Be very afraid...

That is the underlying subtext of Mark Lilla’s piece titled “Reading Strauss in Beijing” in the New Republic. Lilla says many of his Chinese Graduate Students are interested in reading Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt. They want to study these philosophers so they can implement these ideas in China. Unfortunately, Strauss and Schmitt were critical of modern ideas we all take for granted today e.g. democracy, separation of church and state, free markets etc. He implies these thinkers were fascist or at least had fascist sympathies. Modern Liberals should put them in the ‘scary’ category along with Neocon (Bush’s) foreign policy and the Medieval Catholic Church.

A minor point in the article is that Strauss was interested in Jewish and Islamic political philosophy, but not Christian. Lilla does not explain why but I think it is because Christianity makes a distinction between church and state (Render unto Caesar...) which is useless to Strauss who wants to make religion a means to a political end. Judaism and Islam are more amenable to civil religion than Christianity. If Strauss was a fascist, then Christians would not be his natural allies.

Neocons: New Deal Conservatives

In this debate with Congressman Paul Ryan, David Brooks argues that the debate over the size of government is misguided; the central question should be the effect on character of the citizenry. For this reason, he is okay with FDR’s New Deal, but not LBJ’s Great Society. Social Security did not corrupt character the way welfare did.

Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, also distinguished himself from other conservatives in his arguments against the Welfare State. The criticism made by mainstream conservatives was the Welfare State was either inefficient, unconstitutional, or both. Kristol said, the welfare created dependency among its recipients. The perverse incentives had an immoral effect on the lives of the indigent.

Brooks ends his speech by saying all Conservatives want to turn back the clock; they just disagree about how far they want to go back. For example, Tea Partiers want to go back to the Founding. Claremonsters want to remove the Progressive Era (Founders + Lincoln alone). Brooks himself would draw the line at 1965.

For him, what matters is not the color of your skin, nor the size of the government, but the content of your character.

Pomo Cons and Neocons: Making their peace w/ Big Gov’t

Distinguishing himself from mainstream American conservatism, Pomo Con Peter Lawler joins Neocons like David Brooks by arguing that safety nets such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are constitutional. In this post, he explains that while it might be “manly” to brush off the government’s help, such a position will not win elections.

Of course, a policy’s popularity does not mean it is necessarily constitutional. Or does it? Even the Originalist Scalia says he accepts the New Deal’s (and I suspect the Great Society’s) programs. He gives a three pronged criteria for why he accepts it, but not decisions like Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and Lawrence v. Texas:

1) plausible

2) popular

3) easy to apply

The 2^nd criterion is a variation of what Lawler mentioned. The New Deal and Great Society programs were popular at the time they were passed. Moreover, they were passed by the LEGISLATURE. On the other hand, the Roe and the subsequent cases were and still continue to be controversial decisions. The Culture War questions are not settled and can still be contested. But some form of a welfare state will be with us for the foreseeable future and it is time to make peace with that fact.

Mainstream Conservatives are not satisfied with turning back the clock 40 years; for them it is double or nothing, as the debate below reveals. Paul Ryan, a rising star in the Republican Party, is debating Neocon David Brooks on limited v. energetic government:

Publius on Wikileaks

Wikileaks publication of State Department documents has caused an interesting debate over the necessity of government secrecy v. the public’s right to know. The Federalist Papers discuss this topic in some depth:

It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect secrecy and immediate despatch are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly.

Publius would say the release of the documents will discourage foreign diplomats from speaking frankly to the U.S. State Department in the future.

Harvey Mansfield summarizes another Federalist passage on the topic:

Unity facilitates "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." Note secrecy in this list. Secrecy is necessary to government yet almost incompatible with the rule of law (the exception being when congressional committees meet in "executive," i.e. secret, session). Yet secrecy is compatible with responsibility because, when one person is responsible, it does not matter how he arrives at his decision. To blame or reward him, one does not have to enter into "the secret springs of the transaction," as would be necessary if responsibility were shared.

Whatever discussions went on between President Obama and foreign officials about Iran is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is the final product, the policy he endorses in the end. So it doesn’t matter that the Saudi King asked the President to “cut the head of the snake” since he did not do so.

The last argument is from me. The New York Times is providing the megaphone for Wikileaks on this story. By the Times own admission, it has not released everything:

The question of dealing with classified information is rarely easy, and never to be taken lightly. Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest. As a general rule we withhold secret information that would expose confidential sources to reprisals or that would reveal operational intelligence that might be useful to adversaries in war. We excise material that might lead terrorists to unsecured weapons material, compromise intelligence-gathering programs aimed at hostile countries, or disclose information about the capabilities of American weapons that could be helpful to an enemy.

The criteria it has used for deciding what documents to release and what to hold back is ‘national security.’ Obviously, this is the same criterion used by the State Department for not releasing ANY of the documents. Who is a better judge on this matter? Who has training, and more importantly experience, on this matter? Let’s even grant the State Department has self-interested motives for not releasing the documents. Does that mean the The New York Times doesn’t? What makes journalists so disinterested?

What B16 said (or didn’t say)

Media outlets have been abuzz that Pope Benedict has revised the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception by allowing it certain, extreme cases.

A closer look at the interview reveals he has done no such thing:

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The first part of his answer makes clear that he still sees the act as objectively disordered. His point is that while two acts might both be intrinsically evil, they are not equally so. If an agent decided to commit the lesser evil, then this would be a step in the right direction; nevertheless, it is still immoral.

Janet Smith’s bank heist analogy illustrates this point well:

If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

Leo Strauss criticized Thomas Aquinas (and by logical extension, the Catholic Church) for supporting fixed moral principles. He believed such norms were too rigid and impractical for the messy, complicated world of human affairs. Pope Benedict's nuanced comments on contraception show an awareness of the need for principles which are BOTH fixed and flexible.

Love it or Leave it

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Rick Perry Extended Interview
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Governor Rick Perry and Jon Stewart debate the merits of federalism in this interview. Perry says the merit is that on controversial issues like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage each state can have their own laws. This allows people to leave the state which they disagree with.

Stewart replied the states are not monolithic so there is a minority who does not support the existing laws. For example, there are citizens in Texas who support the two issues mentioned above. Federalism leads to a Tyranny of the Majority which endangers basic rights.

But Stewart is begging the question. He is assuming these things are basic rights. The fact that people disagree about them is the reason why federalism is being proposed as a way to resolve the impasse. States are a “laboratories for democracy” which allow citizens to test a hypothesis.

Of course, Perry did not say that. Which makes you wonder how he will do if he does pursue a Presidential bid.

“Paging all dealers, I mean, doctors…”

Californians are preparing to vote on a measure to legalize marijuana this Tuesday. How did things get to this point?

Last week, supporters of drug legalization came clean about role of medical marijuana in facilitating the current measure:

I tell Cliff that what I’m most struck by is how the medical marijuana movement has euphemized the old glossary. “Users” are now “patients.” “Dealers” are “caregivers.” And the dope itself? “Medicine!” says Cliff, going for the assist. “There’s no more weed. I correct everybody now. Because that’s part of getting rid of the stigma. It’s medicine.”

But if its only allowed for medicinal purposes, surely doctors must be maintaining strict standards to prevent abuse, right? Not so, says Nicholas Kristof:

Special medical clinics abound where for about $45 you can see a doctor who is certain to give you the medical recommendation that you need to buy marijuana.

The charade which is medical marijuana is now being revealed for what it really is: a preliminary stage to weaken public resolve, enabling further drug legalization.

Glenn Beck’s Rally, the 9/11 Mosque, and the ties that bind.

We can see the Enlightenment assumptions underlying the American Right and Left in two events from last month: Glen Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally and debate over the 9/11 Mosque.

Here is Harvey Mansfield on the ‘Restore Honor’ Rally:

“Glenn Beck is a kind of libertarian, and he has made a fair amount of money. But he rejects the private life that libertarians seem to recommend. He goes public with his distrust of everything public and thus requires libertarians to march behind patriotism, religion, and honor—all things not in your immediate self-interest.”

Usually, Libertarians want to reject loyalties to country or God and replace it with enlightened self-interest. Their belief is these traditional loyalties are merely irrational prejudices and so they can’t provide the basis for public policy. Yet appealing to your self-interest isn’t going to inspire the public in a rally. And its not going to unite the citizenry together either. In the end, calculation and contract are not enough to form a community.

Lets see how similar thinking underlies the Left’s view of the 9/11 Mosque. Liberals criticize Conservatives for manifesting “what the ancient political philosophers called “the love of one’s own.”

Liberals believe this preference creates a distinction between insiders and outsiders. For example, the current controversy is making Muslims feel like outsiders. And since no one should be made to feel like an outsider, Liberals reject the “love of one’s own” as unjust.

Carson Holloway explains how this view began in the Enlightenment:

“Liberals act in these ways in part because contemporary liberalism is abstract and rationalistic in its philosophic roots. Liberals are still in important respects children of the Enlightenment and still hold dear its universalistic assumptions and aspirations. The Enlightenment hoped to usher in an empire of the “rights of man,” to establish society on the basis of what is owed to human beings as human beings, and accordingly rejected older, more partial loyalties—to clan, country, or faith—as merely arbitrary.”

The commonality between the Libertarians and Liberals then is they strip human beings of all ties which make life meaningful (faith, family, and friends). Both reject patriotism; Libertarians replace it with collective selfishness while Liberals emphasize cosmopolitanism e.g. they’re citizens of world (which is to say they’re citizens of no place in particular).

Is the “love of one’s own” aka inherently unjust? Holloway thinks not:

“From another perspective, however, one might contend that such loyalty is perfectly rational—in the sense that, while every man would admit that his father has no particular claims on the human race, every man would equally claim that a father does have a very powerful claim on the help and affection of his own son.”

Instead of rallying around the flag, these Enlightenment extremes would either say every man for himself or we shouldn't play favorites when it comes to attending rallies.

Its not an Either/Or

The American Right and Left commit the same error when it comes to politics. See if you can catch it.

On the Right, Glenn Beck was interviewed by NY Times Magazine: "Progressives speak of putting “the common good” before the individual, which “is exactly the kind of talk that led to the death camps in Germany,” as he said on his show in May."

On the Left, Slate’s William Saletan argued Christine O’Donnell is a Socialist because she believes certain private acts which occur in the bedroom are immoral.

Catch it? In both instances, the reader is given a false dichotomy. The suggestion is there are only two choices, individualism or collectivism, when really there are more. Ross Douthat explains: “[they’re] reflecting the modern tendency to reduce all of human affairs to a state/individual binary (or a Marx/Rand binary, if you will), with no room for family, community, and other intermediate areas of effort, collaboration and self-sacrifice." Beck and Saletan mistakenly think that any denial of an individual right is an endorsement of the centralized government.

Both sides of the political spectrum see the only possibilities for ordering society are two Enlightenment extremes: Individualist Capitalism or Totalitarian Government. If that's the case, its just a matter of picking your poison.

Our Founding Liberals?

Is there a straight line from the Founding Fathers to President Obama? Patrick Deneen thinks so.

He criticizes Glenn Beck's Claremont view of American History. Admittedly, this view incorrectly reduces American History to: Founders=Locke=Good v. Progressives=Hegel=Bad.
It is not that easy.

That being said, my POMO Con response to Deneen would look like this: Professor Deneen’s argument is the Progressives corrected or completed the project begun by the American Founders. The Founders inconsistently exempted human nature from the “conquest of nature” while the Progressives thought human nature had to be conquered as well. But it seems like the Founders were right on that score. Human nature is distinct from Nature. We are not “nature fodder” or parts of a whole; we’re wholes. Pascal’s observation of our restlessness is a sign of our distinctiveness, that ultimately we’re lost in the cosmos. The Progressives do not complete the Founding, they reject it.

Moreover, Progressives like TR and FDR were not anti-human nature i.e. they supported the traditional family (#5 on Deneen's list). Allan Carlson has written about this and labeled them 'maternalists'. They simply rejected limited gov't (#1 on Deneen's list) in favor of safety nets to protect the family. They use modern liberal means for socially conservative ends. They might be called ‘Political’ Liberals. The rejection of human nature as a standard doesn't come until the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's. We might call supporters of this era ‘Cultural’ Liberals. Modern Technology like Birth Control and Abortion are used to divorce women from their baby-making equipment. Political Liberals opposed these things which are now celebrated as making us free (from nature). The real question is not whether the Progressives complete the Founders, but whether the Cultural Liberals complete the Political Liberals.

To thine own self be deceitful?

*Plot spoilers below

A recent conversation with a friend has helped me see a reoccurring question through Nolan’s films. Is lying to oneself or the community necessary for survival? Does man require ‘myths’ or ‘illusions’ to keep himself going? These questions can be seen in all of his films in some form.

Memento: The hero (Guy Pierce) cannot make new memories since he and his wife were attacked. He is on a quest to avenge the murder of his wife until he finds out that he has already caught and killed the attacker over a year ago. He has been lying to himself, creating “a puzzle he could not solve”, in order to give his life meaning. In the final scene, he decides yet again to forget this truth so he can keep going.

Insomnia: The hero (Al Pacino) is a detective who is considered a white knight because of all the people he has put behind bars. It turns out, however, this white knight is really a dark knight because on one occasion he doctor-ed the evidence in order to get the criminal convicted. This leads to a slippery slope in which he commits murder to cover up his earlier misdeed. An up and coming detective discovers the truth and is faced with a dilemma: if she turns him in, that will reopen all the cases which he closed legitimately. The hero tells her to do it anyway; otherwise “she, too, will lose her way.” This film is especially interesting because it is the only one which Nolan sides with telling the truth.

Dark Knight: Gotham’s “White Knight” Harvey Dent is corrupted by the Joker so Batman and Commissioner Gordon decide to hide the truth from the public because it would cause the city to lose hope.

Inception: The hero (Leonardo Dicaprio) has to pick between living in a dream or reality. In what APPEARS to be the climactic scene, he tells his wife he chooses reality; however, in the final scene the audience is left wondering whether he made it out of the dream or not. What is often overlooked is that he does not care either way. Whether or not the spinning top will stop is the clue to figuring out if he is in a dream or not. The audience is eagerly watching the top or ‘totem’, but he is not. He spins the top and then hugs his children; he is indifferent to whether the top will fall or not. His children could be a false image, yet he doesn’t seem to mind.

In all the films, but one, Nolan takes the side of lying. Why the anomaly? I’m not sure. The overall theme though is Myths or illusions are necessary to maintain life. Postmodern? No, but it isn’t exactly rosy either.

There's no place like home

*Plot spoilers below

Musings on the film in no particular order...

1) Too much time was spent expounding upon the rules which govern dreams. Rules should simply set up the story, not take the place of it. The rules are so intricate they require several scenes to explicate them.

2) The ambiguous ending co-opts the rest of the film. Audiences will be spending all their time debating what happened at the end instead of arguing about the film as a whole. This is a waste of time UNLESS the ending is essential to the overall theme. In which case, it is important to know how it ends. Or it could be that AMBIGUITY itself is the overall theme.

3) Thomas Hibbs argues in Arts of Darkness that there is a subset of films within American Noir which "characters engage in a kind of quest to recover something." Since these movies are a subset of Film Noir, they do not find what they're looking for, but movies avoid nihilism because the characters have "some sense of proper orientation; of not losing oneself."

Inception definitely falls into this category. Cobb wants to "recover" his children and spends the entire film trying to do so. In film's climax, Cobb is tempted to choose between living in a dream world or going home to his real kids. He orients himself correctly by picking reality. Yet in the final scene we are left with the possibility that his real kids are not real at all and that he is still stuck in a dream. Does this make the film nihilistic? Hibbs' argument is it can escape the nihilism charge even if Cobb does not make it back to his kids because he at least oriented himself correctly. He WANTS to return home. That he isn't there yet is another matter.

What happens to Hibbs' argument if Cobb is CERTAINLY trapped in a dream? I think Hibbs would say it is nihilist then because there has to be at least the possibility of a recovery.

Albert Camus, on the other hand, argued in the Myth of Sisyphus that meaning was still possible in such a situation: "The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." But this answer doesn't seem satisfying. It just sounds like playing pretend. And most of us lost that attitude when we grew up.

4) James Bowman, in an essay titled "Avatar and the Flight from Reality," uses recent films to show how ancients and (post) moderns view art's purpose. Ancients believed in the concept of 'mimesis', in which art is evaluated by how successfully it reflects or imitates reality. Postmoderns flip things around and make art the measuring stick for reality. Cobb and Mal created a dream so beautiful that Mal did not want to leave. Ariadne says what they're doing is "pure creation."

So did I like the film? Yes. Is it Nolan's best work? No. His worst reviewed film, The Prestige, is better. But then again, The Prestige was really good so that isn't a harsh criticism about Inception.

BSG Series Finale

*Plot spoilers below

While the show ended two years ago, I only now just got around to finishing the series. Here are some 'musings'...

1) The Show always presented a debate between monotheists, polytheists, and atheists on the question of God's existence. In the finale, it turns out the monotheists were right all along. What was not up for debate between the Humans and Cylons were the permissive sexual attitudes practiced on both sides. If there is a God or gods, the assumption was, he or they do not concern themselves with such trifles. In light of this persistent theme through five seasons of the show, the finale took a rather puzzling turn.

Flashbacks are presented depicting Caprica before the Cylon attack. We see Tigh, Ellen, and Adama at a club and Roslin considering having an affair. They're not living very admirable lives and their lives are depicted as banal. The suggestion is the attack and consequent struggle for survival afterwords brought forth the best out of them.

In the final scene of the episode, human civilization has returned back to the level (population, technology) it had reached in Caprica. God finds the same problems with this civilization as he had with Caprica. And the list of sins is rather traditional e.g. materialism, debauchery, etc. Ultimately, the Divine is not the Libertine the Show originally made him out to be.


2) After discovering Earth, the Humans and Cylons decide to give up the technology they possess and start all over. They will live simply and even intermingle with the human savages on earth. The hope is this will break the cycle of violence. The Final Five explained in a previous episode that Caprica's destruction and the ensuing aftermath was part of some sort of cyclical pattern. The implication is technology is the source of evil and Humans and Cylons can live in peace if they live without such relishes. It all sounds like Rousseau who argued that the advance of civilization was the regression of man. The 'noble' savage in the state of nature is morally good and it is civilization which corrupts him.

The conclusion takes place thousands of years later and we see civilization has developed in spite of Human/Cylon decision to forgo technology. And as I said in the previous point, this civilization has developed the same problems of the last one. This is because the source of evil is not in the material circumstances, but the human (or cylon) heart. Even if they live as noble savages, there is nothing to stop subsequent generations from developing technology. And if they choose not to develop it, that does not remove the possibility of malice, rage etc. They might not have battlestars to kill each other with, but they will have stones.

3) The suggestion that God will destoy Earth in the last scene is especially troublesome because it means Adama and Co. were unable to end the cycle of violence. In effect, they failed. This is strange since we have been rooting for these characters over five seasons and we find out in the last episode that their success is not final in any sense. Their attempt to achieve peace was ultimately in vain.

That being said, BSG attempted to answer as many questions as it raised, which is more than can be said for LOST.

The Missing Link

Modern Liberal rhetoric on abortion has changed over the years. It used to be portrayed as a positive good, but is now depicted as a necessary evil, hence President Obama's characterization of it as "tragic." This is probably due to our country's slight shift in a pro-life direction. Professor Naomi Cahn, one of the two co-authors of the book Blue Families v. Red Families, recognizes this and so she wants to change the subject and talk about contraception instead. But isn't there a link between birth control and abortion? Does access to birth control increase abortion rates? If it increases abortion rates, then Modern Liberals would be endorsing a policy which would increase something which they themselves admit is "tragic."

Ross Douthat points out the same states (e.g. Massachusetts) which uses public funds to increase access to birth control also have higher abortion rates than states (e.g. Mississippi) which do not. Cahn's attempts to explain this away by saying the problem is states like Massachusetts have not gone far enough. They need further funding of sex ed and even easier access to birth control. Yet this seems highly implausible; the more likely explanation is abortion is necessary as a backup when contraception fails. This is why the abortion rates go up in states which permit easier access to birth control.

Education isn't just for employees

David Brooks notices, "When the job market worsens, many students figure they can’t indulge in an English or a history major. They have to study something that will lead directly to a job."
This has led to a "nearly 50 percent drop in the portion of liberal arts majors over the past generation, and that trend is bound to accelerate."

He is troubled by this trend and makes a case for why employers should hire Humanities Majors: "Studying the humanities improves your ability to read and write. No matter what you do in life, you will have a huge advantage if you can read a paragraph and discern its meaning (a rarer talent than you might suppose). You will have enormous power if you are the person in the office who can write a clear and concise memo."

While I applaud Brooks' effort to defend the Humanities, I don't think his argument is effective here. Science and Engineering Jobs require technical skills which a Humanities Major will not prepare students for. And as Globalization continues, more and more jobs will become technocratic in nature.

Having said that, a student should still study the Humanities in college. He should study the Humanities not because it will make him a better employee (it might not), but because he will be MORE THAN an employee after he graduates. He will be a citizen, a parishioner, a father etc. In order to perform these roles well, he needs to be able to reason about the goods at stake. Otherwise, he will merely be spouting prejudices or untutored opinion on important issues: How large a role should Government play in Society? What is Sin? What is the Good Life and how can I impart it to my children?

The current situation is a college educated person speaks thoughtfully when it comes to his profession because he has been systematically trained in that, but he is unable to piece together a coherent thought when it comes to politics, culture, or religion. And the health of a Society depends upon more than just its GDP.

This does not mean every college student should major in the Humanities; far from it. The only ones who should actually major in the subject are the ones who will play a role in shaping public opinion: teachers, professors, journalists, statesmen, and artists. The rest can major in any trade so long as they take the required basics: 2 semesters of English, Government, History etc. The current problem is students can opt out of the basics through a myriad of ways. They can take AP Tests, Summer Community College Courses, or some technical variation of the required course e.g. Business or Medical Ethics in lieu of Introduction to Philosophy. And if they do happen to take the actual course, then it is taught by some graduate student in an auditorium filled with other students.

My argument is the harder sell because parents and students want to hear how a particular major will land a job. But the important thing to keep in mind is your 9-5 job will not be the only job you'll have.

Whose Autonomy is it anyway?

Marquette University rescinded its offer to Dr. Jodi O'Brien to be the new Dean of the arts and sciences. The Catholic University decided not to hire O'Brien because she is a practicing lesbian who has published articles on homosexuality.

Thomas Kozinski has a Mercatornet Article in which he discusses the dilemma this presents for Libertarians who place "Autonomy" as their bedrock principle:

"....Jodi O’Brien has the individual right not to be discriminated against by any institution with regard to her preferred sexual lifestyle, then it stands to reason that Marquette University has an institutional right of autonomy. Surely the individuals who govern Marquette have the right to govern in a way that conforms to their own preferences, even if that means discriminating in hiring criteria... if Marquette does not have this right, why does Jodi O’Brien retain hers?"

In other words, the principle of Autonomy cannot resolve the 'conflict of wills.' If the individual will is sovereign, then how do we adjudicate disputes between them? Should we side with Marquette's President, Fr. Wild, who has a right to hire whomever he wants or Dr. Brien who has a right not be discriminated against? A principle other than Autonomy has to be invoked in order to resolve the conflict.

LOST Finale

*Plot spoilers below

I’m happy to say I was wrong about the Finale-Good clearly triumphed over Evil. There was no dabbling in grey areas or nonjudgmentalism or anything wishy washy. However, the Jack v. Locke storyline took a backseat to the “Sideways” story arc in the final episode. This seemed out of kilter because the Sideways story arc was a Season Six addition and arguably inessential to the overall story. For this reason, critics like Ross Douthat and John Podohertz found the finale disappointing because it left so many questions unanswered.

The Sideways story arc turns out to be a big Reunion as all the characters gather together before they enter Heaven together. Characters who were killed off in previous seasons reappear for one last trip down memory lane. It was nostalgic and admittedly fun, but a total dodge by the writers.

One last point about the finale. LOST is eclectic when it comes from borrowing ideas from a variety of traditions e.g. ‘Christian’ Sheppard stands in front of a stained glass window filled with many different religious symbols, the temple (not church or mosque) has Egyptian hieroglyphics, etc. Yet it borrows from the Catholic Tradition more than any other. Douthat said this back in 2007:

The creators of Lost have repeatedly denied that their characters are literally in purgatory, which was a popular theory among early viewers of the series, and most of the evidence from later episodes suggests that they're telling the truth. Still, the show's island is at the least a purgatorial landscape—it's no coincidence that several of the characters are Catholic, lapsed and otherwise—where the things that the castaways carry from their previous lives provide the raw material for suffering, struggle, and growth.

Douthat’s description seems dead on in light of Finale. Several characters were Catholic: Charlie, Echo, Hume, Richard, and Hugo. Life is divided into three stages: pre-Island, Island, and post-Island with the Island as the place where they are supposed to resolve whatever problems they had from their previous life. Some people commit acts so heinous that they are doomed e.g. Michael tells Hugo he is stuck. Others are unable to move onto Heaven because they have not worked through all their past demons e.g. Ben tells Locke he isn’t ready to come into the church (its clearly Catholic b/c it has a Sacred Heart Statue outside and Carravagio’s Doubting Thomas painting inside).

As I said before, this does NOT mean the Island is literally Purgatory. The LOST’s writers borrow from a variety of traditions and reworks them into ways which fit their purposes. But they do seem to borrowing from one tradition quite heavily. I'm sure Dante would approve.

Last, Last Point: It is interesting to see Heaven is rather Godless in the LOST mythology. Heaven seems to be about the characters’ horizontal relationships with each other instead of a vertical relationship with a Personal God. And the Island, with its impersonal ball of energy at its core, is not very conversational either. From a PC point of view, friendship as highest good is probably the best you’re gonna get from a network show. Aristotle would approve-somewhat.

Sticks and Stones....

Libertarian Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, won the Republican Primary for Kentucky's Senate Seat this week. Since he is now in the national spotlight, NBC's Rachel Maddow questioned him about his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul opposes parts of the Act; he believes a private business owner should be free to practice racial discrimination if he so chooses. To be fair, he is NOT advocating they do so. He just doesn't think Congress should criminalize such actions.

This is a classic instance of "Locke being let out of the lock box." In such a view, all human relationships are reduced to calculation, contract, and consent. Libertarians of this stripe think autonomous individuals should be free to do whatever they please short of harming one another; 'harm' being defined in a rather narrow sense. The only type of harm they recognize is PHYSICAL harm. You can see this assumption underlies Paul's view of racial discrimination. A white private business owner who discriminates against an African American is not assaulting him and so is not "harming" him.

Hopefully, Paul's troubling comments will force us to rethink the old saw about "sticks and stones..." and develop a fuller understanding of what it means to hurt someone.

"Let's call it a draw"

Last week LOST revealed several important clues to its audience as we head into this weekend's series finale. Unfortunately, those clues suggest the show will end on the same bland note other promising stories (Matrix, Battlestar Galactica) finished on.

Matrix and BSG start with two groups, heroes and villains, and we're promised the conclusion of story will be the victory of the good guys. As the story evolves, however, the distinction between the two groups is blurred and we are told the bad guys aren't all that bad and the good guys aren't perfect either. Since they're all evil to some degree, the stories end with some sort of stalemate between the two sides. Such compromises do not make for exciting drama so we shouldn't be surprised by the lack of popular interest in either story's conclusion.

In last week's episode of LOST, the Man in Black's back-story was revealed. Essentially, his reasons for leaving the Island are legitimate. His "mother" used deception and treachery to keep him there. Even Jacob, who has been presented as a hero in Season Six, comes across as weak and gullible. Jacob's attempts to keep the Man in Black on the island now seem unfair. Even if the Man in Black's imprisonment is necessary for the Island's preservation, that still seems cruel in light of his back-story.

If I'm right about LOST, then the Series Finale will conclude like this: Jack will not DEFEAT the Black Smoke; instead, there will be some sort of equilibrium between the two. Or they will both get what they want. But what you will not see is Tolkien's type of ending, the unequivocal triumph of good over evil; yet this is exactly what the audience yearns to see-Jack standing confidently over an unrepentant Locke as he takes his last breath.

Just say "No!"

Patrick Deneen's recent post on the two recent crises, the Gulf of Mexico spill and Greece's debt problem, suggests an argument which is not being mentioned in the Public Square. He says both cases reveal an "inability to live with one's means." Deneen criticizes Sarah Palin and the political right for their mantra of "drill, baby, drill" because it only encourages excess, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

In this sense, Deneen seems to align with the political left. On the other hand, his reasons for opposing offshore drilling differ markedly from someone like the NYT's Thomas Friedman. While Deneen agrees with Friedman that the spill harms the environment, the more pressing problem is our insistence on living a super-size me lifestyle no matter the cost. We want to continue to drive our gas guzzling SUV's whenever and wherever we like and we do not like how recent oil prices interfere with that. This "inability to live within one's means" AKA vice is not something that concerns Friedman. Indeed, like his opponents on the political right, he thinks these impediments can be improved, albeit his solution to the problem is alternative energy. Either way, both sides are telling the public they can have it all. Right and Left share the Modern assumption that scarcity can be conquered and man can live a life free from material want.

Deneen would probably say this type of thinking was also behind the financial crisis of the last two years. Again, while he would agree with the political left about the vices of Wall Street fat cats, he would still come down hard on the borrower who wanted to own a home he couldn't afford. It is just another example of people being unable to deny their appetites.

In an earlier post, I talked about how it is popular nowadays to criticize poor eating habits (Super-Size Me, Fast Food Nation). The argument behind such works is it harms health. This is certainly true, but it is also a problem because it is a symptom of gluttony. In all these cases then, what is absent in the discussion is whether self-denial and delayed gratification are still important to human happiness.

Conservatives on South Park's self-censorship

Nina Shea, in National Review, and NYT's Ross Douthat both wrote critical articles this week on Comedy Central's decision to censor an episode of South Park because of recent threats due to a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed. At issue in both pieces was the fact the threats had worked in silencing free speech.

While I agree with them on this particular point, it troubles me that they failed to express what Stanley Fish calls the "rhetoric of regret." Nowhere in either piece do they declare "distaste and even revulsion" for the contents of the show. On the contrary, Douthat praises it in glowing terms: "Across 14 on-air years, there’s no icon “South Park” hasn’t trampled, no vein of shock-comedy (sexual, scatalogical, blasphemous) it hasn’t mined. In a less jaded era, its creators would have been the rightful heirs of Oscar Wilde or Lenny Bruce — taking frequent risks to fillet the culture’s sacred cows."

As in the previous post, Carson Holloway's critique of a similar argument by Brett Stephens is instructive here. Shea and Douthat, like Stephens, fall into an "understandable but unfortunate human tendency: the desire to distinguish ourselves as completely as possible from our enemies[Radical Muslims], even to the extent of defining our own identity in opposition to theirs. We see our enemies’ vices with perfect clarity, and we spontaneously desire to distance ourselves from them as much as we can. The problem with this impulse, however, is that, as Aristotle reminds us, virtue is a mean between two vicious extremes. Thus, in fleeing unreflectively from the failings of our foes, we may run right past the virtuous mean and into an opposed, and vicious, extreme[Degraded Popular Culture]. "

I would add Aristotle does not think opposing vices are always equal e.g. a brash action is better than a cowardly one. Thus, Radical Islam's repression is worse than South Park's vulgarity, but that doesn't change the fact the latter is still a vice.

Holloway gives a few instances of what he means here: "In the depths of the Cold War, for example, America, despite its need to distinguish itself from Communist collectivism, did not dismantle its social safety net and embrace a thoroughgoing individualism that held that every man was on his own. Similarly, our revulsion at Nazism’s militarization of society did not lead us to reject the draft as a necessary tool of national self-defense. By the same token, we should not let our (quite proper) rejection of radical Islam’s repressiveness lead us to embrace an equally problematic permissiveness."

That South Park's creators were censored under the threat of physical harm is terrible, but to say that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see South Park censor itself more often.

Is Lady Gaga's Freedom worth fighting for?

Brett Stephens opens up his Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with the following pop quiz:
"What does more to galvanize radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?"

The question "Why do they hate us?" has been debated since the 9/11 attack. The following video outlines the 2 most plausible answers, our foreign policy or our freedom:


Stephens agrees with Dubya that the answer is 'our freedom.' Unlike Dubya, he then goes on to say what this freedom is FOR. Not only does he spell out its legitimate use, he also says this use is worth defending: “If America wants to tilt the balance of Muslim sentiment in its favor, it needs to stand up for its liberties, its principles and its friends—Israel, Playboy, and Lady Gaga included.”

Carson Holloway offers the following critique of Stephens' view: "In any case, it is strange to hold that Playboy and the sexually permissive culture it represents are manifestations of American principles and American liberty. Both the magazine itself and the sexual behavior that it encourages would have been actively suppressed by American law and mores even as recently as sixty years ago. Are we to understand that America then was not a free country? This would be news to the Americans of that time, who understood themselves to have just finished a tremendous national exertion intended precisely to preserve a free society—a society distinguished from others, they might have held, by a commitment to ordered liberty, and not to unrestricted license."

A critic of Holloway might respond that whatever our Forefathers thought freedom once WAS, it is no longer what we believe freedom is for TODAY. Justice Kennedy says what one generation sees as a perfectly reasonable limitation of its freedom is found by the next generation to be tyrannical.

I suspect the average American would agree with Stephens that such music videos should not be banned, but would disagree that it is worth defending. He does not want to seem puritanical so he is against censorship, yet he is not willing to get killed over something so base. Has there ever existed a society in history which has put itself on the line for such a freedom? This is probably why President Bush had to couch his terms in such elevated and lofty rhetoric in his 2nd Inaugural Address; most Americans would not have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq if it was to defend our right to consume massive amounts of MTV.

The Long Season of Lent 2010

I have mentioned before my antipathy towards "studies show" arguments, but I'll make an exception this time since these two statistics have not been given much traction in the public square. A Mercatornet article and a blog post by the NYT's Ross Douthat both cite stats from a comprehensive study completed after the 2002's Long Season of Lent:

"The largest body of information has been collected in the United States, where in 2004 the US Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned an independent study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. This is not a Catholic university and is unanimously recognized as the most authoritative academic institution of criminology in the United States."

Douthat relies upon this study to make the following claim: "The permissive sexual culture that prevailed everywhere, seminaries included, during the silly season of the ’70s deserves a share of the blame, as does that era’s overemphasis on therapy. " And he reiterates the point again here: " "It’s part of the basis for my column’s claim that something in the moral/cultural/theological climate of the 1960s and 1970s encouraged a spike in sexual abuse."

Despite a balanced column, it was this claim which generated the most responses on his blog-probably because it lays part of the blame at the door of the Sexual Revolution, which is accepted by many people today. To back up his claim, he presented the following chart from the John Jay study:


Massimo Introvigne, author of the Mercatornet article mentioned above, also uses the study to bring up another stat which has not been discussed: "So, does the John Jay College study tells us then, as one often reads, that 4 percent of American priests are paedophiles? Not at all. According to the research, 78.2 percent of the accusations involved minors who had advanced beyond puberty."
And again here: "While it may hardly be politically correct to say so, there is a fact that is much more important: over 80 percent of pedophiles are homosexuals, that is, males who abuse other males." Introvigne links homosexual practice, which is gaining widespread acceptance, with the crisis.

Since both numbers contradict our notions of political correctness, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they haven't been given much attention.

Do Crunchy Cons forget we're Aliens in America?

I mentioned in an earlier post that leading Front Porcher Patrick Deneen and Postmodern Conservative's Peter Lawler would be speaking here in Dallas. They both gave spirited talks, which I won't try to summarize here; instead, I'll focus on some questions I was able to ask them during Q&A.

To Professor Deneen, I asked, "You have written that Modern Liberalism is the logical fulfillment of Classical Liberalism, but the Progressives of the 20th century (Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey) explicitly rejected the Founders' vision. For instance, they cite Hegel and Darwin in opposition to the Founders.

Deneen answered that both schools of thought had in common the Cartesian/Baconian project of the "conquest of nature" for the "relief of man's estate." American Conservatives follow Classical Liberals and are hostile to the Green concern for the environment because they think it undermines our ability to harness or manipulate nature to make our lives more comfortable e.g. driving pollutant producing SUV's. But they draw the line when it comes to biotechnology e.g. stem cell research, because they see HUMAN nature as untouchable. Modern Liberals see this line as arbitrary and so complete the Baconian project by trying to re-design human nature as well.

Deneen believes the only solution is to return to a more holistic view of nature, one which respects the both the environment and mankind. While Deneen does not self-identify as a "Crunchy Con" one can see why Rod Dreher is a fan of the Front Porch.

I then asked Lawler if he thought the American Conservative's positions on the environment and biotechnolgy were compatible and he answered emphatically YES! Conservatives are right to see human nature as distinct from nature as a whole. The Na'vi might be one with nature, but human beings are not. We are not the missing piece to the Earth's puzzle. Indeed, Lawler believes our restlessness is a clue to who we are. And shopping at Whole Foods or participating in an agricultural coop will not resolve our restlessness. Our awareness that we are homeless, that we are "lost in the cosmos", is a sign of our distinctiveness.

Dreher and other Crunchy Cons blame the modern capitalist system for ruining the environment and thus our ability to enjoy it. They want to return to a pre-modern past in which we can frolic in an idyllic garden. Lawler thinks this is selective nostalgia because Crunchy Cons forget how back backbreakingly difficult agricultural life was back then. Nature is not as beneficent as the Na'vi claim. But more importantly, the real cause for our misery is not the product of a particular political/economic system; it is simply an aspect of the human condition itself. Echoing Augustine, the Postmodern Conservative believes human misery can only be managed, not solved.