The above is the conclusion to a piece by a well-known political commentator. The “dilemma” described by the author is the fact that, on the one hand, the country has turned decisively against the war in Iraq and by significant majorities wants the troops to come home, and on the other, President Bush remains committed to sticking to a course that isn’t working and that almost no one thinks will work, while even the respected General Petraeus offers little in the way of light at the end of a very dark tunnel.
The author? William F. Buckley, Jr., the godfather of modern conservatism.
Ouch.
It’s an interesting piece. A couple of choice quotes:
The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended – wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal….
Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question….
It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq….
When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it.
Like I said, ouch.
dragoneyes says
“When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state.”
<
p>
That is complete propaganda and totally untrue. Please read any reputable book on the history of the Roman Empire and Christianity.
<
p>
The real and even scarier truth is that when the Romans made Christianity the official religion early in the 4th century that was the beginning of monotheistic religion conflating with totalitarian government. The now Christianized Romans went out and attempted to covert all of Europe to Christianity either by the sword, social pressure, and poltiical bribery. They did this even more after the empire offically collapsed and eventually the remnants became the basis for the Holy Roman Empire of the Catholic Church.
<
p>
Before Christianity became the offical religion, many Roman citizens were disgusted by the huge fights some of the different Christian sects would get into over incredibly minor bits of theology (then as now, it was the extremist sects and fanatics that caused the trouble). They were all arguing about God’s words and what they meant and killing each other over them. Why did many Roamsn think this was crazy? Because historically religion had been about having religions or spiritual experiences (inspired by their personal gods), and following traditional rituals (which evolved over time), not arguing about The Word(s).
<
p>
From what I have read, all the secular historians pretty much agree that it was a very bad thing for freedom, reasoning, science and individual conscience when one brand of Christianity became a bully pulpit tool for totalitarian control.
<
p>
centralmassdad says
Because the Empire was a bastion a freedom prior to 333, when Constantine adopted Christianity. Oh, wait, no it wasn’t.
<
p>
Buckley is wrong: Rome fell centuries after Constantine, and not because of Christianity, but because of acrimony with the Eastern empire, and the choice or need to defend the frontier with mercenaries.
<
p>
Your version is worse than wrong: it is propaganda.
dragoneyes says
I never said that the “Empire was a bastion of freedom”. Please go back and reread my comment without assumptions or projections. Of course the Roman Empire had lots of problems, full of despots and cruel leaders as well as the occasional Marcus Aurelius type. And I could hardly comment on the whole of the issue of the Roman Empire and Christianity in a few short paragraphs, so I specifcally chose a few small points to make.
<
p>
joets says
You must not have read much or you’d know that the Holy Roman Empire was Germanic and not Roman.
<
p>
You know, you better thank your britches for Catholicism. As much as you’d like to bash the church because you disagree with it today, back in the post-fall of Rome days, Catholic monks were the only people who really made an effort to maintain some semblance of science and literacy and the maintaining of ancient texts in the Dark Ages.
<
p>
And THAT is historical fact.
<
p>
digression aside, I agree with Mr. Buckley.
centralmassdad says
Science and literacy were alive and well in Arab lands during that time, and were also reintroduced to Europe through Moorish Spain.
bob-neer says
The monks writing by candlelight in hilltop fortress monasteries etc. picked up much of what they copied from Islamic libraries.
joets says
I mean like the foundations of modern science.
<
p>
Father Nicolas Steno, father of geology, Father Athanasius Kircher, father of egyptology, Father Giambattista Riccioli, the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a falling object, Father Roger Boscovich, father of atomic theory. Don’t forget that the Jesuits studied seismology and earthquakes so heavily it was called ‘The Jesuit Science’. The trend continued past the dark and middle ages too! Nobody forgets Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics…also a monk.
<
p>
Bob, the contributions to science and civilization by Christianity are far too important for “actually it was the Muslims”. And while, yes, the Muslims historically have contributed much to society in terms of math and literacy and such, you do a great disservice to yourself and readers here by trying to downplay Christian contributions.
raj says
If I had access to my library in the states, I’d do a tome.
<
p>
“Rome” transitioned from a middle-Mittlemeer dominated mercantile state (centered around Rome to an eastern-Mittlemeer (centered around Constantinople) dominated state. The so-called “fall” of Rome, the crowning of a German as the Emperor in (what was it?) 476 CE.
<
p>
The downfall of the Mittlemeer (Mediterannean) mercantile arrangement began when Arabs of the Muslim persuasian conquered most of northern Africa (the other half of the mercantile arrangement) in the 6th and 7th centuries. The Catholics in Europe wanted nothing to do with them, and they suffered accordingly. For about five centuries.
<
p>
BTW, Buckley is a jackass to whom I would not give the time of day, because, if I did, he wouldn’t understand it. Succinct enough?
centralmassdad says
The problem is that the eastern empire was never conventially referred to as the Roman Empire, it was referred to as the Byzantine Empire–certainly by English speaking peoples of the 18th century likely to read Gibbons.
<
p>
The fall–or more accurately, the decline– better describes the failure of central government in what is now western Europe. You’re right that Gibbon’s 476 date is premature. But there was a time when the writ of the Emperor (of the western Empire) in Rome ceased to run to what is now Spain, England, and France and, indeed, Italy, leading to a number of comparatively backward centuries in those places.
<
p>
I don’t dispute your opinion of the cause of that decline, which makes sense.
bob-neer says
For many centuries after Constantine. Your use of “never,” I’d suggest, is too absolute.
raj says
The problem is that the eastern empire was never conventially referred to as the Roman Empire, it was referred to as the Byzantine Empire–certainly by English speaking peoples of the 18th century likely to read Gibbons.
<
p>
This is correct. But we are merely getting into a taxonomy again. (Bob is correct, by the way).
<
p>
But my point, perhaps inarticulately stated is that the economic decline of the western portion of the empire did not begin with the crowning of the German in the west or with the dissolution of the western portion of the empire. The economic decline (“dark ages”) started several centuries later, and the beginning coincides exactly with the Muslim conquest of north Africa, and the withdrawal of the Christian west from the Mittelmeer. The Christian west was unable to recover economically until they could resume mercantilism via other routes than the Mittelmeer They eventually did, but it took several centuries for them to do so.
winston-smith says
Does anyone else remember how bleak it looked for Democrats after Bush was re-elected? A lot of people were wondering if the Democrats were going to be relegated to minority party status for decades. Thankfully people have finally begun to realize what a buffoon this President is. Right now, not only are we poised to take back the White House, but it looks like we are going to make even more significant gains in the House and Senate. What a difference a couple years makes!
jconway says
Just as alarmist Democrats and overly optimistic Republicans claimed that the referendum against John Kerry in 2004 was a mandate that decimated our party similar predictions are now being made about the inevitable Republican collapse. Politics like the economy is cylical, and much like after Nixon the Republicans were hurt just a few years later they resurged with Reagan, similarly after three losses to Regan-Bush Democrats got Clinton and rebounded. Similarly I can safely predict that much like the 20th century saw both parties evenly divide the Presidency so will this century.
raj says
They figured out that the way to get into power and stay there was to (i) appeal to the social conservatives, which they have, and then (ii) provide lots of corporate welfare, which they also have. That’s how they attracted the DixieCrats into the Republican coalition.
<
p>
We can bitch and moan about corporate welfare, but the fact is that corporations employ voters, and the voters love their corporate welfare. It helps keep them employed–or at least it used to. We’ll see what happens downstream, with all the outsourcing. But the Republicans have been supplying more than a bit of it.
<
p>
Regarding corporate welfare, Nixon figured it out, Reagan perfected it, and Bush II is exploiting it–to some extent. Bush II’s only major problem is Iraq.
bob-neer says
“When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell.” As many of my esteemed fellow-commenters have pointed out above, this is a completely idiotic quotation, emblematic, actually, of the kind of half-thought-out sound-bite tripe that Buckley has built his career around. Let’s not forget that he kicked off his career writing praise for Joe McCarthy.
<
p>
The more lethal observation about this piece, however, I think, is that Buckley takes no real responsibility for having helped to bring us the fanatical surreality-based Bush administration. This is a Republican government, after all. A typical modern U.S. conservative: quick to criticize but never able to accept responsibility.
eaboclipper says
When confronted by Christianity, the old Rome fell, and a new Rome based upon Christianity arose.
<
p>
For in fact that is what happened when Constantine saw the chi-rho in the sky and in hoc signo-ed. Is it not. The old roman traditions fell to be replaced by a new religion. That is the immediate thought I got out of that statement.
mr-lynne says
literacy, education, engineering,…
<
p>
To quote the PJF… “What have the Romans ever done for us?”
mr-lynne says