Yet more Buddhism and politics
Auntie at Buddhajones explains why she’s an undecided voter (not enamored with McCain but not confident in Obama’s ability to deliver) and asks: “Am I a Buddhist heretic because I’m not on the Obama bandwagon?”
Tinythinker at peacefulturmoil invites Buddhist conservatives (or at least non-liberals) to come out of the political closet. He or she raises an interesting point that I’ve also been dwelling on, which is that conservatism doesn’t per se have to be about being for the wealthy and against the poor, or anti-equality. I’m starting to think of American conservatism as being an anomaly, although perhaps I have in mind a non-anomalous conservatism that doesn’t exist.
Terence at Republic of T expresses some heartfelt outrage at John McCain’s asking for a time-out from the presidential campaign and from the first presidential debate. Like him, I (cynic as I sometimes am) started wondering whether McCain was avoiding a confrontation where he’s likely to come off looking bad. His phony populism will look pretty silly when set against reminders of his previous support for deregulation.
And tonight I was talking at a class I was teaching to a state representative who’s there because she wants to learn to be more ethically skillful in her political communication. Having only just started to think about this myself I can’t be of much immediate help in that regard.
5 Responses to “Yet more Buddhism and politics”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Yet more Buddhism and politics,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Sep 24 2008
Hi Bodhipaksa
Thanks for this series of articles, i’m finding them really interesting. I’m particularly looking forward to your thoughts on Buddhism and Liberalism. I agree with you that there is a need for a new paradigm as I am someone who straddles perspectives. The majority of my thinking comes from a fairly classic liberal perspective but there are many asects of modern liberalism i struggle with. In the UK for example i am appalled at the way such a huge sway of the left has segued from simple opposition to Bush to actively supporting the murderous quasi fascistic elements of fundamentalism in the name of them being “anti imperialist”. I also find myself deeply torn on the issues of Iraq, and especially Afghanistan. While i obviously fully accept that there are multitudes of appaling motives and horrendous incompetence in recent years, i also feel that there is a strong argument to be made for the use of force (especially in the face of an ideology like the Taleban’s) for the greater good. These are complex issues, but again i do find much of the left’s rethoric often simplistic. It is one of the reason’s I have always struggled with greater engagement with Buddhism. While i obviously agree that peaceful means are the best way in an ideal world, I do believe there are times (eg WW2, Afghanistan now) where the threat of extreme evil can only be countered by military force, even if the motives of some of those involved may be mixed at best (as indeed they were during WW2). Likewise i think that much of the left are naive in their view of welfare. While the hardline of conservatism is often rightly seen as simply lacking in any compassion or caring for the poor, equally i think much of the left is naive and doctrinaire about the way welfare systems can very directly increase and institutionalise poverty if not structured with great care. It was interesting that one of the people you quoted was querying how much people in traditional Buddhist societies would have in common with much liberal thinking, and i suspect on some of the welfare issues there would often be a sense of shock, that’s certainly the impression i get from some of the workers we have from overseas who are amazed that people are “allowed” to not work.
It is interesting you mention a different type of conservatism. Being a fellow Scot, my grandfather was a lifelong Conservative , but conservatism in Scotland in the pre and post war years was I think a very different beastie to todays. Interestingly, my grandad was both a Conservative and someone who in practice was thoroughly anti materialistic and believed people in modern society had far too much; “greed is good” he wasn’t! While Scottish conservatism had it’s deep flaws, not least in a highly paternalistic view and classic conservative views on things like homosexuality, i think there is little doubt that it had also had a much more compassionate view of conservative values helping to make a better society for all. Much of that was wrong, but much, particularly in the concepts of hard work and thrift as vital not only for wider society but as essential individual skills, was again something that i suspect many in traditional Buddhist societies would have much sympathy for.
As i say,i am really looking forward to your thoughts on buddhism and Liberalism (no pressure, i know it sounds like you’re busy!). Personally i alwasy find it much more interesting to have your own perspective throughly critiqued than simply that of those you disagree with!
warm regards
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
Much of what you say resonates with me and is feeding into my thoughts about the defects of both conservatism and liberalism, and how the best parts of both approaches could make a politics based on Buddhist principles.
I must say I’m a bit shocked at the examples of liberal whackiness that you cite. In the US we reserve serious crazy-talk for the conservative wing, although of course it’s not absent from the left-wing either (although there’s not much of a left wing, properly speaking).
I’m trying, in the face of many interruptions, to work on a book proposal right now, but I do need to find diversions so I’ll see if I can write an article in stages. Perhaps I’ll publish it in stages as well, so that it’s more a series of thoughts that I can later stitch together than it is a single piece of writing.
if you have any spare reading time (!) I recommend Nick Cohen’s “What’s Left” as a blistering analysis of how much of the British left moved from being simply anti war to explicit support of fundamentalist terrorism (john pilger for example is on record as explicitly supporting suicide bombing “insurgents” simply because they are anti American somewhat ignoring they’re own fascistic vision of society.)Sadly, I find views like this very common now where understandable opposition to war has mutated into disturbing, il thought out alliances. Good luck with the writing!
Warm regards
Stephen
Hello,
I’m Buddhist, and Conservative, and anti-egalitarian. Of course I am against equality. Honestly, how could I do otherwise? Inequality is NOT caused by the wrong structure of society or wrong politics. It’s caused by karma. People got what they deserved, based on their former actions. Private charity is good, because you always have to keep compassion and wisdom in balance, but the forced redistribtion of wealth is just too much towards compassion, and too little wisdom.
Also, there is a question of justice. Person A drinks, womanizes and therefore does not make use of the opportunities in life. Person B works hard and saves, therefore becomes richer. By what right should Person A receive a portion of Person B’s wealth? Why should society punish good action (action that generates goods, wealth) and reward bad action (action that generates bads, like poverty or sickness) when karma itself doesn’t do so?
Hi Shenpen,
I’m sympathetic to some of your positions and not so much with others. In terms of promoting equality of opportunity, I’d describe myself as an egalitarian; I think people should be treated as individuals and not as representatives of a race, gender, or class. The Buddha evidently believed the same thing — he described the different classes in Indian society as being live rivers that all flowed into the same sea — the Sangha.
Your description of the workings of karma is something that I take issue with, though. Although modern Tibetan teachers (and Hindus) assert that whatever happens to you (e.g. the situation into which you’re born) is a result of your karma, this was not the Buddha’s own view — at least as expressed in his more technical teachings. In fact he described that notion as a micchaditthi, or a false view that inhibits spiritual development. Things happen to us for many reasons, including random chance.
To regard misfortune as being the fault of the people who experience it is risking a “blame the victim” mentality that lacks compassion. That’s something I want no part of.
Your position also seems self-contradictory. You invoke fairness as a principle underlying non-distribution of wealth from person B to person A, but if society so organizes itself as to take moeney from one person to give to another then by your argument this is simply the karma of the rich working themselves out. Or am I missing something?