Monday, April 4, 2016

Fanaticism defined as living Flesh and Blood

If fanaticism is an abstract concept to some people, and if they find it too difficult to grasp, they ought to read the article that Clifford D. May wrote under the title “Our man in Havana” and the subtitle: “With his tribute to a brutal dictatorship, Obama legitimizes a remnant of the Cold War.” It was published on March 29, 2016 in The Washington Times.

The article does more than put a face on fanaticism; it personifies it by giving it a flesh and blood quality. When reviewing it, the readers will come to sense what the author actually feels. Some readers may sympathize with him and accept his description of reality as he sees it; others will reject the notions he is espousing. Both types, however, will come to feel what he feels, even experience the sense of fanaticism that motivates him. And that's a sense that a stand-alone abstract definition of the word could never convey.

What happened is this: By the middle of the Twentieth Century, there was something branded “Cold War” between the Communist bloc of nations led by the old Soviet Union, and the Capitalist bloc of nations led by the United States of America. The warlike competition for power and influence was branded “cold” to distinguish it form the shooting war that had just ended, and was associated with the proverbial fire and brimstone.

History unfolded in such a way that Cuba had a revolution led by Fidel Castro. This event was not surprising given that most of the Latin American nations were led by strongmen, many of whom were “America's bastards” who suppressed their own people to do America's bidding. This is one reason why the relations between Cuba and America deteriorated, resulting in the Bay of Pigs incident. That was an attempted invasion of Cuba by exiled Cubans who were encouraged, armed and financed by America.

The assault on Cuba failed, and Castro was motivated to turn to the old Soviet Union for protection and economic assistance. Cuba thus became a member of the Soviet bloc of nations, and a de facto player in the Cold War game. America imposed an economic embargo on Cuba; one that lasted to the time when President Obama started to dismantle it. This is how he began the process of normalizing the relations between the two countries. The President then decided to institutionalize the new state of affairs by traveling to Cuba where he announced: “I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas”.

And this is what motivated Clifford May to cry foul. He not only objects to normalizing relations with Cuba; he objects to the idea of separating the abstract concept of “Cold War” from the Castro brothers. In fact, he does not see the Castros as flesh and blood; he sees them as motley of abstract concepts comprising cold war, unwise normalization and ill-advised detente.

Look how he expressed his thinking: “That was Obama's announcement. But was it true? President Obama had come not to bury the Castro brothers but to normalize relations with them.” The author means to say that to bury the Cold War – which is an abstract concept – would have meant to bury the flesh and blood that is the Castro brothers. Because they are not dead, the Cold War is not dead. Because the flesh and blood are alive, so is the abstract concept. The two have thus been fused into one and the same object.

This translates into the reality that Clifford May does not make a distinction between people and the situations in which they find themselves. It leads him to judge people, not by how they react to their circumstances, but by the circumstances in which they are caught regardless as to how they got there.

Well, we humans, do not treat other humans in that manner; not even the animals. It is how we treat objects. For example, if we see a human or an animal caught in a flood, we try to rescue them regardless as to how they got there. But if the flood buries a boulder, we do not feel for it anymore than we do for the flood.

Likewise, Clifford May does not care what happened to the Castros or the Cuban people anymore than he cares about a boulder or the water flooding it. He wanted to see the Castros buried because the act would have symbolized the burial of the Cold War. And this is an equation that's the hallmark of fanaticism.

Having equated something abstract with something tangible, Clifford May inadvertently equated the flesh and blood that he is himself with the abstract concept he is espousing. Because he is fanatically unyielding in what he espouses, he has become the two-legged expression of fanaticism. Clifford D. May is Mr. Fanaticism.