In the past month, there is a furore of books that centers on opposing the Republicans in retaining the Congress and Senate. Chief among them, are "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward and "Tempting Faith" by David Kuo. The first book tackles on the mis-management of the Iraq war by the Bush administration and the second book discusses how the Bush administration manipulates the Christian right in the US for their political agenda with their office of faith-based initiatives. These books add political damage to the Republicans, not to mention the scandals surrounding the top Republicans in the congress from Daley to Foley, and it is almost impossible to conceive how they can turn back the tide. I thought that Bob Woodward's book provide some insight to the dynamics within the Bush administration. Yet it still makes me wonder why he wrote two pro-Bush books follow by an anti-Bush book at the end. One thing that seem consistent from him when the other reporters ask him, "Why (pick any title from the Bush At War series)?". He will reply that he is merely reporting the events that led to the Iraq war and its aftermath. Like any journalist, he has also added his interpretation to the events. I have yet to read the second book, but will try to take a look when the book comes out in the bookstores here.
What is common from these books? My view is in the polarising effect it creates. In the same light, another book (that I have read recently) comes to mind but dwells in a totally different subject: religion. "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins tackles the sensitive question about the existence of God and continues his crusade to fire up the moderate atheists into a force that will take on the Christian right. I met Richard Dawkins when he gave a talk about his earlier book "Weaving the Rainbow" in the Cambridge Union. Even as a free thinker, struggling between agnosticism and atheism, my impression of him is that he comes across as a charismatic atheist.
One interesting quote from Dawkins in his book that originates from the late Douglas Adams:
"Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred
or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion
that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why
not? - because you're not. If someone votes for a party that you don't
agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like;
everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. ...
But on the other hand, if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch
on a Saturday', you say 'I respect
that.'" - Douglas Adams
If you read the book for what it's worth, there are two issues that one must seperate. Without doubt, the book divides science and religion, leaving the moderates that interface between both with no where to stand. The first issue is the problem of institutionalized religion. The values of the religion may be peaceful but the corruption lies in the institution. Oftentimes, people tend to mix up the two, and argue that the religion is responsible for the wars, rather that it is the people who runs the institution behind the religion and take it to war. In the fictional piece Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis made a clear argument that institutionalized religion has a strong propensity for corruption, because they impose values into laws. The second issue is that Dawkins attack seem to be centering on theist religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In his book, there is no mention of Buddhism. Other than one internal war within the two sects of Buddhism (to the best of my knowledge), this religion has not created any major problems in history. Of course, the pundits will tell you that Buddhism is more often viewed as a philosophy rather than a religion, because it does not purport the existence of a powerful being called God.
Reading these books made me wonder whether we are living in an age of polarisation. A long time back, in a Popperian perspective, I wrote an article entitled, "The Moderate Society and its Enemies" with the arguments to show that the moderates are too soft on the extremists, yet the contradiction comes when the moderates decide to start their clamp, they become the extremists eventually. Does this also mean that the postmodernist age is collapsing because the current wave of change seems to move towards the "either you are with us or you are against us" mentality.
I leave that to your thoughts, for I neither beg nor fear, your favours nor your hate.