The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Life's Disappointments

4.17.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 4)

I think Philip Klein is absolutely right. Right after Bittergate I sent out an e-mail outlining what was so wrong with Obama's comments. But I followed it up in a message to my mom and others saying, "Despite what I wrote, I actually think his bitter comments will have little to no effect outside of Pennsylvania and outside of the primaries. I could be wrong but there's precedence for it. The Wright issue didn't hurt him nearly as bad as it should have."

I've been accused of being overly pessimistic in this election cycle and, in fact, there's some truth to that. But I too have believed -- even before the Wright comments which I also suspected would not hurt him -- that some of the politicians and pundits I have lent my utmost respect to for years have lost touch with what is really going on in America.

In fact, I think I began to notice it in 2004. Once Bush cleaned Kerry's clock, Republicans seemed forget what had been on their minds for a long time; that is, that Kerry shouldn't even have come close. He was such an abysmal candidate, that even many Democrats now look upon him with disdain. And yet it was a highly competitive race. Voters widely broke for Bush, yes. But it should have been a blowout long before they even had the chance to get to the ballot box.

Since 2004, things have only gotten worse. I see Obama as nearly untouchable. Nothing short of a revelation that he's been murdering kittens for the past several decades could hurt him in the way it should. I'm not sure whether it's him -- that he just exudes this overwhelmingly persona, destined to remain unscathed -- or whether the electorate has changed in a much deeper, ideological manner (I actually hope it's the former). But I remain almost certain that Obama is destined to win this election and I have to agree with this sentiment expressed by my mom in response to my assertion that Bittergate would have no effect:

"For the first time I cannot even begin to get a finger on the pulse of this nation; it's anyone's game at this point."
-- Brittany Craigo

NEW DISCOVERY
Re: Richard Weikart's Darwin and the Nazis:

It's perfectly appropriate for Richard Weikart (whose bio in TAS Online omits the fact that he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute) to describe plausible historical links between Darwinism and Nazism.

Just as it's appropriate to talk about how Christianity (American Protestantism in particular) for centuries taught the doctrine of racial inferiority based on the "curse of Cain."

Both these topics are valid for discussion in the fields of political and religious history. They are in every way irrelevant to whether the universe is six thousand or fourteen billion years old, or to whether life evolved at random or was manipulated into being by a supposed "designer."
-- Bob Danielson

Author Weikart's piece gets near the heart of a key problem for Darwinists, when he writes:

"One aspect of Expelled that troubles Dawkins and some of his colleagues is its treatment of the ethical implications of Darwinism, especially its discussion of the historical connections between Darwinism and Nazism. Isn't this a bit over-the-top, suggesting that Darwinism has something to do with Nazism? After all, Darwinists today are not Nazis, and Darwinism has nothing to do with anti-Semitism."

Given that Darwinists have no fixed ethical boundaries founded upon religious beliefs and/or reason, one cannot help but wonder why they are concerned about the comparison. To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg, "Aside from the genocide and the bigotry, what parts of the Nazi's overall program do you find troubling?" As Weikart notes, Darwin himself clearly had no particular problem with genocide, so long as it contributes to producing "higher animals."

So, precisely what is it that makes Darwinists uncomfortable about the clear connection between their worldview and that of the Nazis, as well as some of the turn-of-the-century eugenics advocates? If they are so convinced of the correctness of their worldview, they surely ought not care about how others view them. Is this merely a worry about bad press? Or could it be that some of them realize ethics may be more than "an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes."

It must take a lot of mental energy to simultaneously dismiss ethics as a genetically induced illusion and hold the position that humans are a kind of higher animal. More pointedly, the Third Reich and Soviet Communism, the two major 20th century movements founded upon Dialectical Materialism/Darwinism, were spectacularly destructive failures. How does a Darwinist square that circle?

For the rest of us, it is understandable that someone might resist looking into a mirror which reflects an image resembling Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and all the rest.
-- Bud Hammons

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, John McCain, Barack Obama, Protestantism, Abortion, Global Warming, Law, Africa, Communism, Energy