I think Bush's Christianity is highly selective. Having grown up in a
fundamentalist church, though I no longer follow it at all, I am amazed
at the disconnection from Jesus's commitment to the poor, to the
outcast, to a vision not only other than money but even critiqueing
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/19/04 10:23 AM >>>
I'm not sure I can agree Eliot would've voted for Bush. Of course, Bush
is Christian, but then so is Kerry, and Bush's anti-intellectual
approach to both policy and religion is deeply antithetical to Eliot's
desire for an aristocratic intelligentsia at the front of society. This
is not to mention Bush's primary appeal at the level of personality (and
Edwards as well), which I think Eliot would've loathed. On the other
hand, Kerry's "Boston Brahmanism" and concern with policy above
personality doesn't seem so far from what Eliot had in mind.
At a more historical level, I'd argue that Eliot's conservatism (and
indeed British conservatism in the early 20th c.) was a reaction against
Victorian liberalism, which freed capitalists to practice vicious
enterprise at the expense of social controls. Nowadays, the cause of
liberal, laisser-faire capitalism is actually championed by so-called
conservatives, like Bush. It's difficult to transport a thinker to
another time, but it seems to me that Eliot would have preffered the
social protection and even paternalism from the government of the
current Democrats rather than the intense cutting of social programs at
the expense of the military that republicans support.
Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
There's a chance, maybe better than some people believe, that Edwards
can get the nomination. If he doesn't, I really don't know if I can
vote for Kerry. I thought I could, but after listening to him today, I
don't think that I can. Eliot would have no dilemma. He wouldn't be
voting in the Democratic primary at all. And, in the general election,
he would vote for Bush.
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today!
Download Messenger No