I subscribe to The Economist Magazine. It’s mushily pro-business but starry eyed Progressive. Its masthead should be a cartoon of a guy grinning uncomfortably while straddling a rail.
In their weekly section on US politics called “Lexington” the correspondent – who I believe also writes the pieces on Canadian issues – headlines this week’s column: “ Who’s deplorable ”
It’s all about having sympathy for people like poor Hillary Clinton who was roundly criticized for labeling half of Donald Trump’s supporters “Deplorables.” He talks about the dreadful dilemma Trump represents for the political establishment and for journalists who, like himself are: “trying to report fairly on this election.”
Because in his view half of Trump’s supporters clearly are deplorable, although you can’t say it directly. He’s also sloppily gaga over Canada’s selfie addicted Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau; he disdains Alberta’s oilsands, and believes we all need to be on the Stop Climate Change bandwagon, even though it appears to have no wheels.
So you might ask why I’d subscribe to a magazine like The Economist that’s in the tank for every so-called **Progressive cause and every so-called Progressive politician on the planet.
The simple answer is that I like to know what people that I might disagree with are thinking. It forces me to think through my own positions more carefully and hopefully helps me move closer to the truth.
Although I’m a Christian I have atheist rock star Richard Dawkins’ supposedly theism shattering book: “The God Delusion” on my shelf. (Yes I’ve read it; twice) It turned out to be rather juvenile, and wildly disingenuous.
For instance, Dawkins claims that most of the atrocities in history can be blamed on organized religion and blithely dismisses the fact that in about 50 years during the 20th century, three atheists; Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, killed more people – mostly their fellow citizens – than all the religious wars in history put together. Add in neo-pagan, Adolf Hitler, and their total approaches 100 million.
Dawkins’ book was supposed to have put paid to the idea of a God who created the universe, and is still involved. But in the book, Dawkins chief aim seems to be to explain why he doesn’t like God, if he actually exists, and in any case he doesn’t want to live in a universe where there is a God. Now I could be uncharitable and suggest that Dawkins doesn’t want there to be a God because he doesn’t want a competitor. But I won’t be.
As I read the book, Peggy Lee’s classic phrase: “Is that all there is?”kept running through my head. So paradoxically, The God Delusion’s lack of convincing argument actually buttressed my faith.
It seems to me that it’s important to critically examine a wide range of ideas, including your own. And then, having reached defensible conclusions, we need to defend them. Our motto at LDIO™ (Let’s Do It Ourselves), is that we will think Carefully, Courageously, and Completely about issues, and then take a stand.
We small C conservatives need to get serious about this.
**CS Lewis analyzed progress best when he suggested that if you are “progressing” into a swamp, real progress involves stopping and retracing your steps to where you took the wrong turn, and then setting out again, but in the right direction. Remember that when people call themselves Progressives.