United Financially We Stand

The following musing is the result of rereading a very old speech while listening to current events on the radio:

George Washington’s Farewell Address is concerned with national unity: “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” Being an American should matter more than being a Virginian. Washington tries to persuade the people of this by making both classical and modern arguments. His first argument is all Americans share “the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.” This cultural appeal is classical because he sees things in terms of the ancient notion of regime or society’s character and way of life.

Washington’s modern argument is an appeal to the people’s self-interest: national unity ensures productivity and security. It will facilitate trade between the different regions and the states are better off defensively when they back each other up-“Join or Die” as the Ben Franklin’s political cartoon said.

People today claim GW’s modern arguments are more substantive because they are grounded in something concrete. Cultural Unity, rooted in patriotism, piety, or just speaking the same language, is too soft a soil for a nation to be planted in. Lockean Productivity and Hobbesian security are considered the sure and stable foundation for a nation’s future due to their reliance on materialist motives.

Yet the current crisis in the European Union clearly shows the hollowness of this claim. The basis of the European Union is a common currency and trade zone, but that has not strengthened bonds between Europeans. As the financial crisis worsens national discriminations will exalt the just pride of patriotism more than the name European ever could.

Breaking Bad on the Last (not First) Things

Universalism, the belief that everyone is going to heaven, is becoming widespread. Check out the popularity of Rob Bell’s book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person WhoEver Lived as an example. A perennial question Universalists love to ask traditional religious believers is “How can Gandhi be in Hell?” Ross Douthat, in his piece A Case for Hell, turns the table on the Universalist by asking an even more ”provocative question: “Is Tony Soprano really in heaven?

Yet on second thought, Douthat’s question might not unsettle the reader as much as he hopes. It is easy to write off Tony Soprano because he can be lumped together with other (real) villains like Hitler, Stalin, and Charles Manson. He is, after all, a crime boss. Such people belong in a world totally separate from the one ordinary Americans inhabit. For that reason, his question might still come across as abstract to most people. Moreover, such villains are believed to evil by nature and thus set apart from the rest of us. Choosing the good is never really a choice for them. (Douthat disputes this last point here, but even he ends the post admitting that Tony Soprano could never be redeemed.)

If that is so, then Vince Gilligan’s Breaking Bad might be more effective in getting modern secular viewers to rethink their assumptions about cosmic justice. Gilligan is interested in just these sorts of questions: “I hate the idea of Idi Amin living in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years of his life. That galls me to no end.” This leads him to a conclusion that is similar to the problem Douthat raises: “My girlfriend says this great thing that’s become my philosophy as well. ‘I want to believe there’s a heaven. But I can’t not believe there’s a hell.’ ”

Walter White, the show’s lead, begins the series as a middle class, law abiding American. He could be the guy next door, which is why his sins startle us in a way Tony Soprano’s never could. Chuck Klosterman writes:

“There's a scene in Breaking Bad's first season in which Walter White's hoodrat lab assistant Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) tells Walter he just can't "break bad," and — when you first hear this snippet of dialogue — you assume what Jesse means is that you can't go from being a law-abiding chemistry teacher to an underground meth cooker….But this, it turns out, was not Jesse's point at all. What he was arguing was that someone can't "decide" to morph from a good person into a bad person, because there's a firewall within our personalities that makes this impossible. He was arguing that Walter's nature would stop him from being bad, and that Walter would fail if tried to complete this conversion. But Jesse was wrong.”

Jesse is wrong because White is “not the product of his era or his upbringing or his social environment. It's a product of his own consciousness. He changed himself. At some point, he decided to become bad, and that's what matters.” Walter’s evil choices are more instructive than Tony’s because of the transformation he undergoes. He was a good man who became bad; Tony was always bad so he is easy to dismiss. Alexander Solzhenitsyn said “The line between good and evil runs through every human heart.” It is with this truth in mind that we should reflect on questions of heaven and hell.

Don Draper’s professional/private distinction

*Spoiler Alert

With the Emmy Awards coming up, it might be worth discussing the recent season of Mad Men, which garnered 19 nominations this year. Throughout the first three seasons, Don has been able to divide up his life into neat professional and private compartments. In his professional life, he is rational, industrious, and loyal. But in his private life, he is hedonistic, selfish, and a slave to his appetites. Yet the vices of his private life did not affect his professional life. He explains to Peggy that he erected this wall of separation in order to protect the integrity of his work.

But as the season progresses, cracks began to show in his wall. His private life spills into his professional life as he has affairs with at least three different women from his workplace, one of which he proposes to in the season finale. His daughter, distraught over her parents’ divorce, shows up at his office and makes a scene in an earlier episode.

In the previous season, Don was contemptuous of Roger Sterling for many reasons, but a key one was his lack of professionalism. Sterling’s personal life was a mess and was on display for everyone at the office. It culminated in his divorce and remarriage to his much younger secretary. Yet this season ends with Don following in Roger’s footsteps: he is engaged to his very young secretary. Over time, it seems Draper is unable to keep his vices privatized. To see where his character is headed, just take a look at Sterling now.

Irving Kristol’s Neoconservative Ideas

After having read Irving Kristol’s The Neoconservative Persuasion and read/listened to some comments on him here and here, some reoccurring themes in his work came up which might of interest to Pomo Con readers:

1) Culture: Our own James Poulos describes Kristol as “A secular liberal who cared about culture.” The proliferation of “dirty books, dirty movies, and dirty art” during the Sexual Revolution was one of the issues that encouraged Kristol to shift his views in a conservative direction.

He understood religion was central to culture and deals with religious questions throughout the book. Here we can see the influence of Leo Strauss on him in two ways. First, America’s religious inheritance is seen in terms of a civil religion with a salutary effect on the character of the citizenry. Religion is a means to a political end. Is this compatible with a religious believer’s view of Church-State relations? Here is a possible reason why it is not: For a religious believer it is the other way around, politics is a means to a religious end. The purpose of government is to secure the necessary space to exercise one’s religious liberty.

Second, he accepts the thesis that reason and revelation are ultimately irreconcilable. While this seems to be his conclusion, it should be said that this thesis encouraged him to take the possibility of revelation seriously, and the book shows his genuine curiosity in theological questions.

2) Gov’t : The excesses of the Great Society was another reason why he shifted toward the right. But this does not mean he accepted the mainstream conservative position of ‘limited government.’ For conservatives, safety nets are illegitimate as a matter of principle. For Kristol, what mattered was the effect on the citizens’ character, not whether it was unconstitutional. LBJ’s programs created dependency among its recipients and so were bad, but FDR’s New Deal provided a helping hand to citizens and so was good. Fred Barnes has described this view as ‘Big Gov’t Conservativism,’ and it is unpopular at the moment, given Bush’s presidency and the Tea Partiers.

3) The third theme of foreign policy is another reason why neoconservatism is unpopular today. Second wave Neocons justified the War on Terror on the idealistic ground of democratizing the Middle East: there is a universal desire for liberty which America is in a unique position to help realize. Surprisingly, this idealist outlook is generally missing from Kristol’s book. For the most part, he talks about ‘the national interest’ and defending America against the liberal internationalist charge of selfishness. He says the essential reading for foreign policy should be Thucydides’ On the Peloponnesian War, a work squarely in the realist camp.

When did the change from realist to idealist thinking occur in neoconservative circles? Maybe it was David Brooks’ idea of ‘National Greatness’ and the need for America to undertake grand projects. This theme should run counter to Kristol’s avowed skepticism about grand projects which is based upon his belief in our weak and limited human natures, yet one can find him affirming ‘National Greatness’ at the end of the book. Why the change?

That aside, the number one reason why readers of this blog might enjoy reading Kristol’s work is because it stands at the crossroads of political philosophy and public policy. Writing about philosophy and policy for a mainstream audience is a rarity indeed.

JPII on US

The film Nine Days That Changed The World is about JPII’s pilgrimage to Poland in 1979 while it was still under the Soviet Union’s control. It documents the uproar his visit caused and how fragile the Communist hold over that country really was. His stay sparked the Solidarity Movement which became a thorn in the Soviets’ side.

The film is also clear that JPII did not see the Cold War in terms of Evil Empire A v. Evil Empire B; instead, he sided with the Americans over the Soviets. Far from reactionary, he was an advocate of modern notions such as human rights, democracy, and capitalism.

At the same time, his support for Western democracies was not absolute. The end of the film (very) briefly mentions his worry that Western democracies like America will endorse moral relativism as its public philosophy. A polity which recognizes no objective standard above the human will would allow might to make right. In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, JPII discusses this problem in terms of the ‘culture of death.’ The growing acceptance of abortion and euthanasia in Western societies depicts the weak and vulnerable as being outside the human community.

While the film does not discuss this question, it is worth pondering whether the culture of death is the inevitable byproduct of democratic capitalism. If the political system of democracy and economic system of capitalism both emphasize freedom, isn’t a ‘Culture of Choice’ the necessary result? In that case, aren’t social conservatives’ hopes for a Pro-Life policy doomed in this country?

Porcher Patrick Deneen would answer in the affirmative to the previous two questions. He argues that democratic capitalism is solely the product of the Modern Enlightenment and thus necessarily leads to the culture of death. JPII would agree with a part of his assessment. In his book Memory and Identity, JPII says “In all its different forms, the Enlightenment was opposed to what Europehad become as a result of evangelization.” He would agree Enlightenment ideals are hostile to the culture of life.

But he would not agree that Western democracies like America are inevitably headed towards the culture of death. In Evangelium Vitae, he thinks the two cultures are future possibilities before Western democracies and so there is nothing determined about what is ahead. Like Tocqueville, he accepts the democratic revolution, but thinks what path it will take is still up in the air.

What comes first?

John B. Kienker, managing editor of Claremont Review of Books, has a positive review of Peter’s Modern and American Dignity in the June/July issue of First Things. He concludes the piece with this friendly criticism:

Ultimately, however, Lawler finds mere political goals–particularly “veneration” of the American founders–inadequate, implying that only “the perspective of genuine believers” can effectively secure human dignity. But these days it seems challenging enough to persuade 300 million of our fellow Americans to embrace the dignity of citizenship again without trying to convert them as well to Christianity. That we must leave to God’s grace.

Peter responds here. Kienker’s comments reveals aspects of the Claremont approach which might be of interest to those revolving around the First Things orbit: 1) His concern is modern in the sense that he wants to lower the bar (from say supernatural virtue to civic virtue) in order to actualize the goal. 2) Instead of JPII’s priority of culture, he reserves a pride of place for politics. 3) His last line hints at a strict reason/revelation divide which denies Christianity’s persuasive power in the public square.

In regards to the last point, the notion that Americans should embrace a Christian account of human dignity is based upon observations of our nature which we can see with our own eyes e.g. openness to the Truth, social and relational beings, etc. This is a flag our Claremont friends can rally around, even if it represents more than just Americans.

Marriage for Savages

Ross Douthat’s Op-ed The Future of Gay Marriage discusses Dan Savage’s call for Open Marriage. Savage’s suggestion that we legitimate infidelity poses the following question for Sophisticated Americans: If the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage as heterosexual is oppressive, then why isn’t its insistence on monogamy also oppressive?

Douthat explains the notion of Open Marriage as a blend between (gay) conservative and liberationist views of marriage. Here we would see it as a logical outgrowth of the Lockeanization of marriage. Aspects of marriage like sexual complimentarity and child care duties are dismantled in light of the ‘free individual and nothing more.’ This is the idea behind Justice Kennedy’s mystery passage in Casey and which he reiterates in Lawrence v. Texas: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

In a follow-up post, Douthat argues this individualist understanding will allow manliness to run amok. Monogamy was a way of civilizing or domesticating the thumos of males. Autonomy in principle will yield to a contest of wills in practice, with an unruly male spiritedness coming out ahead. Liberation indeed.

Finally, it is interesting to see Savage defend Open Marriage on the grounds of NATURE, albeit through a Modern rather than a Classical or Christian lens. He thinks we are not ‘wired for monogamy.’ For Savage, the good is natural and nature is identified with our instinctive and spontaneous inclinations. This is in contrast to the pre-modern view which found rationality and teleology (purpose) in nature. At the moment this view is unpopular, but Savage’s proposal to return to nature might allow this older understanding to return-however much he has wrong, at least he has the starting point right.

Getting Lost in Percy’s Cosmos

Over at ISI’s blog, Jennifer Hooten ranks Walker Percy’s The Moviegoer as #3 on her Five Books Every American Should Read list. Her summary of the novel runs through themes discussed at this blog e.g. homelessness, social selves.

Like The Moviegoer, Percy’s Love in the Ruins has the hero undergo a similar character development. Both novels also have secondary characters which are human signposts (Binx’s brother, More’s daughter) for the main characters. These human signposts or saints are absent in the later novels. Is Percy getting darker or is this a development of his ‘Indirect Communication’? He writes: “My theory (like Flannery's) is that the times are such that the language of religion is so exhausted, de trop, that the tactic of the apologist must be indirect, perhaps even devious. More devious even than S[oren] K[ierkegaard]"

Percy and O’Connnor’s method has certainly made them amenable to Sophisticated or Secular Americans today, but it also makes them vulnerable to misinterpretation as well. Flannery O’Connor had to write a Note to the 2^nd edition of Wise Blood in order to clarify its meaning. Their fictional worlds are strange lands so without a point in the right direction, the reader is likely to get lost.

X-Men on “My Place in this World”

Like its predecessors, X-Men: First Class covers the same thematic material. The importance of TOLERANCE is stressed, but not in the classical sense of putting up with objectionable practices, nor Jerry Seinfield’s non-judgementalism (“Not that there is anything wrong with that!”). Instead, it is the Modern Liberal notion of societal approval. Being accepted by others is what drives Hank McCoy (Beast) to hide his mutation.

Betting one’s happiness on what others think of you is a risky proposition, as Aristotle tells us, and so McCoy’s hankering for human respect turns out to backfire on him. Raven, after some soul searching, rejects McCoy’s inclusion idea in favor of Self-acceptance. “Mutant and proud!” she proclaims. Substitute the word “Gay” for “Mutant” and you have the lesson for the day.

Yet even her Sovereign Self seems restless with such an account of things. She quickly flakes out and buys into Erik Lehnsherr’s (Magneto's) version of SOCIAL DARWINISM. For Eric, the dignity of the human person is replaced with the survival of the fittest. Mutants are the next stage of evolution and their might should make right. Magneto is the series’ villain and his master morality sales talk has repeatedly siphoned off X-Men recruits throughout the films, which makes you wonder whether Professor X’s preaching on diversity and tolerance require a more solid ground than his choir realizes.

Duncan Jones on the Military or Industrial Complex

Duncan Jones’ two films, Moon and Source Code, deal with the Military and Industry, but not necessarily the Military-Industrial Complex. Thematically, the films are similar: Both address collective v. individual dichotomy and examine the dark side of biotechnology.

The first theme could resonate with a couple of different groups. Lockeans and Christians would be concerned for the employee/soldier against the corporation/military. Both cite the Declaration of Independence, albeit different parts, to defend the individual against the collective. Lockeans reference each individual having “certain inalienable rights.” Christians like to remind Lockeans of the source of those rights: “Creator” or “nature’s God.” Lockeans are into AUTONOMY or the sovereign individual while Christians are into DIGNITY because every human person (including clones) is an Imago Dei.

The Lockean account is clearly the more popular view today; nevertheless, it might not be able to counter a growing alternative view, which ironically finds its roots in Locke: PRODUCTIVITY. The Lockean emphasis on maximizing productivity (or property as Locke would say) pushes the the corporation in Moon to suppress the rights of particular individuals.

Moreover, Peter Lawler has argued that Lockeans would have trouble defending human nature from the biotech enthusiasts. If Locke thinks Nature is worthless and value is simply the result of human labor (Productivity), then why is human nature exempt from this critique? Why shouldn't we play God and redesign human nature in order to improve our profit margins or save a city from ruin?

Today, Lockeans do not bother to defend Autonomy because it is their starting premise. And that is fine for the moment since everyone is willing to accept it. But Jones’ films suggest Autonomy will be called into question when it begins to come into conflict with the bottom line or the greater good.

"If you're not first, you're last"

The National Government’s spending spree has people on the lookout for possible cuts to the budget. With the country waging two unpopular wars, military spending is an easy target. Yet President Obama’s Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, says it depends on what is being cut. He rejects the “across the board cuts” of the 70’s and 90’s in favor of targeted cuts. Like the budget in general, entitlements are becoming more and more a part of military spending. Michael Gerson writes:

"Some of America’s most expansive military commitments are not made in the Middle East but rather in the military’s health care, compensation and retirement systems. Health costs in the defense budget have risen from $19 billion in 2001 to more than $50 billion today. The military retirement system is appropriately generous. But the possibility of retiring at age 37 with full benefits — following 20 years of service — seems generous beyond normal bounds."

While entitlement spending could use some trimming, research and development do not. As Tony Stark reminds us, our military's success depends upon having the best combat systems, training, operations and maintenance in the world.

Just Be Natural...Or don't

In this debate on abortion Pro-Lifer Ross Douthat doesn’t want to invoke nature, much less natural law, in it. One can sympathize with his reluctance because he wants to rely on arguments which will persuade his opponent and it unlikely the Pro-Choicer here, Michelle Goldberg, would be interested in what is ‘natural.’

Yet Goldberg repeatedly uses the term “de-humanizing” in the video. What does she have in mind when using such a term? She says it is de-humanizing to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and humane when freely done (or not done). The guiding principle here is Autonomy or the Free Individual.

Really, the woman’s nature (her babymaking equipment or her motherhood) are presenting obstacles to her freedom. The woman’s nature has to be conquered through technology (contraception, abortion) so she can truly be liberated.

We might ask the following questions to this Lockean account of human beings. Are our bodies simply extrinsic to our very selves? If ultimately we are free individuals and nothing more, does that mean masculinity and femininity are irrelevant to who we are as persons? Does this Autonomy worldview account for or capture our experience?

To return to Douthat, you can see his reluctance about bringing up nature in his answer why the mother should “put up with the burden of pregnancy.” He answers that she is “uniquely situated” i.e. she and no one else is in a position to protect the unborn. This seems like a more complicated way of invoking nature. The woman is the MOTHER of the unborn and thus has obligations to the unborn that no one else, save the father (another nature term), has.

Survivor: Ron Paul Edition

Presidential hopefuls in the Republican Party gathered together to debate the issues in South Carolina. Ron Paul drew the most attention for his provocative understanding of FREEDOM. His Libertarian view is the menu of choice should be expanded to include items like prostitution, cocaine, and heroin. The only limitation to freedom should be choices which directly (i.e. physically) harm others.

Michael Gerson correctly notes that Paul would be undeterred by data which shows areas which have decriminalized drugs has increased drug addiction rates. This is because of Paul’s modern, or libertarian, understanding of VIRTUE and VICE:

Quote 1: “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would.”

Quote 2: (He is making fun of an addict here) “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.”

For Paul, in order for a person to be truly virtuous, he must do so to a heroic degree. If the Law “helps” him by eliminating temptations, then that doesn’t count as virtue. A virtuous person is one who lives in a dump but doesn't get dirty.

Gerson points out that this is a repeat of Herbert Spencer’s SOCIAL DARWINISM. Citizens compete, not cooperate, against one another in a game of 'Survival of the Fittest.' The Addict's inability to resist temptation does not garner the community's concern. It is simply every man for himself. A Public Philosophy of this kind would cultivate contempt, not compassion, towards the the weak in a society. A community of free individuals ultimately means the individuals are free from each other, which isn't much of a community at all.

"Meet his better half"

Peter Lawler explains that Tocqueville’s Democracy in America has two very different themes. Volume 1 is about the problem of ACTIVISM, especially the activism of Majority Faction. In this sense, it is similar to The Federalist Papers. Volume 2, however, is about the problem of APATHY. This is more an Anti-Federalist concern about the cultivation of civic virtue. Today, the greater danger is the latter, as the clip below suggests, which is why people are better served by reading the second half of the book.

Whose line is it anyway?

Citizens United v. FEC might be the most controversial ruling from the Supreme Court in the last couple of years. The decision struck down a provision in McCain Feingold Act which forbade corporate broadcasts. The Majority ruling was that it violated the 1^st amendment’s protection of free speech.

Modern Liberals claim corporations do not have a free speech right because it is an individual, not collective, right. Conservatives mistakenly claim that it is the other way around.

If this disagreement sounds familiar, that is because it is a rehashing of the 2^nd amendment debate; except this time, the two have switched sides. In that debate, Conservatives claimed the right to bear arms is an individual, not collective, right. Modern Liberals believed it was a collective right i.e. state militias have gun rights.

Here is a syllogism I would pose to Modern Liberals in regards to Corporations having free speech rights:

Major Premise: Corporations do NOT have a free speech right

Minor Premise: New Organizations, like NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, are Corporations.

Conclusion: News Organizations do NOT have a free speech right.

Is there an error in this reasoning? If so, is it the major or minor premise? Or is there an unstated premise which is missing? Or does the conclusion not follow?

The language of the First Amendment protects a “free press” which is presumably a business. If the Press has free speech rights, then it appears free speech can be a collective right.

The Pretenders

Politics Departments were transformed into Political Science Departments in the hopes of being taken more seriously. Sophisticated Americans today know that real knowledge is only acquired in the “hard” sciences like biology, physics, and chemistry. Reading and debating the arguments posed in Plato’s Republic and The Federalist Papers is replaced with analyzing charts and graphs derived from polling data.

This isn’t to say the ancients didn’t appreciate math. Plato had written above his academy’s doors: “Let no one unversed in geometry enter here” Plato believed the rigorous thinking required in geometry would lead to clear ideas when it came to philosophy. Yet he did not think, like Descartes would later, that philosophy should be based upon the model of geometry.

Pope Benedict, in his Regensberg Address, spoke about how professors from all the different disciplines used to gather together in a public setting to discuss some issue.

This is not done anymore due to the hyper-specialization required in the Academy. Academics do not have the broad interests which would make such a conversation possible.

It would behoove politics students to study fields within the natural sciences and discuss hot button issues with science majors which concern both groups e.g. stem-cell research, whether ID should be taught in public schools, etc. That would benefit politics students more than pretending to be something they are not.

Don't count on it

*Plot spoilers below

The Coen Brothers latest film has generated a lot of discussion about its meaning. Some see it as religious, others as ‘flirting with nihilism’, and yet another as religious nihilism-whatever that means.

The heroine of the story, Mattie Ross opens the film with the following line: “You must pay for everything in this world one way and another. There is nothing free with the exception of God’s grace.” The Postmodernist Stanley Fish explains how this can be read in two different ways: “But free can bear two readings — distributed freely, just come and pick it up; or distributed in a way that exhibits no discernible pattern. In one reading grace is given to anyone and everyone; in the other it is given only to those whom God chooses for reasons that remain mysterious.”

He continues to explain that the latter reading is the correct one: “A third sentence, left out of the film but implied by its dramaturgy, tells us that the latter reading is the right one: “You cannot earn that [grace] or deserve it.” ….You can’t add up a person’s deeds — so many good one and so many bad ones — and on the basis of the column totals put him on the grace-receiving side (you can’t earn it); and you can’t reason from what happens to someone to how he stands in God’s eyes (you can’t deserve it).”

This sits nicely with a postmodern view of the world in which the cosmos displays no observable pattern. But it also is an expression of Calvinist theology: God picks the winners and losers in this life independent of our merits. Max Weber believed this theology was the underlying cause of the Protestant Work Ethic. Since there was no discernible pattern of who was and was not saved, Protestants unconsciously worked hard to prove to themselves that God had blessed/saved them. The fruits of their labor were the evidence that they were the elect.

This same dynamic is at work in the film. Mattie wants to see her father avenged. The killer has escaped and no one is lifting a finger about it. The opening shot gives us the first half of a Scripture verse: Proverbs 28:1: "The wicked flee when none pursueth . . ."

Mattie has to take the matter into her own hands. The 2^nd half of the Scripture verse, which the Coens leave out, reads ". . . but the righteous are as bold as a lion."

She could leave the matter to God, but there is no guarantee that divine rewards and punishments correspond to a rational pattern. Mattie calls this a “hard doctrine” in the novel which the film is based upon.

Mattie undergoes the most severe trials, and ultimately loses an arm, in her quest to achieve justice. A Theology which was developed in order to prioritize the Divine will over the Human will ends up encouraging human willfulness. Ironic, indeed.

Modern Science, Ancient Philosophy, and why Markets fail

David Brooks’ new book, The Social Animal, calls to mind Aristotle’s definition of man as “Political Animal.” And it turns out Brooks confirms many classical claims about human nature; however, he does so by relying upon modern science, not philosophy. The book is a series of “Studies show” arguments.

Studies show the modern view of human nature as rational, autonomous creatures is flawed i.e. Modern science contradicts modern philosophy. Human beings are dual natured, a combination of god and brute or reason and passion. Reason and passion are at war in every soul and modern economic theory fails to account for this. Indeed, an economist would cringe at even using the word 'soul.' Moreover, human beings are social and relational; Neurobiologists agree with the Poet John Donne that “no man is an island.”

Brooks says these studies have made him rethink his endorsement of free market principles. He doesn’t discuss this further, but it is easy to see why. Free Market Economists believe in some variation of ‘Rational Choice’ Theory which states rational actors always act in favor of material incentives. Based on the Classical/Modern Scientific view of human nature, however, man is NOT exclusively rational. He can act irrationally or let his emotions get the better of his judgment in certain circumstances. Think of Dostoevsky’s Underground (Emotional) Man. For example, it is a principle of financial planning to buy in a bear market, not sell; yet sell is what everyone does.

Free Market Economists also assume man is autonomous and will look at his investments independent of how people around him are acting. But the Classical/Modern Scientific view of man is he is social and relational and thus the climate of fear (or confidence) which surrounds him will affect how he will make his financial decisions. Think of the Bank Run scene in It’s a Wonderful Life.

This isn’t to disavow a Free Market Economy entirely; it is only to suggest it needs some minor revision in light of who we are.

Was the American Revolution justified?

Two arguments can be made on behalf of Founders on this issue. The first argument is the sort of thing Claremont advocates would like because they’re into the Locke = Founders view. Locke translated Just War Criteria into Revolutionary Criteria which are mentioned in the Declaration itself.

Just War →Revolutionary Criteria

Proper Authority	The Majority of Colonists is represented by elected representatives in the 2nd Continental Congress
Just Cause	Repeated abuses e.g. body of the Declaration lists over 20 infractions committed by George III
Last Resort	Exhaust all legal appeals e.g. The Declaration of Rights and Grievances & Olive Branch Petition
Right Intention	Can’t replace something w/ nothing e.g. Articles of Confederation and eventually the Constitution
Appeal to Heaven	God judges the revolt e.g. the concluding paragraph of the Declaration says God will judge them for what they are about to do.

The Burkean/Kirkian argument is the founders fought for the “chartered rights of Englishmen” i.e. they fought for the CIVIL, not natural (Lockean), rights of the Glorious Revolution. The Founders, like Parliament in 1688, were conserving their legal rights against a revolutionary king, George III/James II. Thus the American Revolution, like the Glorious Revolution, was “prevented, not made” to quote Edmund Burke.

	Glorious Revolution	American Revolution
Old Ways	Chartered rights of Englishmen/Declaration of Rights Trial by jury Right against self-incrimination No search or seizure w/out warrant No excessive bail Right to bear arms	US Bill of Rights 6th amendment 4th amendment 8th amendment 2nd amendment
Innovation	James II wanted -standing army -toleration*	George III’s taxation without representation

While the English have some decent arguments for their side, these two arguments make the Founders case pretty reasonable.

Is Freedom a Universal Value?

Paleocons do not think so. They would look at the recent events in the Middle East with caution. Their argument would run as follows: Historical practices, customs, and mores play a significant role in shaping society. To think a foreign (Western) model can be imported overnight is foolhardy.

The scene above from Lawrence of Arabia illustrates the Paleocon view. T.E. Lawrence, an Englishman, believes he can bring Western style democracy to the Middle East. After helping the Arabs overthrow the Ottoman Empire, he now has the difficult job of nation building. The scene reveals that hundreds, if not thousands, of years of cultural and political practice will not be erased easily as the Arabs attempt to build a Parliament.

The Neocon response is there is something slightly elitist in the Paleocon view. Indeed, one cannot watch the scene from Lawrence of Arabia without thinking that the film is portraying Arabs in a condescending manner. Moreover, the Neocons would argue that Freedom is a universal value which all people desire. If it seemed like the people of the Middle East have not been interested in Freedom, it is because they were being suppressed by their Tyrant-rulers. In this outlook, intervention is called for in places like Libya. The rebels there are just like our own Founding Fathers.

The Paleocon view counsels isolationism in Libya, but would offer this positive assessment of the situation. The recent Revolutions have all been homegrown and so could succeed. They are products of organic growth, unlike Iraq’s democracy. But they would also offer this piece of advice: since their historical background (politics, culture, and religion) is different from Europe’s and America’s, we should not expect them to have a carbon copy regime. For example, it is likely that religion would play a larger role in the Public Square in Egypt, then it does in France. Instead of ruling that illegitimate from the outset, Westerners should be open to forms of democratic practice which are not our own.

Lying for Life

Live Action is a Pro-Life group that went undercover to see what they could dig up about Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider. The Live Action actors pretended to be a pimp and prostitute as they asked the Planned Parenthood employee if she could help them obtain abortions for teenage prostitutes. Shockingly, the employee provides them with the information.

The debate in the broader community is whether this is an isolated case of a Planned Parenthood employee gone AWOL or just a typical day at the office at your local abortion provider. But there is an even more interesting argument going on within the Pro-Life movement about the means employed to obtain this information: Is lying a justifiable means to save the lives of the unborn? Is lying always wrong or are there exceptional cases in which it is justified? Academics have lined up on both sides of the issue:

A Moral Absolute

Robert George

Christopher Tollefsen

Carson Holloway

Admits of Exceptions

Peter Kreeft

Hadley Arkes

Joseph Bottum

Janet Smith

The debate reveals a tension between two necessary themes in any sound moral philosophy:

1) Good guys stick to their principles; bad guys violate them. If the good guys abandon their principles at the first sign of trouble, then there is no longer a clear line between right and wrong. This point is illustrated nicely in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. In the interrogation scene, the Joker tells Batman that he will force him to break whatever rule or moral code he lives by. To kill Batman is not enough; he must be corrupted. The Joker employs this same strategy with Harvey Dent. Batman understands this which is why he prevents Dent from torturing someone. Dent must be beyond reproach. The Joker ultimately succeeds in the case of Dent but fails when it comes to Gotham City as a whole. He thinks people are principled as matter of convenience and will drop them when the going gets rough. The boat experiment in which two groups of people are given the choice to either kill or be killed is supposed to prove this point, but he turns out to be wrong. The people would rather die than commit such an evil deed.

2) Statesmanship requires latitude which absolutes hinder. Principles must be flexible for those who participate in the political arena. To rigidly hold onto abstract principles in such cases is doctrinaire, for it fails to take into account practical difficulties. This is not an endorsement of relativism because principles are not being denied altogether. It is just saying that theoretical principles must to be applied to concrete situations which requires the virtue of prudence. The prudential application of a principle might require it to be modified, adapted, or only partially realized in a given situation. Think of Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons. His principled stand against the tyrant Henry VIII does not exclude his prudence when it comes to avoiding death. He is both a wise serpent and an innocent dove.

The Natural Law tradition is aware of this tension which is why it places moral precepts in either primary or secondary categories. Primary precepts are absolute and brook no exceptions. For example, murder, defined narrowly as the “deliberate taking of innocent human life” is always wrong. Secondary precepts are generally wrong, but admit of exceptions. Aquinas lists stealing as a secondary precept because private property is not absolute; the goods of the earth ultimately belong to mankind in common so emergencies could require a redistribution of goods.

What category does lying fall under? Is language more like God-given human life or the human invention of private property, with all its pliability? This is where the question lies.

Modernizing Muslims

As Egypt moves away from Mubarak’s dictatorship to a democracy (hopefully), I am reminded of this conversation between Peter Robinson and Dinesh D’Souza about what America’s. role should be in the Middle East:

Title: The Value of a Liberal Education (16:00 in the video above)

Peter Robinson: Dinesh D'Souza's new book, which is entitled, What's so Great About America--proposition one--Dinesh, I'm going to quote, you explain briefly what you mean, and then we'll ask for a comment. Proposition one of two: "America's goal is to turn Muslim fundamentalists into classical liberals." What do you mean by that?

Dinesh D'Souza: The idea of liberalism is the idea of consent. You can't force your religion on somebody else by beating it into them. Islam has ruled historically by the sword. That's how the Islamic empire was established. Osama Bin Laden has said confidently that that is a legitimate way of doing business in the Islamic world. I'm saying that our long-term goal is not just to root out the Al Qaeda terrorists; we have to somehow convert the Islamic fundamentalists. We don't want to stop them being Muslims of course, but we want them to be Muslims in the liberal way. And by that I mean look at the way Christianity has changed. In the time of the Crusades, Christians were very happy to shove their religion down somebody else's throat, to impose it by force. They thought they were doing the other people a favor. But Christianity has changed so that today both in the Catholic and the Protestant world there's a widespread understanding that you have to convince people, you have to appeal to freedom and to consent. That's the missing idea.

Peter Robinson: And we do this how? We do this how?

Dinesh D'Souza: Well we have to do it through education. We have to do it in part by destroying hostile regimes that have become Jihad factories, indoctrinating young people in these vicious ideas of totalitarianism. In part we have to work with friendly governments that are also doing the same thing.

This is Bush’s Freedom Agenda in a nutshell. Thomas Madden, in his book Empires of Trust, explains how the Romans had to deal with a similar problem when it came to the ‘Sicarrri’, a group of Jewish terrorists during the Roman Empire: “They had to change the religion itself. Judaism was changed. It became a faith, not a kingdom; a system of beliefs, not a government.” (286).

Madden continues to say that this is what must happen to Islam too: “Islam must change. Islam must become-as it has already become for millions of Muslims worldwide-a personal faith, not a system of government.” (287-288)

And like D’Souza, he points out that this is exactly what the Enlightenment project did to Christianity: “Even the Catholic Church, which gave birth to the modern world, took several centuries to adapt to it. But in the end crusades, inquisitions, and the papal monarchy were left behind because, although they made sense in the medieval world, they had no place in the modern.” (287)

While Freedom Agenda is appealing, it is an open question whether defanging a religion is actually an attempt to kill it altogether. Aren’t modernized Christians really just ‘practical atheists’? In other words, studies show the decline of religious practice in modern countries such as Europe and America. If this is what it means to be a ‘modern’, it is hard to see why any serious Muslim would be interested. An endorsement of the Freedom Agenda would require the following caveat then:

The outcome depends on the willingness of the West and of international agencies to reconsider the values and assumptions that drive globalization, and the sort of culture it favors as a consequence. The acid test will be the capacity of globalization to take religion seriously. The faith at the center of people’s lives in non-Western cultures has to be respected and engaged so that the extension of freedom and prosperity that globalization seeks can be realized through genuine participation.

The real question is whether the West can overcome its secularist bias to achieve this. Leaving room at the center of the culture “for the experience of faith and the interior life” does not mean pandering to theocracy. Truth and freedom is not an either/or proposition. Democracy needs to rediscover this, and globalization needs to learn it. For the fatal conceit is not that freedom can succeed against religion, but that it can do so without it.

Okay with Amnesty

In regards to the illegal immigration issue, a powerful argument against Amnesty is its a failure to enforce Justice or the Rule of Law. For those people who claim to be on the side of “law and order” such an objection poses serious difficulties. “Letting this one slide” appears to make a mockery of the law.

Fortunately, Carson Holloway recently wrote an article defending Amnesty by comparing it to the power of pardon. Strict Justice requires that we follow the Rule of Law, but there could be emergency cases in which one should not do so. The Constitution’s power of pardon is a recognition of this reality and Holloway argues the same logic applies to Amnesty. Whether the state should grant pardon or Amnesty in a particular case is a prudential call, but that does not mean it is a matter of justice. Someone may be imprudent, but that does not make him unjust.

Strict Justice, left to itself, can be cruel; it has to be sweetened by Mercy. Both Amnesty and Pardon has to be granted only in particular times and places so Justice can retain its force. If administered indiscriminately or absolutely, Mercy loses its flavor and degenerates into a false compassion. For that reason, it is a matter of prudence or a judgment call. Or to put the matter in terms of CST (Catholic Social Teaching), since it is not a matter of principle, the issue has to be resolved by weighing proportionate reasons.

And in the particular case we’re dealing with at the moment, the difficulty of deporting MILLIONS of Illegal Immigrants, the significant political costs involved, and the understandable reasons why immigrants break the law to come here, it seems the prudential thing to do would be to grant amnesty.

Tiger Mother or Paper Tiger

Amy Chua’s WSJ article “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior” and forthcoming book Battle Hymn of a Tiger Mother generated an uproar last month over her parenting style. She practices the ‘Chinese’ or immigrant model which she contrasts with the ‘Western’ model. The Chinese model denies children playdates and sleepovers in favor of hours of homework and practicing w/ musical instruments through. The Western Model encourages freedo/ self-expression and positive reinforcement in order to boost self-esteem (note all ‘self’ in there).

You would think Westerners would be in interested in the Chinese model since Asian kids are taking the top academic spots and Chinese and Indians are routinely outperforming Americans on international math and science tests. Instead, they criticized Chua and called her a terrible mother who is ruing her children’s lives.

Even more surprising is Chua’s reaction: she has backed down from her initial claim. She says the WSJ article was an excerpt and doesn’t adequately reflect her views. What she “really” thinks is there is no “better” or “worse” when it comes to parenting. This is just her personal journey.

This fallback to relativism seems convenient since it alleviates her of the responsibility of defending her arguments. Yet you can tell it is a fallback since she says her way is also the way of many of her students at Yale Law School. It is doubtful she thinks all parenting styles are equal when it comes to getting your kids into the Ivy Leagues.

Why back down? Maybe it is the way she was brought up. The Chinese model is based on a shame culture in which praise and blame are used to motivate children. This emphasis on human respect (“don’t embarrass your parents”) does not cultivate real character in a person. Chua’s retreat seems to be the result that she is afraid of the criticism she has incurred. But if she really believes that Western parenting is a problem, which I think she really does , she should defend that claim despite the public backlash it engenders.

You say you want a Revolution

In this video, D’Souza explains Bush’s Freedom Agenda: Prior to the War on Terror, there were two political models in the Middle East: Islamic Tyranny (Iran) and Secular Tyranny (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan). Being Muslim, it is not surprising then that Arabs find the first model more appealing. Bush’s attempt, which D’Souza admits he failed at, was to place a third option on the table, Muslim Democracy. The hope was this would inspire a democratic revolution throughout the Middle East.

Fast forward to the present. The Green (Iran), Jasmine (Tunisia), and Lotus (Egypt) Revolutions have occurred or are underway. Whether Bush gets credit for these can be debated another day. What is interesting at the moment is what kind of Revolution these latter two will be (Iran’s has been put on hold for the moment). D’Souza points out that Bush was not the only one who wanted to start a domino effect in the Middle East. The goal of Fundamentalist Muslims has been to export the Iranian Revolution to other countries. This has been difficult in the past because of the uniqueness of Iran (Shiite not Sunni, Persian not Arab). What remains to be seen is whether these Revolutions will be Islamic in a democratic or despotic way. The United States and the Muslim Brotherhood will be watching to see which direction the chips fall.

Wage Slave by Day, Gentleman by Night

In the debate between Liberal and Practical Arts (Business, Science, Engineering), the Tocquevillian position would be to see truth and error on both sides.

In an Aristocracy, Liberal Arts was originally an education for a “Free” man. Free meant being free from work. Of course, that is because others did the work for him.

In a Democracy, the hereditary aristocracy is abolished so that commoners would be free. But all that really means is we all have to work now. Even the supposed natural aristocracy of the Americans (Gates, Buffet, etc.) have to work long, hard hours too. Americans of all stripes must labor to feed, shelter and clothe their bodies. Majoring in a trade then is necessary.

But we’re more than just bodies. And so thinking about how to acquire food, shelter, and clothing for our family, while necessary, is insufficient. We also have to think hard about politics, culture, and religion too. As that jobless Socrates once said, “The point is not to live, but live well.” Which means we have to study the Liberal Arts. Basics, the first two years of college, have been watered down in a variety of ways: AP Tests, Dual Credit, and substitute courses (Business Ethics can replace the Introduction to Philosophy class). Revitalizing those courses coupled with lifetime learning ought to do the trick. Indeed, the popularity of businesses like The Teaching Company reveal that man cannot live by bread alone.