Two Standards

While in formation to become a Jesuit, during my first 30 day silent retreat off the coast of Cape Ann north of Boston, I was asked by my spiritual director to spend a day contemplating Ignatius of Loyola's exercise on what is called the Two Standards. This meditation keeps coming back to me as I read all the news coming out of this weekend's Tea Party rally in Nashville, with the movement's knew czar, Sarah Palin, taking front and center stage.

There seems to be a great duel standard taking place within the conservative bedrock movement in America. Loyola's Two Standards call upon the contemplative to meditate on two camps, one representing the values of good, and the other representing the values of evil. Each contemplative looks upon these values differently, breathing a life into them that is unique as each individual. Nevertheless, the core of the meditation carries the participant to a level field that allows him or her to choose free of will, with the notion that one will most definitely choose the flag of good after seeing how the flag of evil is stripped of its sweet vices 

When I see Sarah Palin having to look at her hand for notes to help her with the most basic talking points asserted by her party, I'm reminded of that shadowed vail of sincerity that the standard of darkness carried during my 30 days of silence. Her actions, indeed, seem to be not only fueled by the vices of fame and glory that were first introduced to her when the plane touched down in Minnesota for the 2008 GOP convention, but her whole persona has become a sort of standard for the conservative movement. 

The thing that troubles me is that the standard that was waved in the air during the tea parties seems radically different than that of a moderate family values oriented campaign, which became the bedrock foundation for the modern conservative movement that grew out of the 1990s. If her motivating goal is to someday govern, something which she has yet to prove herself capable of for any substantial amount of time, than she must reconcile the spirit that was born in the tea party movement with that of modern American governance.

The Tea Party rose from the grassroots efforts of the American Libertarian movement, a party that in its own rite has seemed greatly disjointed, a party that lifted up both Frank Zappa and Bob Barr as its choice for the presidential ticket (Zappa, unfortunately, having to remove himself from such political aspirations due to his failing health).

It's often been said that the progressive-what some might say as democratic--movement in this country has been historically disjointed, a movement brought together by liberal ideals, but separated by the wide range of passions that motivate the base. It's often been said that leading the progressive movement is like herding cats. 

Much can be said about the current state of being for the conservative-what some might call republican--movement. The one thing the progressive movement has in its favor is a common vision for community values. Unfortunately, I see this modern frame of neo-libertarian/neo-conservatism steering off course from its base of faith and family values, two corner stones of conservatism that served as the glue, which held the party together. Perhaps it was the ultra-conservative religious right that created push-back for these pillars of conservatism, or, maybe, it was the falling economy that gave fiscal conservatives the opportunity to rise to the occasion. However, I place fiscal conservatives into two camps: Those who act out of a desire to sustain only their own financial gain, and those who seek to act fiscally conservative out of a passion for their family and community to avoid operating in the red.

What I see in Palin reminds me of the novice maturity witnessed by someone who reads Ayn Rand for the first time. There is a passion for a movement away from government interaction in our lives (the seed of the libertarian movement); however, there lacks the depth to fully understand where rand was coming from. It is, in many ways, like holding up Holden Caufield's adolescent anxt as the ultimate paradigm for juvenile development, completely ignoring the depth of social and physical constraints that he encountered when breaking down on a bench in central Park.

Everything about this past weekend in Nashville makes me think of the standard ruled by vice. There's the arguing caucuses that led to and took place during the rally, a reminder of how the strict conservative value of individualism makes starting a movement very difficult. There is the acceptance of the $100,000 speaker fee from Palin. There's the sharp jabs toward Obama using a teleprompter, only then to result in the caveman's version of such methods for memorization. And, then, there is the whole movement at large, that is rooted in the hard-lined libertarian  ideal: that government of any kind is bad.

It will be interesting to see how this movement grows over the coming months. It lacks the cohesiveness that the Contract with America had in 1994, though time is still early going into November elections. The only difference is that the standard for the contract with America was carried by a Republican Georgia Congressman who also had his Ph.D in History, not someone who carries their standard with the same hand where cheat notes are written.

Comments

[オテモヤン]

http://oppao.net/n-ona/
http://oppao.net/navi/
http://oppao.net/new-d2/
http://oppao.net/fd3/
http://oppao.net/soap2/
http://oppao.net/bg2/
http://oppao.net/host2/
http://oppao.net/lesson2/
http://oppao.net/op2/
http://oppao.net/fl3/
http://oppao.net/bb2/
http://oppao.net/s-este/
http://oppao.net/rd2/
http://oppao.net/kawa/
http://oppao.net/n-club2/
http://s-auc.net/