humane side to Guevara. In it, we see the physician-in-training whose heart broke for the poor throughout Latin America. He was especially moved by the native Indians who were so often exploited by those of European descent like himself.
Throughout the book are examples of Guevara’s concern for the plight of the minions in his homeland – and he considered all of Latin America as his homeland, not just Argentina. Reading it, one has to wonder what other paths could have been taken by the young Guevara. He was knowledgeable in Latin American history. His recounting of Peruvian and Incan history is very remarkable. He and his friend Alberto were especially concerned about lepers since leprosy was their medical specialty. So, how did a promising young physician become a militant Marxist?
The answer can be read between the lines. Since we know what was to become of young Ernesto, we can see that his deep concern for the poor and working class showed him to be an idealist. In fact, many a revolutionary followed Marxist thinking out of a sense of idealism. This isn’t to deride idealism. It’s just stating a fact. Jefferson was an idealist as was Lincoln. Yet, so were Marx and Lenin, Castro and Guevara. Even the early communist spies, Alger Hiss and Kim Philby, did their deed out of loyalty for a cause. (Later spies like John Walker and Aldrich Ames merely did it for the money.)
Somewhere in their quest for an ideal solution to help the working class, the Marxist idealists became militant. It probably started with the French Revolution where the idea came about that blood needed to be spilled. During the Terror, murder and executions were commonplace occurrences. So, future revolutionaries saw this, not as a precaution, but as a method to gain power and proclaim victory. This was the method of choice of Lenin in Russia, thus giving the new Bolshevik regime the sheen of gangsterism.
Yet, Marxist revolutionaries throughout the world didn’t see the Soviet Union and its minions as gangsters but as liberators of the working class (the Proletariat). Anyone who questioned their use of terror and violence were seen as pawns of the ruling class (the Bourgeoisie). This is where their idealism got twisted. Somehow, in their view, the ends justified the means. For them, it didn’t matter that people were killed along the way of fulfilling their workers’ paradise. After all, they probably deserved it, those silly bourgeois bastards!
This is what happened to Dr. Ernesto Guevara. His idealism was twisted when he decided that the solution was the violent overthrow of the ruling class – and their Yankee overlords in the north. At first, Guevara used conventional means by working at a clinic in Guatemala. Here, in 1954, he saw the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected government by a CIA-backed coup. (Apparently, U.S. foreign policy was more concerned with helping companies like United Fruit than with a democratic government that decided to nationalize these U.S.-owned companies. To them, nationalization meant socialism.) This action turned Ernesto Guevara into a militant.
[Even after 50 years, Guatemala hasn’t recovered from the coup. Even though there’s no more war (yet), there’s still fear.]
In 1956, the newly-reborn Che Guevara sailed into Cuba and joined a band of revolutionaries led by a young lawyer named Fidel Castro. Three years later, this ragtag guerrilla force led by a doctor (Guevara) and a lawyer (Castro) overthrew the U.S.-supported Batista regime. Although it wasn’t seen as a Marxist government at first, when Castro put Guevara in charge of “re-education”, it became one.
Che was an ideologue’s ideologue. He was more Marxist than most. If someone didn’t quite follow the revolutionary line, he would have that person placed in one of the labor camps he had set up. (They’re still there.) He would also have people summarily executed if he deemed them as enemies of the state. The ways of the gangster was his method of choice. It was no wonder that many democratically-minded people were disillusioned and left Cuba.
After a couple of years of this, Che seemed to be bored and wanted to spread more Marxist revolutions abroad. Thus, he went to Angola and other parts of Africa. Then, in 1967, he went on his final mission to his homeland of South America. There, in Bolivia, he hoped to start a peasant uprising that would spread throughout the continent, including his native country, Argentina. No such thing happened. The Bolivian Army caught him in an ambush, and, with CIA complicity, had him executed. (His remains were found 30 years later and are now buried in an elaborate tomb in Cuba.)
There are two Che Guevaras. One is the iconic hero of the revolution who is even admired by people who ought to know better. (The recent film version of The Motorcycle Diaries was produced by Robert Redford.) The other is the twisted idealist-turned-monster who ruined many lives for a benighted cause. (Not all people who opposed the Cuban Revolution were reactionaries who followed Batista.)
Even though Communism has fallen for the most part, its twisted version of an ideal still remains. (Cuba and Vietnam are just a few that remain Marxist, but even there, their hold is tenuous.) Leftists still see the world in secular and material terms. Most recently, a professor from Colorado named Ward Churchill made a statement about the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that have come back to haunt him. In it, he stated that the people who worked at the World Trade Center and Pentagon were “little Eichmanns”. Some mistakenly think that he was calling them Nazis, since Adolph Eichmann was a notorious Nazi who helped bring about the Final Solution of the Holocaust.
What Professor Churchill meant was that the WTC workers were part of the military-industrial complex, even if it was a small part. Adolph Eichmann wasn’t put on trial in Israel for running a concentration camp. He was put on trial because he set up the apparatus that ran the camps. And, the “little Eichmanns” were those who performed the little tasks like making the trains run on time. Thus, the people of the WTC were performing the equivalent of making the trains run on time in the American military-industrial complex.
The implication of this, according to the professor, is that the jihadists who caused 9/11 were merely revolting against the system that runs the United States, much like Che Guevara did when he flitted from one revolution to another in order to overthrow every U.S.-backed regime. After all, didn’t he witness a violent overthrow in Guatemala? What Prof. Churchill and others like him don’t seem to understand is that the jihadists are following a different line of thinking than the typical Leftist.
What many leftists don’t quite understand is that there are people who see things in a religious context. In the leftist secular and material way of thinking, religion is a form of delusion, thus it shouldn’t be seen as a factor. Their ulterior motive has to be political, and therefore secular, so religion isn’t that important.
Obviously, I strongly disagree. There are many who see the world through the eyes of faith, and, even though some of them might be delusional, many aren’t.
Even if they are delusional, like the jihadists, they take their beliefs very seriously that it becomes their prime motivation. When they attacked the U.S. on 9/11, they weren’t just going after the military-industrial “system”. They were going after a people. On top of that, they were doing it in the name of their faith. If we want to know and understand their motivations, we have to understand what their beliefs are, and not just dismiss them as delusional.
If possible, leftists like Prof. Churchill need to understand the religious motivations that people may have. If they don’t, then they’ll quickly become irrelevant.
[This isn’t just a problem with leftists. Much of what is taught in colleges ignores religious motives. In the Political Science courses that I took, not once was a religious point of view mentioned – and only one of my professors could be considered leftist.]
In The Motorcycle Diaries, Che Guevara often took the opportunity to deride religion in his descriptions of ignorant priests and tyrannical nuns. If only he had met someone like Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. Romero was an exponent of Liberation Theology, a philosophy and movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America that was meant to help the poor. It was also partly influenced by Marxism which became a negative factor for many. (Pope John Paul II had the movement put down because of this association.)
Archbishop Romero was among the strongest exponents of Liberation Theology and was loved by the poor in his native El Salvador. He also angered many in the ruling class. While he was performing Mass in his church in San Salvador, Romero was brutally murdered by right-wing death squads. (Apparently, there are people on the Right who don’t care for religion either.)
If only the young Ernesto Guevara had met someone like Romero instead of the ignorant priests and tyrannical nuns that he did see. If he did, then he might have used his burgeoning idealism as a physician for the poor, thus preventing many useless deaths, including his own. Instead, he chose the path that made him break his Hippocratic Oath of “Do no harm”.
