Optimism-Pessimism and Hope-Despair

Some people wonder about the seeming oxymoronic phrase "Hopefilled pessimist". This is because such people do not understand the distinction between hope and optimism or between despair and pessimism. Optimism and pessimism pertain to our outlook of things which are strictly in this word. The would-be progressive is aways optimistic about how the future will turn out, if not for himself than for society at large; the world is always progressing in a particular direction, and history has a right side and a wrong side to be on. The pessimist may or may not share this view of the progress and sidedness of history, or the ongoing march of social progress; he may or may not believe that history is, if not actually repeating in a cycle, then at least rhyming. He can read the signs of the times and sees something ominous.

Take, for example, the supposedly endless march of progress as concerns "gay rights." There are a number of pessimists such as myself who almost expect to end like this (I am/we are blindfolded here):

Some less pessimistic people suppose that it will stop somewhat short of this, or will do so in our lifetimes. Perhaps is will "only" be as bad as, say, Canada. I expect real religious liberties to be eroded (as much as I expect for the now-ironically named ACLU to lead the charge on that front), And on the other hand, there are some optimists on the other side who are looking forward to the day on which the result is more like this:

"The Deserter" by Boardman Robinson, n protest of the march of progress in 1916.

I gather this based, for example, on the kinds of comments which people are more-than-happy to post in public, including more than a few comments which are exchanged between supposed friends. The cause is greater than any mere friendship, apparently. So color me a pessimist. Better still, don't color me at all right now, since that's currently being used to celebrate the SCOTUS' decision in Obergefell. There's something about wearing rose-colored grassed which makes us incapable of seeing the difference between black and white.

But if I am a pessimist only, then I am lost. The pessimist can at least see black, but if he is a pessimist only, he may cease seeing white but only "less black," or possibly gray.

Hope is a virtue, a theological one which makes us look to something better in the next life. It is the reminder that there is something bigger than history, that while history is the sequence events taking place in time there is an eternity which is timeless. It is the reminder that there is a Providence which is God-ordained, and that, in the words of Joseph Pieper, history too will be judged. Blessed are those who mourn--if that mourning turns their eyes heavenward and reminds them that this vale of tears is not their final home; that it does not matter which side of history they are on when they die, but rather which side of eternity. Despair, then, is the loss (or lack, or negation) of hope. The mourning will receive no comfort if they turn to thoughts of vengeance.

I think I will close this brief reflection with a passage from Tolkien's Return of the King, since it grants comfort and a glimpse of hope:

"Far above the Ephel Duath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping above a cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty forever beyond its reach. His song in the Tower had been defiance rather than hope; for then he was thinking of himself. Now, for a moment, his own fate, even his master's, ceased to trouble him."

It is when we have hope that we are able to set aside our worries for a time, knowing that they won't go away in this life, but also knowing that in the end, that they will be insignificant and "passing" things. However substantial they may seem in this life, they are but shadows which must fade to naught when the light of eternity pierces our vale.

We Will Be Judged

We repeat this fact every time that we recite the Creeds, which for Catholics means at least once per week: Christ will judge the living and the dead. I was reminded of this as I read through the opening editorial of the May/June 2015 edition of Touchstone Magazine, "Ashamed of the Gospel: The End of Comfortable Christianity." Near the close of the editorial, Robert P. George writes:

Powerful forces tell us that our defeat in the causes of marriage and human life are inevitable. They warn us that we are on "the wrong side of history." They insist that we will be judged by future generations the way we today judge those who championed racial injustice in the Jim Crow south. 

But history does not have sides. It is an impersonal and contingent sequence of events, events that are determined in decisive ways by human deliberation, judgment, choice, and action....The idea of a "judgment of history" is secularism's vain, meaningless, hopeless, and pathetic attempt to devise a substitute for the final judgment of Almighty God. History is not God. God is God. History is not our judge. God is our judge. 

One day we will give an account of all we have done and failed to do. Let no one suppose that we will make this accounting to some impersonal sequence of events possessing no more power to judge than a golden calf or a carved and painted totem pole. It is before God--the God of truth, the Lord of history--that we will stand. And as we tremble in his presence, it will be no use for any of us to claim that we did everything in our power to put ourselves on "the right side of history." 

One thing alone will matter: Was I a faithful witness to the gospel? Did I do everything in my power to put myself on the side of truth?

History, too, will be judged. That is notwithstanding the ruling and/or chattering classes' insistence that we ought to change all--even our very beliefs--to bend knee to their whims, also known as "being on the right side of history." We will all be judged, not against history, but against eternity. I pray that I will be found on the right side of eternity--that is the only judgment that ultimately matters.

Dustbins

There are worse places to land than the dustbin of history. After all, we are all dust, and to dust we shall return.

About That Secular Inquisition

I've already mentioned the unsettling development of the secular Left's inquisition, and how they will begin ferreting each other out for being insufficiently dedicated to the progressive ideology. They will of course drop any quarrel to go after us first. Lest that seem an overstatement, we have Exhibit B (Eich being A): the public outcry against Dropbox for its hiring of Condeleeza Rice. One of my friends had about the right reaction to this: "Seriously? The left is out of control. They become outraged when conservatives get jobs now."

That does seem to be about the shape of it. To be fair, there are some legitimate reasons for concern, and many of the people involved voice those concerns, specifically that it does not bode well for privacy/security to appoint the woman who oversaw the expansion of the NSA to the board of a file-sharing/cloud storage service. This is, however, just one of four major complaints against her listed by "Drop Dropbox." The others are that she supported the Iraq War (as did a large majority of Americans at its beginning, according to most major polls), she supported torturing prisoners, and she was also on the board of directors at Chevron. In other words, the reason why we should be outraged by Dropbox's hiring of her is that she is a Republican, a part of the Bush Administration, and she happens to have been a board director for a big oil business.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the things she's done, and I consider some of these complaints to be legitimate reasons why she should not be trusted with high political power. Some of these are at least legitimate enough as reasons that reasonable people could disagree whether to vote for her in a hypothetical election. None of these save for the wiretapping is a reasonable reason why she should not be hired by any company as a board member; and wiretapping seems to be the least of her offenses (greater only than being a board member at Chevron), if "Drop Dropbox" is listing here "offences" in order (let alone by the written content of each grievance). Further, there is little evidence that her authorization (and use) of wiretapping as a member of the Bush Administration will necessarily lead to her violating user privacy/security as a board member for Dropbox.

Of course, the leftist might respond that he is only targeting people who are being hired to high-level positions in a company, or only targeting the people who are directly involved in a given "bad" issue. He is only targeting Mr. Eich, because Eich was to be made CEO and he donated a substantial sum ($1000) to the non-progressive side of a major issue. He is only targeting Dr. Rice because she was an actual member of the Bush Administration, was actually in charge of implementing or was directly involved in implementing some of these policies, and is now being hired to the board of directors. The Leftist might excuse himself by saying "We're only going after top people," meaning people who have a direct and measurable impact and who are being hired to top-level leadership positions.

This is already problematic as-is. It essentially says that you can dissent from the Left, as long as you do it quietly and as long as that dissent is impotent, even in the short-term*. Alternatively, you can still freely oppose the Left's "progress", but in so doing you become a second-class citizen. You might after being beaten be allowed to live--to make a living--to find such employment as you will, but there will be a ceiling** on how high you can rise. The old glass ceiling has long since been shattered, but the progressives want to replace it with a new one.

Of course, it's a very small step from arguing that a person can't be ever allowed to hold top leadership, to excluding them from middle management and then from entry-level positions. It's also a small step from barring those who visibly work for or contribute to a cause or candidate--political, social, cultural, moral, whatever--to barring those who somehow supported it in any way at all. Today, it's those who helpd implement the Wars in the Middle East; tomorrow, anyone who supported the Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter) wars under Bush***. Today, it's anyone who donated to the pro-marriage (and therefore anti-"gay marriage") bill in California; tomorrow anyone who at any point in time voted for a similar bill in any state. Today, it's any member of Bush administration; tomorrow, it's anybody who voted for Bush.

-----

*Impotent: the progressive Left is always bragging about being  on the right side of history, whereas their opponents are "on the wrong side of history." If they really believed that, then all dissent is ultimately impotent, though it may slow the tide of history for a short time.

**Ceiling: in honor of "income equality day," which was sometime this week. The usual tired (and blatantly false) 77% statistic was trotted out, most prominently by the President. This is the same president who pays his own female staffers 88% of what he pays his male staffers, presumably for the same reasons why women--averaged over all careers at all level of experience--make on average less than men averaged in the same way. 

***Under Bush: the wars have been going very badly under Obama--with far more casualties in Afghanistan than were suffered under Bush. We've just stopped hearing the daily reports now that it's Obama and not Bush who is in charge of the war.