What’s going on with Pelosi? [BUMPED UP: see UPDATES on the passage of the infrastructure bill]
It’s some sort of theater, but to what end? Why is she seemingly about to bring some bills to a vote that won’t succeed?:
Pelosi is gearing up for another try again today. She’s announced a floor vote today on the Build Back Better bill, and then the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
But once again, moderate Democrats are balking. This time, it’s the House moderates who have this funny little problem — they’d actually like people to have time to read the text of the mammoth, 2,000-plus page bill, and they’d like to know how much the extravaganza is truly going to cost — not just the spin number from the White House or Pelosi.
Or that’s what they say. Methinks they actually know that if they vote for these bills they stand a good chance of not being re-elected.
So, what’s it all about? Does Pelosi want to intimidate them into voting yes? Or does she want to highlight their “moderate” nature for the voters to see and thus help their re-election chances? Does she just want to placate the base and say she’s tried? I’m not really sure that she can stop trying, because a large segment of the party apparently wants these bills.
Pelosi used to be easier to figure out. My recollection is that it used to be that she didn’t ask for a vote on a bill unless she knew she had the votes. So maybe she thinks she does have these votes after all. She also knows that even if the bills passed, the Senate represents a stumbling block, but maybe it’s okay with her because at least she will have done her job by passing them and then she can pass the buck to the Senate along with the bills.
Anyone have some better ideas on this?
UPDATE 10 PM:
Apparently they’re going to vote in the House on the infrastructure bill this evening. This makes me think that it will pass, and that the “progressives” have folded on linking the two bills. This is the more “moderate” of the two bills. But the outlook keeps changing.
I think the Democrats see it as very very important that they pass something or they will really annoy their base.
UPDATE 11:30 PM:
So the bill did pass with 13 Republicans in the House voting for it (and 6 Democrats against it), which allows the Democrats to call it “bipartisan” although it barely qualifies. After all, they also called it an “infrastructure bill” although at most half of it goes for infrastructure. The cost? A trillion dollars. But hey, the government’s got money to burn, right?
I’m not against improving infrastructure. I just think the amount of this bill is obscene, and although I don’t know what is in it on the Democratic wish list besides infrastructure (who does, at this point?) I bet it’s a lot. And of course, now the Senate has to work on it, and then the infamous Build Back Better monstrosity follows.
Does she just want to placate the base and say she’s tried? I’m not really sure that she can stop trying, because a large segment of the party apparently wants these bills.
neo:
I think she’s in a no-win situation, but can’t afford to admit it. Plus I suspect there is much chaos in the ranks since the election debacles this past week.
We may have finally hit Peak Woke and the Dems are reeling.
I really have no idea. She is certainly a strange woman. I mean… she’s 81 years old. At a time in her life when most of her peers are happily retired and relaxing and enjoying spending time with their grandkids or whatever, she seems completely obessed with wielding power, cajoling, threatening, and bullying her juniors. And for what? Some odd perception of legacy? Does she imagine that history will vindicate her somehow if only she can cram through this latest Democrat monstrosity? It all strikes me as hopelessly delusional.
I’ll just say that I guess at some point you can’t rule out the early stages of dementia.
Nonapod says, “I’ll just say that I guess at some point you can’t rule out the early stages of dementia.”
I was thinking the same thing– possibly she caught it from Brandon, or else the Botox injections she gets so often have migrated to her brain.
I was hearing that some moderate Dems would really like to have a CBO (Congressional Budget Office) scoring of the bill before voting. The talking heads were saying a CBO score could take a couple days, or it could take a couple weeks or more. No way to get it in a several hours. Pelosi’s stance appears to be “Why bother?” though that wasn’t precisely clear.
Then they played video clips of Pelosi in the minority kvetching about not having a re-scoring of a GOP bill when a few amendments were added. Historical records are a bitch.
Does she just want to placate the base and say she’s tried?
That’s the most obvious answer, not necessarily the best. My bias suggests that there is almost certainly some considerable muscle flexing going on. The details matter and are unclear to me. Does she want to see exactly who and how many roll over with a modest shove? Then pocket them and pressure the more resistant?
You can put Dem voters into 4 classes (and the same for Rs naturally):
Ideological insiders
Ideological outsiders
Practical insiders
Practical outsiders
The bills are there to placate the insiders–after all that’s who’s getting the money–of both stripes. The reason it’s portrayed confusingly is that the media, which is part of the Dem base but mostly as ideological outsiders, wants to help but can’t say too much about what or why, because the outsiders don’t really know and the insiders don’t want it told….
” I mean… she’s 81 years old. At a time in her life when most of her peers are happily retired and relaxing and enjoying spending time with their grandkids or whatever, she seems completely obessed with wielding power, cajoling, threatening, and bullying her juniors. And for what? ”
I’ve said that same thing before, and need Neo to come up with the proper psychological term, for what I would call a complete psychopath. In fact I would put anyone over the age of 70 (yes, I know that includes Trump) who still wants to control power and engage in such high level politics in that same category. I’m only a few months away from that milestone and I can’t imagine anyone who wants to spend the twilight of their life in such pursuits as being anywhere near sane.
physicsguy; Nonapod; et al:
I don’t see why the drive to power would have anything to do with age. It’s the animating principle of their lives, and they’ve been very successful at it.
Some people don’t want to retire, and it’s not limited to amoral politicians.
Pelosi has now postponed the vote on the social spending bill in favor of trying to get the infrastructure bill passed.
Mike
@neo:At a time in her life when most of her peers are happily retired and relaxing and enjoying spending time with their grandkids or whatever, she seems completely obessed with wielding power, cajoling, threatening, and bullying her juniors.
@physicsguy:In fact I would put anyone over the age of 70 (yes, I know that includes Trump) who still wants to control power and engage in such high level politics in that same category.
Well, we’d be throwing a lot of babies out with that bathwater. Winston Churchill said, of himself, that he really loved the exercise of power. In his case I think it’s harder to make the case he was some kind of psychopath. He stayed long after he should have, likely. It’s hard not to.
Some people identify with what they do and they shrivel up and die if they can’t do it anymore. In my case I’m definitely a work-to-live-not-live-to-work guy and I can find all kinds of nothing to take up my time if I don’t have to earn a living, but some of what I like to do for fun would be called “work” by others.
I’m not sure what her end game is exactly but after watching her attempt at explaining the process, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that she has lost her freaking mind.
“Some people don’t want to retire, and it’s not limited to amoral politicians”
Oh I know that, Neo. I’ve seen quite a few of those types. Many of whom when finally let go of “work” asked themselves why they didn’t do it sooner and ended up dying a year later.
For politicians, especially an 81 year old, who just HAS to have power, it says to me that is one sick person who shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power.
We can’t forget who Pelosi put on the intel committee and how she caved early on to squad types. I think she thought that she would be able to control them and use them for her own purposes.. She is a dumb arrogant b***h and a botox brain.
Remember, she’s the author of that unforgettable aphorism,
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
neo wonders, “Why is she seemingly about to bring some bills to a vote that won’t succeed?”
Necessity. To maintain enough support for her continued position as House leader, she must placate her House support and, the democrat’s voter base, a large percentage of whom are to the left of Bernie Sanders.
By bringing the legislation to a vote, she can claim that she’s trying to advance the radical’s agenda. Thus disarming the radicals.
When the legislation fails to pass, she can blame ‘moderate’ congressional democrats and escape responsibility. Thus maintaining enough continued support for her House leadership.
Simple self-interest while riding upon “the tiger’s back”.
I think Pelosi has the inside track on the Silicon Valley money and loves being able to order Congress people around. She and her husband have grifted plenty of money over the years with insider info so she doesn’t need more. She knows no other life.
Didn’t she recently in some EU forum admit that she fantasizes about ruling the world?
I really have no idea. She is certainly a strange woman. I mean… she’s 81 years old. At a time in her life when most of her peers are happily retired and relaxing and enjoying spending time with their grandkids or whatever, she seems completely obessed with wielding power, cajoling, threatening, and bullying her juniors.
She, Steny Hoyer, James Clyburn, Richard Durbin, and Bitc* McConnell were all born between 1938 and 1945; that’s to say five of the nine members of the congressional caucus leadership are of an age that they’d be mandated to retire if they were on the bench in New York. All nine members of the congressional caucus leadership have a work history which consists of sitting in legislative bodies, being employed by legislative bodies, or being employed by political NGOs, with only dribs and drabs of time doing anything else.
The congressional caucuses on each side could eject these geriatric hacks, but they do nothing.
What physicsguy wrote @4:38pm X 10!
I don’t understand why anyone reveres people who have had successful careers who refuse to step aside and allow opportunity for someone younger, wanting to build and develop their career.
Re: Pelosi…
Geoffrey Britain:
Well said.
If one accepts her premises, her behavior makes sense. Which is not to say she will gain a clear victory or avoid all losses.
The Democrats badly need to rethink their situation and then their strategy. They had no business trying to outdo FDR, LBJ and Obama without much stronger positions in Congress and the polls.
However, they won’t. The radical wing has taken over and pivoting back to the center will be impossible until they are willing to face a much longer haul to Utopia.
They were so close to making America a one-party state, they could taste it. They are nowhere near hitting bottom. They will keep throwing the dice trying to make it happen.
And who knows? In 2019 Covid emerged Deus Ex Machina to keep their dream alive and get Biden elected.
I completely understand folks wanting to remain active and productive for all of their days. That can easily be done while not stifling opportunity for others. Pelosi, McConnell… selfish megalomaniacs.
Step aside. Mentor others. Teach. Or help loved ones. Help strangers.
What is there to not understand about Pelosi’s continuing on. She doesn’t own a business. So she doesn’t have to worry that through some misstep she’ll go bankrupt. It doesn’t matter if she runs the country into the ground, her medical care, her pension, her salary are all guaranteed. And she’s familiar with her day to day life. Now, when she’s 80, you think she should want to start a completely new routine? And exactly what is she supposed to do? Stare at the wall and wait for death? Grandchildren? Children? They don’t want to hear her stories (which they’ve already heard a million times). Now, everyone listens to her stories, everyone takes her calls. She travels down hallways she’s travelled her whole life. She knows the cooks, the cleaning staff, the security detail. All those good looking gals and guys saying good morning, smiling, opening doors for her. She’s supposed to retire and be at the mercy of some nurse companions, children, and house staff? Of course she doesn’t intend to retire. She’s doing what she loves, in the place that has become her home.
Jerry Seinfeld was talking about his stand up routine and why he doesn’t give it up. To paraphrase, he said – this is what I do. A wood chuck chucks wood. And if you asks him why he chucks wood, he’ll tell you because that’s what I do. That’s the reason I do stand up – because that’s what I do. Nancy does whatever it is she does. And Trump does deals. That’s what he does. And none of these people are megalomaniacs.
I don’t understand why she would have scheduled a vote on the reconciliation bill without the votes. Now, bowing to moderate Dem pressure to get a CBO score on it, she has reportedly moved on (as Mike Bunge said, above) to trying to pass the infrastructure bill. Twenty progressives vow they will vote no, and ten to 15 Republicans might vote yes. Outcome undetermined.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2021/11/05/pelosi-biden-push-for-infrastructure-bill-vote-on-friday-night-n1530214
Rufus T. Firefly,
“I don’t understand why anyone reveres people who have had successful careers who refuse to step aside and allow opportunity for someone younger, wanting to build and develop their career.”
This is a major reason why all government jobs must be term limited. The military figured this out over 100 years ago. Positions like Fauci’s should be limited to 5 years. He has been there for what? 30+ years? How many younger people were denied a career accomplishment by his hogging the seat of power? 5-6?
I took early retirement to let some young person keep their job.
Eva Marie hits it on the nail as to why she doesn’t retire.
For the rest, rushing a failed attempt is (as someone else says above) a way to get everybody on the record. Then you raw up lists and get to work on the various categories of holdout… all of whom will have various skeletons in their cupboards.
@Frederick:
Quite easy to argue that Winston Churchill *was* a psychopath. Just he was ‘Our Psycopath’.
So apparently Pelosi has put on her Monty Hall hat and “Let’s Make a Deal.”
I loved that show as a kid for its lack of pretensions. Here, let’s all play this silly game, dress up in costumes, be goofy and have fun.
–“Let’s Make A Deal (Monty Hall) (1973 Episode) (New Studio)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZCpXz9tk_o
Quite easy to argue that Winston Churchill *was* a psychopath. Just he was ‘Our Psycopath’.
Zaphod:
Well, he was half-American, a Sunday painter and he drank all day… But I’m not British, so what’s the scoop. Gallipoli?
I don’t understand why anyone reveres people who have had successful careers who refuse to step aside and allow opportunity for someone younger, wanting to build and develop their career.
Obama pretty much cleaned out the farm team with Obamacare and the “stimulus” bills. 2010 was a wipeout.
Eva Marie,
She also happens to be freakin’, bloody rich! Unlike Jerry Seinfeld, who isn’t particularly old, we don’t have the choice of choosing to purchase a ticket to watch Pelosi perform. It’s a very different calculus for entertainers and artists. They profit or lose based on the public’s daily interpretation of their art and talent.
Again, I have no problem with anyone of any age wanting to stay busy, productive and relevant. However, empathetic, caring people who have been blessed with a good career for an appreciable time recognize that part of their duties should also be to ensure someone at the start of his or her career should get the same opportunity.
I’m 58. I think I’m doing well for a 58 year old, but I’m not who I was when I was younger. Somewhere around 33 – 48 was likely the sweet spot in my career, where I still had maximum energy and agility but also had a lot of experience and wisdom. I do not have the energy now I had 10 years ago, nor the memory, I don’t perform calculations as quickly. And I’m pretty sure when I am 68 I’ll look back at 58 and say the same thing.
No way McConnell and Pelosi are at the peak of their abilities. If they truly cared about what’s best for their constituents they’d step aside. Mentor their replacements. Lobby behind the scenes to make their paths easier. Or, work in a soup kitchen. Talk to their kids and grandkids. Help the grandkids with their schoolwork. Volunteer at a school for at risk youth. There are a million ways to be very busy and productive.
‘Now, when she’s 80 …’.
She’s 81.
Zaphod @ 10:19pm,
Not sure about Prime Minister, but 99+% of Presidential candidates must be on the extreme right asymptote of narcissistic personality trait.
@Huxley:
Dutton has a book out about Churchill’s prep school headmaster who got bad rap for being a sadist.
But when you look at Churchill’s early life… he was pretty wild. Eventually managed to get into the army and went out of his way seeking the wild stuff (Omdurman, Afghanistan). There’s courage and then there’s looking for trouble. Thrill-seeking and extreme boredom during quotidian stuff are marks of psychopathy. Went journalisting in the Boer War and was lucky not to be summarily executed when captured in the train ambush because was carrying a side arm as a notional civilian. Reckless. As he wrote in his memoirs, only the humanity of a Boer officer giving him the nudge/wink to chuck it discreetly got him off the hook.
Gallipoli as you mention was total disaster. Which he kept repeating during WWII with his farcical obsession with the (anything but) Soft Underbelly of Europe.
Throughout almost all his his life he was perennially broke because could not control his spending and racked up humungous debts. Only reason he did not go bankrupt during 1930s and therefore have to resign his parliamentary seat was because was bailed out by Jewish benefactors who saw a good thing (for them) in him for the obvious reason. Didn’t really have a bean to his name until after the war when he famously said something to the effect that “I’m going to come out of this smelling like roses, because I’m going to write the definitive history” — at which point he made sure that nobody else had access to the primary sources at his disposal, got busy with a staff of helpers and banged out a Nobel Prize Winner and never looked back.
I’ll grant that he was a great morale booster for the British public during the war. And less pusillanimous than some of the others. Even in old age, he was always looking to get himself killed in stunts and insisted on going to watch some bombardment across the Rhine much to the horror of the people who had to keep him from showing himself. For a view of just how infuriating Churchill could be, read Alanbrooke’s (chief of Imperial General Staff) memoirs. Now Alanbrooke was a bit of an Old Woman… but you take the mean and you get a picture of someone who was more than just a bit colourful.
Oh… and he was half sozzled throughout it all.
This is not to say that Churchill was the wrong choice for British PM. He was almost certainly the only good choice. When you have a job to get done and you’re up against a bunch of psychopaths (including Roosevelt and Hopkins) then you want your own Psychopath on your team.
Guys like this are often good at inspiring and prodding. They make a lot of mistakes and get a lot of people killed unnecessarily (Churchill did in both wars) but action is better than inaction when there’s a war on. They make hopeless peacetime leaders — which he was… although senescence played its part there, too.
Remember too, that he lost in a landslide in the General Election at the end of the war… in the middle of the Potsdam Conference. The wider British public had had enough of him. And this included IIRC a majority of military enlisted.
He was no saint. Wouldn’t call him a devil either.
Psychopath sure. Just like you better hope any surgeon you deal with is a high functioning psychopath. You want him to emo out in the middle of digging around inside you?
For an example of a less than high functioning contemporary British psychopath, I give you notorious naval cretin and father of a hundred @#$%ups and pedophile, Lord Louis Mountbatten.
Churchill was on the whole a net plus. And a great man. But a Psychopath…. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
@Rufus:
Of course. A psychopath is preferable to a narcissist though… provided psychopath’s personal utility function can be more or less aligned with Common Good. Which, when you get down to it is the whole point of a well-functioning Cursus Honorum.
Too easy for players at that level to manipulate a Narcissist once they’ve got him pegged as one. Not going to belabor the obvious recent historical example.
Which is why in Dysfunctional West, the psychopaths don’t end up holding the top elected offices… simpler to be the puppeteers.
Now Russia and China…
@Zaphod:
Didn’t mean to make you work so hard! Thanks for the response.
I take your point on Churchill’s risk-taking. It’s a promising start. He was quite charming too. Still, I look for more cold-blooded, selfish cruelty in my psychopaths. It helps to leave a trail of literal and metaphorical dead bodies in one’s personal life.
@Huxley:
Thanks for mentioning the charming bit. That’s part of it.
Not all psychopaths engage in wanton cruelty. It’s possible to be high-functioning, goal-oriented, regard other humans as stepping stones and also be fully self-aware without having to be an axe murderer or serial killer. Of course serial killers are the ones we hear about. We don’t hear about the trauma surgeon who gets quiet satisfaction out of putting broken toys back together and making them work again… etc..
Dutton goes on at length about true genius requiring high IQ *and* psychopathy — If you’re very smart, but not goal-oriented and you’re agreeable and don’t like hurting or climbing over other people… well then you’re hardly likely to go about smashing paradigms and kicking over the money changer’s tables in the Temple.. err oops.. I mean destroying established Scientists’ life’s works and barkings up wrong trees, etc…
So there’s an evolutionary niche for these folk.
But not next door to me, please.
Zaphod:
“The Sociopath Next Door” is a fun book, if you’re in the mood. Its point is that most sociopaths aren’t serial killers or Bernie Madoffs. They are just selfish, manipulative folks who wreak havoc among the ordinary people around them.
The difference between the sociopath and the psychopath is supposed to be that the sociopath has some residual sense of empathy, whereas the psychopath has none. That’s not quite how a surgeon or the savior work.
Or Winston Churchill, I suspect, though I haven’t read a good biography. Was he heedlessly screwing over those in his personal life?
I believe my stepfather was a psycho- or sociopath. He was a musical prodigy, worked in major symphonies seemingly at will, yet was also a junkie, a rapist and he destroyed his families.
He commited suicide because he had a brain tumor. In his last letter to my mother, he quoted (plagiarized) Nietzsche to explain that he had no remorse for the things he had done.
So that’s the sort of thing I think of when I hear the term psychopath.
I’m no fan of McConnell but his abilities seem to be just fine. Computers are one thing and human interaction is quite another.
So they passed the BIF:
–“Congress passes $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, delivering major win for Biden”
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/house-votes-infrastructure-build-back-better/index.html
Manchin and Sinema aren’t mentioned directly.
There was much haggling. Apparently Pelosi and Biden managed to get the BIF passed without linking it to the Spendapalooza. They are still working on that.
It does look like a setback for the hard left Dems.
The octogenarian got it done.
@huxley, zaphod:Winston Churchill, I suspect, though I haven’t read a good biography. Was he heedlessly screwing over those in his personal life?
I’ve read many good biographies, some written by his political opponents. He could be difficult and exacting with family and subordinates. He was not manipulative or a scammer. He seems to have been loyal to his wife. There’s no hint of setting fires, torturing animals, etc.
Zaphod has to play motte-and-bailey games with the concept of “psychopathy” to use the word about someone like Churchill–essentially he has to strip all the evil connotations away….
Churchill was a good writer, a man of action and he could make tough decisions which sometimes got people killed. The “thrill-seeking” and not being good with money are something he himself discusses at length in “My Early Life”.
He wasn’t good with money because people in his social class were not expected to be and lots of them weren’t, which is why all those ancient houses and estates are now owned by arena rockers, shipping magnates, the government, etc. He was able to bring in money by writing, but never as much as his lifestyle consumed, and he did rely on friends who were good with money to help him make up the difference; sometimes they let him in on opportunities ahead of the public and sometimes they just subsidized him.
He made a nuisance of himself in the Army because there was so little fighting going on and no possibility of advancement without being in combat. He had no way to know WWI was coming up. By then of course he was in Parliament.
Churchill was not the only person who thought the Dardanelles was a smart move. He was the one left holding the bag when it failed, true. “Are there not other alternatives than sending our armies to chew barbed wire in Flanders?” As bad as Gallipolli was, wasn’t the Somme a lot worse? And there were many battles like the Somme in France and Flanders…
Frederick:
Thanks for the rundown on Churchill.
It did seem to me that if Churchill were a true psychopath and not just a stubborn, risk-taking SOB at times, I would have heard about it.
With hindsight it looks like Pelosi saw her party in disarray. Everyone pulling every which way and she figured they’d all follow the strong horse.
“She figured they’d all follow the strong horse.”
South end of a horse pointing north is more like it.
@ zaphod > “Eva Marie hits it on the nail as to why she doesn’t retire.”
Beat me to it. Especially this part:
Just read your update, Neo. I don’t think the Senate has to work on the BIF. I’m not aware that the House amended it; it was originally passed in the Senate. If not amended, then it’s done and it goes to Biden for signature.
And yes, it’s about 25% roads and bridges and the rest is assorted pork.
huxley, I read “The Sociopath Next Door,” and it helped me to understand my stepmother. She was a very destructive personality, and she’d lie without compunction. Because she could also be very charming, some people believed her.
“was lucky not to be summarily executed when captured in the train ambush because was carrying a side arm as a notional civilian.”
Well, someone’s just revealed he’s pig-ignorant about life in unsettled territory of any sort, let alone 19th century (hell, yesterday) Africa.
Some sort of defensive weaponry is NORMAL just for the local wildlife, lawless men, etc. and having only a pistol wouldn’t be considered “under arms” by anyone rational living there.
huxley,
Sorry about your stepdad. Doesn’t sound like the makings of a fun childhood.
Now that is interesting. I’d be curious to know if you meant “quoted” ( without attribution) literally, or rather as in, “dishonestly recycling the ideas” rather than exact text, of Nietzsche.
Did he then by implication at least, grant that some objective harm was done to others?
And was his self-justification framed in the context of an outright and explicit denial of remorse, or conveyed as an implied denial, while affirming the stolen ideas or the copied text?
And I suppose another element would be whether he was leveraging off of the moral nihilism ( or illusion if you prefer not to go so far) base and predicate of Nietzsche’s philosophy, or the uber-man “solution” to it.
And finally, I guess, could he have had reason to have been confident that neither your mother nor anyone reading this letter would recognize how derivative it was? And would he have cared at being exposed, at least ego-wise?
I don’t really expect you to answer this or even have such answers available.
But if we had such answers, we could better see (I think) the way his “moral” faculty was arranged and operated.
DNW:
My stepfather was a great BS artist. He wrote in a mixture of heavy philosophy, Beatnik pretension and poetry tricks from e.e. cummings and Kenneth Patchen. Here’s the second section of his letter in which I caught the scent of Nietzsche when he mentioned the Tropical Man. Below are the direct quotes from Nietzsche. Google made this much easier.
He enjoyed putting people on and he constantly lied.
_________________________________________________
Our deepest insights must, and should, appear as follies…when they appear so esoteric and exoteric crimes against ourselves dear friend.[1] It is the business of very few to be independent, however, he who enters the labyrinth multiplies a thousand fold the dangers which life in itself already brings with it .[2] To drink a full draught of the foaming spice — and confection bowl in which all things are mixed well, makes you June and me gerry, a grain of salt which makes that bowl mix well. To love Eternity and oblivion is to know the joy of the discredited “Tropical man”… [3] Oh, how painful to smell with the eye the timidity of morals, and in appreciation i must add that we must have these curiousities and complexities of the modern spirit, excite as much laughter as disgust.[4] You can see now what the remedial instinct of life has at least tried to effect according to my conception,
_________________________________________________
[1] Beyond Good and Evil 30. “Our deepest insights must–and should–appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not disposed and predestined for them. The exoteric and the esoteric, as they were formerly distinguished by philosophers…”
[2] Beyond Good and Evil 29. “It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a privilege of the strong. And whoever attempts it, even with the best right, but without being OBLIGED to do so, proves that he is probably not only strong, but also daring beyond measure. He enters into a labyrinth, he multiplies a thousandfold the dangers which life in itself already brings with it; not the least of which is that no one can see how and where he loses his way, becomes isolated, and is torn piecemeal by some minotaur of conscience. Supposing such a one comes to grief, it is so far from the comprehension of men that they neither feel it, nor sympathize with it. And he cannot any longer go back! He cannot even go back again to the sympathy of men!”
[3] Beyond Good and Evil 197. “We fundamentally misunderstand predatory animals and predatory men (for example, Cesare Borgia), and we misunderstand “Nature,” so long as we still look for a “pathology” at the bottom of these healthiest of all tropical monsters and growths or even for some “Hell” born in them—as almost all moralists so far have done.* It seems that among moralists there is a hatred for the primaeval forest and the tropics? And that the “tropical man” must at any price be discredited, whether as a sickness and degeneration of human beings or as his own hell and self-torture? But why? For the benefit of the “moderate zones”? For the benefit of the moderate human beings? For the “moral human beings”? For the mediocre? This for the chapter “morality as timidity.””
[4] Genealogy of Morals 27. “Let us leave these curiosities and complexities of the modern spirit which give us as much cause for excite as much laughter as disgust”
I put together the above material years ago, after I looked through my mother’s letters. It was an interesting puzzle plus my sister and I have spent years trying to understand what happened while we were growing up.
There’s more to the letter and Nietzsche, but that’s enough.
Rufus:
Thanks for the thought.
According to the Declaration in Independence and US Constitution the federal government’s main role is to improve infrastructure.
DNW:
Again, I find your conception of humans, as thoughtful beings weighing their actions on the basis of a moral philosophy, peculiar.
My stepfather wanted what he wanted and he found ways to get what he wanted. He was careful enough to stay out of jail, but he wasn’t particular about how he did so or what the effects were on others.
Quoting Nietzsche didn’t mean he understood Nietzsche or cared about Nietzsche. It was just a means to an end. In this case — keeping up his facade of being some sort of genius far beyond normal people.
Huxley quotes his deceitful stepfather’s farewell letter before his suicide.
Jesus Christ, ( uttered as much as an appeal as an exclamation) Huxley. I’m surprised he got a chance to commit suicide, and that you did not kill him first.
Huxley himself then remarks,
I do not say that all members of what might taxonomically be classified information contained as “humans” are.
But if they are not, then what effen good are they? Why tolerate their presence, or even if compelled by irremediable circumstances, their existence?
As to where I got it from; probably an old, found copy, of The Baltimore Catechism, and then eventually Aristotle. LOL
And possibly to some extent from transmitted vestiges of an Upper South honor culture , wherein it was considered a precondition for being judged as worthy of association or inclusion, or even toleration.
What strikes me most strongly about modern Americans is their obsession with not only tolerance, but inclusion, and affirmation, despite the collapse of the myths ( or ethos if you prefer) of universally shared interests and a common “we are all fundamentally the same” humanity.
I do not say then, that all.men are rational, reciprocal, and capable of mastering their own impulses, but only that those who are fit to be counted as men and moral fellows, do and as a precondition, must.
Otherwise, to Hell with them, and who cares what they are called.
DNW:
Well, my stepfather died when I was in 8th grade. I hated him as deeply as I have ever hated, so I’m grateful he wasn’t around when I was bigger.
It seems to me 80% of humanity doesn’t make your cut as truly human. It seems a more constructive approach is called for than “to Hell with them.”
@SDN:
That part of the world was not lawless then. It is now. You’re the one displaying ignorance.
And the Rules of War are very clear. Had been since well before the Napoleonic Wars…
But your knowledge of Natal and the Boer Republics and the state of play for the average man right there ca. 1900… You got nothing. I got ancestry and anecdote. Can it.
Had Churchill done pulled the same stunt of being a ‘reporter’ with a revolver at Sedan, the Prussians would have rightly had him up against a wall. It was a foolish and stupid thing to do.
@Huxley:
*putting on dispassionate nature vs. nurture bicorn hat*
Did your unlamented stepfather have any offspring? If so, any idea how they turned out?
First, an apology. I am using a small hand held, and unable to properly review what I have written; and should not even be commenting this weekend. But I found your remark so interesting that I wanted to ask about it.
That said, I myself have no idea how this nonsensical sentence got by,
“I do not say that all members of what might taxonomically be classified information contained as “humans” are.”
” information” should not be there; and ” contained” only if a reference to an embracing category was there.
The idea is that I will grant you the freedom to sweep whoever and whatever you wish into a category labeled ” human being”
You, or better, “one”, might even be able to come up with a definition that makes some kind of practical if limited sense; while still ticking off all the anti-esentialist and Progressive Worldview™ boxes.
But the idea of fellowship, and moral reciprocity and interpersonal duty, is not quite so elastic.
Thus, if the term “Human being” is to carry more moral freight, and potentially, obligation too, than the terms “screwdriver”, or “great ape”, then that has to be argued or established. At least nowadays.
If man is not, for example, essentially, a rational animal with rationality representing the core of what it means to be fully human, then, what is man?
My view on rationality is that men are in fact distributively rational except in cases of organic damage. But, as with the case of the neglect of minimal civic duty we all discussed earlier, they make a choice, to indulge their willful irrationality, and thereby make themselves, less.
As with physical cowards or weaklings who refuse to build themselves into better when it is possible, one is entitled to say: to hell with them
@Zaphod:
My stepfather had three daughters that I know of. They are all decent people. One is my half-sister, whom I love.
The other girls were only two and five years-old when he divorced their mom, so we figured they were lost to the vagaries of time and fate. However, they are very family-centric Armenian, so several years ago they actually got a private detective and he tracked down my half-sister and they were reunited. Since they are all in Massachusetts, as it happens, they now include my sister in their get-togethers, which is excellent for her.
Their mother never remarried after my stepfather. She continued her career as a classical violinist and became a pillar in her Christian community. She died in 2011. I don’t know her side of things. I’m not sure how much the daughters know about their father either.
I also don’t know how my stepfather became a monster. My mother intimated that Bad Things had happened to him as a child, but was never specific. All I know is he worked very hard on his music and as a teen he attracted the attention of the conductor, Leopold Stokowski, who punched his ticket. After that my stepfather was golden in the classical music world.
@Huxley:
Glad to hear that some came out of it relatively unscathed.
Despite my genetic determinism predilection, childhood trauma is a very real cause of all kinds of evils. Also the death of the extended family. Not having grandparents present 24/7 in early childhood is probably another facet of the Great Filter. IMHO.
I should add that my stepfather must have been a helluva player. He almost never practiced outside regular rehearsals.
Classical music is ferociously competitive at the big city symphony level. (Dallas and San Francisco.) Typical musicians are practicing all the time. My stepfather held his own, while hanging out in jazz clubs at night and managing his second career as a heroin addict.
None of his daughters have shown any talent in the music department.
@Zaphod:
I’ve spent much time pondering how people become what they become. I can’t say I have answers, but I do believe people can be quite resilient. Tapping into that is the trick and it requires work.
One of the worst things one can do, however, is decide one is a victim. I find the current national cult of victimhood a great horror and a terrible sorrow. We haven’t even begun to pay the price on that.
@huxley:
“One of the worst things one can do, however, is decide one is a victim. I find the current national cult of victimhood a great horror and a terrible sorrow. We haven’t even begun to pay the price on that.”
Agreed.
It’s gone so far that the inevitable reaction to it will likely go too far the other way.
@ Zaphod > “It’s gone so far that the inevitable reaction to it will likely go too far the other way.”
That’s true of reactions to almost any social or economic or political disequilibrium.
We have all three.