Monday, May 01, 2006


This weekend a pundit mentioned that our war-on-terror enemy is Islamic fundamentalism. It struck me as bold and non-pc, and this was a vanilla-voiced kind of guy. I wondered: why did it seem strange, why don’t more people state this obvious construct?

Because, I figured, our country is run by Christian fundamentalists and they don’t want us to make the connection. I, and I’m sure, poll-wise, most Americans, don’t support either kind of fundamentalism. What we see is one kind of fundamentalism battling another. It’s a dreary drama when you can’t identify with either agonist.

Both fundamentalisms oppose the future. Christian fundamentalism deals with the future by keeping it from taking place, that is, by precipitating Armageddon. The Islamic fundamentalists seek to bar their people from entering the future by denying them new behaviors.

Liberals have been silent on fundamentalism. We shouldn’t fault those who hate the future unless we ourselves can describe some version of the future that’s both plausible and fun. Given population, resources, and aspirations, our species seems headed for a major die-back. The future belongs to those for whom survivalism is enjoyable.

Bush is like Slim Pickens, whooping as he rides the nuke like a bronco, into oblivion. The liberals are at the back of the plane, the engine roar drowns out whatever it is they’re saying.

----- o -----

No comments: