Musings in the Public Square

Living Lite in a Liberal Democracy

2012-01-07T13:26:00.000-08:00

Clifford Orwin discusses here how liberal democracy is officially neutral towards all ways of life. Each individual is free to put into practice whatever worldview he subscribes to. Justice Kennedy confirms this view in Casey v. Planned Parenthood when he says an individual is free to “define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe.”

Orwin goes on to say that Liberal Democracy doesn’t work like that in practice because it actually assumes a particular conception of the good: “For so long as you observe prevailing liberal democratic norms on all fundamental social questions, you’re free in merely secondary matters to continue in the ways of your ancestors.”

You can see the truth of this statement in the recent HHS ruling on birth control. Employer based health insurance must cover birth control and conscience exemptions from the rule are so narrow that it makes it practically impossible for religious believers to qualify. Religious liberty is downgraded to a secondary matter in favor of the prevailing liberal democratic norm of reproductive health.

How does the Liberal Democrat determine the right to birth control should trump right to religious liberty? Peter has written here in previous posts how supporters of Autonomy are willing to violate their own principle in the name of Health and Safety. Also, let us not forget Justice O’Connor argument from Casey about liberating women from their baby making bodies so they can help boost the GDP: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Autonomy and Productivity go hand in hand.

Orwin says what ends up happening for traditional religious believers in a liberal democracy is they have to settle for a watered down version of their practice e.g. Catholic Lite, Jewish Lite etc. With the General Election looming, we’ll soon see if Orwin’s depiction of democracy is correct.

United Financially We Stand

2011-12-19T04:37:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-13T19:28:00.000-08:00

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

2011-09-04T10:02:00.000-07:00

*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

2011-08-24T19:02:00.000-07:00

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

2011-08-02T16:43:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-07-20T20:40:00.000-07:00

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

2011-07-16T05:40:00.000-07:00

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

2011-07-10T20:42:00.000-07:00

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”

2011-07-01T20:22:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-22T19:34:00.000-07:00

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"

2011-05-29T20:26:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-24T14:59:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-13T18:23:00.000-07:00

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"

2011-05-08T06:13:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-04-27T20:40:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-23T07:14:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-03T20:39:00.000-07:00

*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^ndhalf 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

2011-03-30T20:31:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-03-27T06:00:00.000-07:00

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 2^nd 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

6^th amendment

4^th amendment

8^th amendment

2^nd 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?

2011-03-11T20:16:00.000-08:00

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

2011-02-28T19:32:00.000-08:00

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

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

2011-02-17T18:39:00.000-08:00

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

2011-02-05T07:08:00.000-08:00

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

2011-02-03T20:08:00.000-08:00

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

2011-02-02T20:09:00.000-08:00

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

2011-01-30T14:59:00.000-08:00

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.

Friend Request

2011-01-09T13:33:00.000-08:00

Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher present us with a look at the Millenials in their film, The Social Network.

David Brooks summarizes the film's backdrop:

In “The Social Network,” the director David Fincher and the screenwriter Aaron Sorkin imagine that these two Harvards still exist side by side. On top, there is the old WASP Harvard of Mayflower families, regatta blazers and Anglo-Saxon cheekbones. Underneath, there is the largely Jewish and Asian Harvard of brilliant but geeky young strivers.

Ideals like Honor animated “the Greatest Generation” and can be seen in the WASP's of Harvard. One of the WASP’s in the film says they will not attack the strivers because “we are gentleman of Harvard.” Unfortunately, the film shows the strivers outfoxing the WASP’s.

Eduardo Saverin, one of the strivers, fits Brooks’ description of an “Organization Kid.” He is obedient, hard-working, and a careerist. But he is also a “flat soul” as Allan Bloom described in The Closing of the American Mind. He is not inspired by anything really greater than himself. He is a faint shadow of the WASP's.

That his best friend would be Mark Zuckerberg in the film should not be surprising then. Zuckerberg is like the Organization Kids in all ways except one: he is disobedient (Facemash) and disloyal (stabs Saverin in the back). He is more consistent than Saverin because he realizes friendship is out the window too when there are no principles guiding one’s life. Lacking any anchor in family, church, or tradition, Zuckerberg’s individualism (selfishness) reigns supreme; however, the last scene suggests Zuckerberg pays the heaviest price of all. He is on his labtop, sitting in the dark, hitting the refresh button over and over, hoping a girl will accept his friend request. His pettiness causes him to be alone, wishing he has friends.

The film shows the degeneration of the college elite: honor bound Winklevii to the loyal Saverin to the machiavellian Zuckerberg.

Guess who's coming to dinner?

2011-01-09T12:46:00.000-08:00

Men today are more sensitive and likely to help their wives with the kids and housework. They have clearly changed from the patriarchal men who we see portrayed in Mad Men. We’ve gone from Don Draper to Ross and Chandler in Friends. (Or Jim from The Office for our current TV watchers.) Feminism and Political Correctness, both children of the Sexual Revolution, have made women’s lives better in this regard.

On the other hand, it has also given us Joey, or worse, his alter-ego, Tucker Max. The Sexual Revolution has to take the blame for him since his type isn’t possible without the Pill and the corresponding celebration of Libertinism. Mad Men shows us that Don Draper had such proclivities, but was restrained by the public shame such behavior would receive. Women’s lives today are much worse in this regard.

We live in a time in which men are told to be sensitive to be women's needs, while bombarding them with images which can only desensitive them.

Be very afraid...

2010-12-29T19:43:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-26T13:20:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-07T20:40:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-02T18:53:00.000-08:00

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)

2010-11-23T21:18:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-09T17:08:00.000-08:00

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…”

2010-10-31T20:25:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-10-27T20:58:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-06T20:09:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-09-29T20:17:00.001-07:00

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?

2010-08-12T20:28:00.000-07:00

*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

2010-07-27T20:19:00.000-07:00

*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

2010-07-15T19:47:00.000-07:00

*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

2010-07-04T18:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-15T20:24:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-06-05T13:27:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-31T03:59:00.000-07:00

*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....

2010-05-21T19:27:00.000-07:00

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"

2010-05-17T19:46:00.000-07:00

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!"

2010-05-09T19:50:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-28T19:42:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-04-22T18:35:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-19T19:50:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-04-06T19:33:00.000-07:00

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.

Executive Order: What is it good for? Absolutely…a year or two

2010-03-29T20:07:00.000-07:00

The last post dealt with how Obamacare will make it EASIER to obtain abortions through private insurance companies. This post will focus on the newly created Community Health Centers. Rep. Stupak and other Pro-Life Democrats withheld their approval of the bill until recently because they were worried Obamacare will pay for abortions. The Bill stated that “health services” will be provided, but did not specify what constituted such a service. The controversy was whether abortion would be covered. President Obama won over Stupak and Co. by promising to issue an Executive Order that would forbid CHC from providing abortions. An Executive Order is a written pronouncement by the President telling officials in his branch how to enforce an ambiguous law.

The problem with this arrangement is someone will sue the CHC on the grounds it is denying a woman a basic right and it will have to be resolved by a Federal Court. The existing precedent (Beal v. Doe) states federal funds can cover an abortion UNLESS there is a law that forbids it. The question then becomes: Is the Executive Order a law? It is not because a law passed by anyone other than Congress would be a violation of Separation of Powers. The Executive Order will be struck down and tax dollars will DIRECTLY pay for abortion.

Nudge-ocracy at work: Obamacare on abortion

2010-03-24T20:14:00.000-07:00

Last year, The New Republic labeled President Obama as neither a pragmatist nor liberal; instead, it identified him as a “Nudge-ocrat.” Here is what that means: “Rather than force markets to conform to his wishes, he shapes their calculus so they conclude (on their own) that their interests coincide with his wishes.” Obama sees “…the appeal of manipulating incentives and altering the context in which we make decisions.”

The TNR piece focuses on economics, but I found him speaking this way on abortion too. During his campaign, he said he wanted to see the number of abortions go DOWN, but he wanted to do that by creating conditions in which women would CHOOSE life; he did not want to directly restrict abortions.

One week into office, Obama put his philosophy into practice, but not in the way he promised. The President reversed the Mexico City Policy so federal tax dollars could pay for abortion overseas i.e. he created the conditions in which it would be EASIER to choose an abortion.

The latest debate is what Obamacare will mean in regards to abortion and here again I think you can see Nudge-ocracy at work. This is what will happen to Private Insurance Companies:

In a section entitled "Prohibition of Use of Public Funds for Abortion Coverage," she [Rep. Lois Capps (D) of California] proposed that insurance companies set up two separate accounts -- one filled with money from the federal government, and one with money from consumer premiums. When a consumer sent in her premium check, it would go into the premium account; when the federal government kicked in its share, the money would land in a different pile. Insurance companies would then have to guarantee that abortions would be paid for only by money in the account made up of premium dollars, not from the account filled with taxpayer dollars.

The following analogy illustrates what is going on above: Imagine a man who wants to purchase a firearm, but doesn’t because he has to pay his monthly mortgage payment. He asks you to lend him the money so he can make the purchase, but you refuse on the grounds of pacificism; nevertheless, you do lend him the money to pay his mortgage payment. He subsequently buys the gun. What just happened? Technically, he bought the gun, not you, but you INDIRECTLY made it possible.

In the abortion case, the insurance company will have money freed up to pay for abortions due to government subsidies. Conditions are created to make the choice for abortion EASIER. Ross Douthat explains this point well:

“And yes, the health care bill, as passed, effectively tilts public policy in a more pro-choice direction: The fact that women are required to write a separate check for abortion coverage means that public money isn’t literally paying for abortion, but it doesn’t change the fact that federal dollars are being spent in ways that make it much easier to obtain abortion-covering insurance.”

The Nudge-ocrat strikes, albeit indirectly and subtly, again.

The Noble, the Dignified, and the just plain Autonomous

2010-03-17T19:10:00.000-07:00

Tocqueville presents America as replacing Aristocratic Nobility with Democratic Dignity. James Poulos, Founding Editor of Postmodern Conservative, thinks its time for Nobility to make a comeback.

In this Bloggingheads episode, Poulos discusses how Conservatives make their case against many forms of biotechnology on the grounds of Human Dignity. He says the argument works well when it comes to designer babies, but loses steam when it comes to sexual morality. Nobility, he thinks, would be a better substitute. Poulos explains Miley Cyrus’ behavior last fall as being base and thus simply beneath her. This argument, he asserts, should be able to avoid the usual “Who are you to say…” yada-yada. It isn’t clear this is so as his interlocutor is unable to see a difference between Nobility and Dignity arguments. I’ll return to this point.

Poulos makes the argument for a switch again when it comes to the family. Conservatives, especially Christians, have been making arguments based on natural law (Dignity’s backdrop) when they should base it on “aristocratic nobility: pride in the unity of bloodline and virtu.” “Family identity and family accomplishment” should provide the standard for individual behavior.

Thus, Poulos, and Tocqueville for that matter, present Nobility and Dignity as butting heads. Yet is interesting to see Peter Lawler, who also blogs at Postmodern Conservative, portraying them as kin:

“It was with such Greek reflections in mind that the Roman word dignitas took on a basically aristocratic connotation. Dignity is a worthiness or virtue that must be earned, and the dignified man is someone exceptional who attains distinction by his inner strength of character. Dignitas is a self-contained serenity, a kind of solid immobility that cannot be affected by worldly fortunes. For the Stoics, and especially for Cicero, dignity is democratic in the sense that it does not depend on social status; it is within reach of everyone from the slave (Epictetus) to the emperor (Marcus Aurelius). Dignity refers to the rational life possible for us all, but it is really characteristic only of the rare human being who is genuinely devoted to living according to reason.”

It might be that Poulos is not against Dignity per say, but the simply the Christian or Democratic understanding of it. Tocqueville believed Christianity set up Democracy and were linked an in opposition to Pagan Aristocracy:

“All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and uncontested before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike.”

Whether it is Classical Nobility or Christian Dignity, POMO Cons of all stripes do not want to see Cultural Libertarian’s ‘Autonomy’ crowned King. Stephen Pinker, who Lawler is responding to in the article cited above, says “informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice.” Bedrock? More like shifting sand. But moving on…

This common cause between Classical and Christian concerns can be found in the President’s Council for Bioethics which was disbanded by Obama last fall. Lawler points out the different nuances of the two approaches. The Classical concern is with “living well in the acceptance of necessity” or what I would call the ‘life within limits’ approach. A life well lived is one which operates within boundaries, which is why the Classical thinker also aligns with the Christian in the broader Culture Wars. The Christian is more interested with the “denial of equal treatment to the disabled or otherwise “unfit,” murderous eugenics, abortion, and the scientific destruction of human embryos.” Any of these actions are considered intrinsically evil, regardless of its frequency or circumstance.

Lawler says the two views are the “egalitarian and inegalitarian dimensions” of Human Dignity. I would add the Christian is concerned with individual acts while the Classical thinker is interested in life as a whole. The difference emerges because Divine Revelation brings into focus what appears blurry to unaided Reason. Revelation, like Death it seems, has a way of concentrating the mind.

Rambo and Custer rolled into one

2010-03-07T15:38:00.000-08:00

While Avatar is likely to win Best Picture this Sunday, my pick is the dark horse candidate, The Hurt Locker. Leaving aside disputes over the film’s veracity about the Iraq War, the film is first and foremost a character study of its hero/anti-hero, William James, played superbly by Jeremy Renner.

The film opens with the following quote: “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”

In the first half of the film, we proceed to see William James save the day over and over again. Each situation is more difficult than the last and he doesn’t even seem to notice. Up to this point, he is the guy every other guy secretly wants to be which is why others resent him.

But in two crucial scenes the films takes all this back. James, who is usually cool under pressure, loses his composure as he discovers a ‘body bomb’ which he believes to be the corpse of a boy he knows. He subsequently engages in a wild goose chase to avenge the boy which ends with him being run out of a house by a domestic housewife (the only time a woman appears in the film.)

The second scene occurs when he sees the after effects of bomb that detonated in the city. Outraged, he wildly speculates where the perpetrators might be and persuades his team to go after them. It ends badly as one member of his team is shot in the pursuit. That man’s take on the escapade is important since he alludes to the film’s opening quote. He says in effect that he had to get shot so James could get his adrenaline rush. James, who feeds of his emotions, lacks judgment.

In the classical view, the virtuous man is the one whose passions submit to his reason, while the vicious man has things the other way around. James, who is a slave to his passions, is not heroic in this picture.

His addiction is so severe that he is unable to live at home when his tour ends (Aristotle’s harshest criticism of the Spartans was their inability to live in PEACE). He quickly signs up for another tour and film ends with him back to his old bomb-detonating ways.

Yet the ending does finish on an ambiguous note. Having spent the second half of the film depicting James in the most negative light, the final scene leaves us with an image of James as an Achilles like character. What person doesn’t want to walk into such dangerous situations without flinching? Right judgment seeks the golden mean between two extremes, but not all extremes are equal. Better to be recklessly bold than spinelessly afraid.

The War Films of the ‘70’s and ‘80’s (Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, Stone’s Platoon, and Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket) favored black and white messages about War’s dehumanizing effects on people.

More recent films (Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan and Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker) prefer a more subtle approach, weighing matters more carefully. Avoiding Homeric War-Mongering and Modern Pacificism, their balanced look is nice media via.

Tocqueville on Tap

2010-03-04T19:27:00.000-08:00

Patrick Deneen and Peter Lawler will be in Dallas on March 20th for ISI. Officially, they will not be renewing the Front Porch Republic v. Postmodern Conservative debate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes up in the Q&A. And even if it doesn’t, it should still be interesting to hear what these two have to say about the Founders, Tocqueville, and Orestes Brownson.

The Debate over the Detainees

2010-02-22T18:38:00.000-08:00

While several developments have taken place since this debate aired, this video is still helpful in understanding the underlying debate in regards to viewing military detainees as enemy combatants or prisoners of war. If they fall under the latter category, then they should be accorded Geneva Convention rights.

The 3rd Geneva Convention has a four pronged test to determine whether a person deserves its protections. If he meets these criterion, then he is prisoner of war:

1) "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates" i.e. he must be an agent of a state.
2) "a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, if not a uniform than something to set them apart from the civilian population."
3) “The members of the militia must carry their arms openly”
4) "in accordance with the laws and customs of war" e.g. he does not directly target non-combatants

It looks like Al Qaeda detainees fail all 4 criterion, or at the very least, the last 3 and would not qualify for Geneva Convention rights; however, the Civil Libertarian’s counter is that the 3rd Geneva Convention states it is the responsibility of a competent authority to make this determination. There could be others in Guantanamo Bay who are entitled to such rights, and the way to determine this is to have a judicial proceeding of some kind.

That is a fair point. If there are innocents in Guantanamo Bay who have been mistakenly detained, then a proceeding could correct the mistake. The question then becomes what constitutes a proper judicial proceeding. It is interesting to hear that Erwin Chemerinsky, the Civil Libertarian in the video, thinks a Military Tribunal would be sufficient and in accord with a Geneva Conventions i.e. the proceeding could be as simple as “just two or three officers in the field who examine someone who's captured in the field.”

I say that is interesting because something very close to that occurred after this 2004 debate. Military Commissions were issued, but the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfield, ruled against them and said they, not the Tribunal, should hear the detainees’ cases.

President Bush responded by getting explicit Congressional authorization for the military tribunals in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Congress added more protections for the detainees by amending the Act in 2009.

As I said in a previous post, Civil Libertarians see civil liberties as ABSOLUTE i.e. no or few restrictions during wartime. Now we see they also think they are UNIVERSAL: non-citizens are just as entitled to these rights as citizens. This is why they usually take the position (leaving aside Cherminsky’s approval of Military tribunals) that enemy combatants should be tried in civil, not military, trials. My reply is natural rights might be ABSOLUTE and UNIVERSAL, but civil rights, which are MAN-MADE, are not. They only apply to citizens and can be curbed.

This doesn’t mean the detainees should be ‘indefinitely imprisoned’ either because even non-citizens have natural rights which cannot be abridged; but that does not mean we are morally obligated to give them anything more than a hearing in front of a Military Commission. The Rights of the Declaration are guaranteed to ALL; however, the Constitution's rights are only for US.

He knows when you are sleeping...

2010-02-17T19:47:00.000-08:00

In my previous post, I made an argument for why civil liberties may be curbed during wartime. It might be easier to see the merit in this argument if we placed the problem in a fictional context, allowing us to look at the problem with fresh eyes. The film I have in mind is Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight. Like Andrew Klavan, I thought Nolan was commenting on the War on Terror e.g. terrorism, torture. The issue I want to focus on here, however, will be ‘privacy v. security’ debate and how it comes up in the film in at least three different scenes.

Scene 1: During dinner, Bruce Wayne, his date, Harvey Dent, and Rachel Dawes discuss whether it is legitimate to take extra legal means in order to secure a city’s safety. Dent, who is supposed to be THE good guy, offers the example of the Roman Empire which would give emergency powers to a Dictator for a period of six months. Dawes responds the last time they did that they ended up with Caesar. This conversation reveals the dilemma posed by the problem and that it does not have an easy solution.

Scene 2: Bruce Wayne is talking to Alfred about defeating the Joker, who is referred to as a terrorist several times in the film. He asks how Alfred captured a criminal who, like the Joker, did not seem to play by any of the rules which most enemies abide by. Alfred curtly replies, “We burned the forest down.” In other words, such a villain required taking measures that would be considered extreme under normal circumstances.

Scene 3: Batman is able to use cell phones to create images which would allow him to know what is going on throughout the city. Leaving aside how implausible this is, the point is he will know where Gotham residents are and what they are doing. This is, he believes, the only way he can defeat the Joker. Lucius Fox explicitly says this is immoral and that no one should have this much power. Notice Christopher Nolan pays his respect to the Civil Liberty position by having one of the film’s good guys make their case.

Batman acknowledges the problem and says this is why he does not want to be the only person using the program. Instead, Fox should manage it while he simply follows his directions. Moreover, he tells Fox to type in his name when he is finished, which will destroy the device. The program is supposed to be temporary; its existence is the result of the extraordinary situation they find themselves in.

To relate this to the previous post, Batman institutes the very safeguards which were mentioned before: oversight and expiration dates. Taken together this should alleviate the concerns raised by Civil Libertarians.

The Dark Knight was a critical and commercial success. Nolan’s ability to raise these types of questions in a subtle and thoughtful manner while not antagonizing either critics or the crowd is a testimony to his talent. It will be interesting to see where he goes from here.

Give me CIVIL liberty or give me Safety

2010-02-10T20:10:00.000-08:00

Are Civil Liberties sacrosanct or do they contract or expand depending upon the circumstances (peacetime, wartime)? To say they are sacrosanct would mean they are inalienable, but the Declaration of Independence only uses that adjective to describe natural rights. Those rights come from a transcendent source which is why they are absolute. Civil Liberties, on the other hand, are given to us from the State and thus are man-made. Being man-made, they are susceptible to change.

It follows that during wartime, civil liberties could be restricted for some greater good, say National Security. But what if the restriction of our civil liberties would endanger our God given rights? Indeed, this is the argument the Founders made in the main body of the Declaration as they cited George III’s violations of their ‘chartered’ rights.

It is this latter argument that Civil Libertarians have been making since the Patriot Act has been passed and renewed. Watching the debate above, however, one wonders if their concerns have not been addressed, at least somewhat. Peter Robinson argues that each of the controversial provisions has a safeguard: 1) judicial oversight e.g. FISA Court 2) Legislative oversight e.g. regular reports to Congress 3) sunset provisions (automatic expiration dates).

For Civil Libertarians, that might not be enough. From both videos, it looks like the argument is that it is still too secretive and the Public needs to be in on this. At that point the debate turns on whether secrecy is a necessary quality in a government when dealing with an enemy.

What women want…to not be women?

2010-01-28T20:33:00.000-08:00

Last Saturday was the memorial of Roe v. Wade and a part of Peter Lawler’s recent post touched upon it and its predecessor, Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized birth control:
We need to get over the modern error that the best way to get ourselves happy is to free ourselves from our natures.

Women’s Lib is about liberation from…being WOMEN. Birth control and abortion enable women to divorce themselves from their baby-making equipment. Having unshackled themselves from their feminine natures, they become free-floating individuals. Lawler continues, “We too often, in the name of autonomy, reject as authoritative the guidance nature—our social natures– gives us…But much of what we think we can reject or discard remains real or real enough.”

You can see this premium on Autonomy in Justice Kennedy’s decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court Case which revisited Roe:

“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”

It can also be found in this exchange between Peter Robinson and Stacey Karp, President of the San Francisco Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW)

Stacy Karp: …Women are not here to be married, to have children, those are not their sole responsibilities and purpose for being.
Peter Robinson: You're pretty interested in metaphysics, too. What are women here for?
Stacy Karp: Whatever they want to be here for.

Of course, if every individual is free to decide what it means to be woman, then that just means the word doesn't really mean anything at all.

Here is Lawler’s take on Kennedy and Karp’s view: “There’s little that’s more hellish than my being stuck with the perception of “pure possibility,” the perception that every door is open to me with no guidance at all concerning which one to choose.”

Tocqueville argued that the power vacuum created by the absence of authority will just be filled by something or someone else because most people will not be able to live unaided. In the 1830’s, the authority was the MAJORITY. Today’s authority can be detected in statements like “Studies show…” or “Experts say…”

The dubious promise of these technological devices is women can be happy without having to be virtuous (chaste, temperate). My hunch is if it liberates anybody, it will be predatorial men. Here is Peter Robinson on the matter: “..the beginning of the period, the 1960's society, if a man got a women pregnant he was expected to marry her and provide for her and the child. Society imposed sanctions of responsibility on the man. Now if a man gets a woman pregnant it's her fault. She should have been on the pill. And she's forced to either have an abortion or to raise the child alone. She falls into poverty. We know that single mothers raising children tend to be in poverty at much higher rates than other sectors of the population."

Looks like women, and men for that matter, will be ‘stuck with virtue’ for the near future.

Let’s get personal

2010-01-26T20:29:00.000-08:00

David Ignatius is disturbed by all the metaphysical musings which have been generated by the recent tragedy in Haiti. He says the important thing is to think, not act. Tocqueville would say this is the typical American attitude towards philosophy.

In one sense, I am sympathetic to Ignatius’ position. It seems that any attempt to formulate an answer to the problem of evil (Why would an all-good, all-powerful God permit human suffering?) rings hollow because it gives an impersonal answer to a personal question.

On the other hand, taking a pass on the question seems like a dodge. It reminds me of a scene from Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood:

“If she had to be blind she would rather be dead. It occurred to her suddenly that when she was dead she would be blind too. She stared in front of her intensely, facing this for the first time. She recalled the phrase, “eternal death,” that preachers used, but she cleared it out of her mind immediately, with more change of expression than the cat. She was not religious or morbid, for which every day she thanked her stars.”

Two secular worldviews which one might turn to for an answer are Atheism and Pantheism. Atheism, by rejecting an absolute point of reference in God, resolves the problem of evil by denying its very possibility. Ultimately, reality is at its foundation nothing more than chaos and meaningless in which case we must move ‘beyond good and evil’ as Nietzsche once said. But this just leads us back to the problem I mentioned earlier: reducing the personal to the impersonal. What occurred in Haiti cannot be tragic or evil in a world devoid of meaning.

Pantheism, as exemplified in the current environmental movement, is premised upon the thesis of the benevolence of Nature. The earthquake, in contrast, reveals Mother Nature’s malevolence. James Cameron and the Na’vi are selective, at best, about what aspects of her merit our worship. Moreover, terms like ‘Mother’ and ‘her’ are misleading for they signify a personality which is not there. Unlike Atheism, Pantheism does not reduce persons to things; instead, it inverts the traditional order by asking people to submit to an Impersonal Nature.

Turning to Christian Theology, the traditional answer has been that God created and sustains a world of free beings in order to be in a relationship with them. Love presupposes freedom, but an unfortunate corollary is freedom can be abused. Since our first parents, we live in world with both good and evil (Whatever natural disasters occurred before mankind’s arrival wasn’t really evil. Christian theology makes a distinction between natural and moral evil, the latter being the type discussed at the moment.)

That answer, while personal since it accounts for love, presents God as too passive for many people. This concern is addressed by the Incarnation, in which God himself becomes a human actor. Surprisingly, his reason for doing so does not seem to be about eliminating human suffering since we are still stuck with it today. And it is at this point when the attempt to answer the question philosophically must end. Yet this does not mean the Christian is shrugging his shoulders. The invocation of ‘Mystery’ is not agnosticism, but an invitation to reflect upon, and even participate in, the Cross. Elusive, yes; Impersonal, no.

The Rules of Engagement

2010-01-19T20:17:00.000-08:00

Michael Gerson and Ross Douthat have some interesting things to say over Brit Hume’s comment that Tiger Woods, a Buddhist, should consider turning towards the Christian Faith. I’m on board with what they’re saying, but I would just take the whole episode as an opportunity to make a more general comment about the relationship between Democracy and Religion.

At first glance, the flare-up which resulted seemed to be a good thing for religious believers because Hume’s critics wanted to protect a particular religion, in this case Buddhism, from being maligned. But on closer examination, this protection for religion is premised on the idea of nonjudgmentalism which is itself based upon relativism: since no religion can be objectively true, criticism of all religious claims is off limits. Instead, religion should simply be seen as a lifestyle choice. This is a Faustian bargain and religious believers shouldn’t sign on.

The long term consequence of this bargain will be the further marginalization or privatization of religion as any mention of it in the public square will be condemned (Fr. Neuhaus called this the Naked Public Square.) Admittedly, the bargain’s tradeoff is the Privatization will not eliminate religion entirely since that would violate the freedom of autonomous individuals. And it is this inability to deliver a knockout punch which makes the Faustian bargain deceptively attractive to the religious believer. Communism, in contrast, was a more obvious foe because it is in principle against Religion and so it used overt coercion in its assault. The danger posed by Liberal Democracy is more subtle which is why so many people are oblivious to it.

The only way out might be to play the game with our fellow citizens in order to change its rules: Liberal Democracy should be replaced with an updated, 2.0 version, what JPII called Personalist Democracy.

Dreams from my Theologian

2010-01-14T20:28:00.000-08:00

David Brooks and President Obama both claim to be fans of the great Protestant Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. Their proclamation has caused renewed interest in his work and so the New Republic has posted several of his old articles.

In “Liberalism: Illusions and Realities” Niebuhr reviews Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind. Being a fan of Kirk’s work myself, it is fun watching Niebuhr examine his own liberal views in light of the book.

Niebuhr gives a short summary of the history of liberalism:

Thus in every modern industrial nation the word "liberalism" achieved two contradictory definitions. It was on the one hand the philosophy which insisted that economic life was to be free of any restraint. In this form it was identical with the only conservatism which nations, such as our own, who had no feudal past, could understand. It was the philosophy of the more successful middle classes who possessed enough personal skill, property or power to be able to prefer liberty to security. On the other hand the word was also used to describe the political strategy of those classes which preferred security to absolute liberty and which sought to bring economic enterprise under political control for the sake of establishing minimal standards of security and welfare. It has been rather confusing that both of these strategies go by the name of "liberalism."

Niebuhr is unabashedly a liberal in its second stage of development. The Welfare State provides a safety net for the contingencies of a Modern Technical Society. President Obama’s Health Care Reform reveals a similar logic.

Niebuhr moves on to discuss another strand of Liberalism, the French Enlightenment:

The French Enlightenment was "liberal" …..But it also had a total philosophy of life based on confidence in the perfectability of man and on the idea of historical progress. These two ideas were basic to all the political miscalculations of the Enlightenment and were the source of its errors. "Liberalism" acquired a special connotation as a philosophy of life which did not take the factors of interest and power seriously, which expected all parochial loyalties to be dissolved in more universal loyalties; and which was indifferent to organically or historically established loyalties and rights under the illusion that it would be simple for rational man to devise more ideal communities and rights.

Here he agrees with Kirk’s diagnosis of the French school of thought: “The liberalism of the French Enlightenment was thus based upon illusions as to the nature of man and of history.” Niebuhr ends the review by arguing that one can hold the liberal positition in regards to the Welfare State, but still disavow the utopian visions of the French Enlightenment. This is what he calls a “realistic liberal.”

Again, one can find Niebuhr’s position underlying President Obama’s thought, specifically his Nobel Peace Prize Speech. To the consternation of those who subscribe to the French Enlightenment, President Obama said the world being what it is, force is sometimes necessary. Moreover, his open endorsement of Just War Theory and its assumptions about a flawed human nature fly in the face of the thesis of the perfectiblity of man and a world of perpetual peace.

But just don’t take my word for it. Check out links on this topic here, and here.

Eat your spinach!

2010-01-07T19:34:00.000-08:00

David Brooks handed out his Sydney Awards for great essays last week and Mary Eberstadt’s essay “Is Food the New Sex?” made the list:

In her Policy Review essay, ''Is Food the New Sex?,'' Mary Eberstadt notes that people in modern societies are freer to consume more food and sex than their ancestors. But this has produced a paradox. For most of human history, food was a matter of taste while sex was governed by universal moral laws. Now the situation is nearly reversed. Food has become enmeshed in moralism while the privacy of the bedroom is sacred. Eberstadt asks why, and provides a philosophical answer.

I have not read the essay yet, but I thought that both food and sex were traditionally considered under the domain of morality. The classical view towards food was it should be regulated in light of the cardinal virtue of Temperance. Gluttony was condemned not so much because it harmed your figure, but because it enslaved your reason to your appetites, thus inhibiting the ability to choose. This is a significantly different take from the way the ‘Whole Foods’ Crowd thinks about food today. They are still moralistic, if not downright preachy, about overeating or eating poorly; however, it is for health reasons. Harming one’s body is a serious no-no. Health and Safety (one is tempted to add the environment) are the only sources for moral absolutes in this picture.

Having eliminated the distinction between soul and body, the choices left are either to deify the body (pantheism) or reject the divine altogether (atheism). If latter approach is taken, then the Cultural Libertarian view emerges in which food and sex are viewed as merely personal preferences or lifestyle choices. Either way, both approaches are fruits of the same ideological tree.

Which comes first, the Principle or the Place?

2009-12-29T13:19:00.000-08:00

Caleb Stegall wrote a thoughtful counter to all of the critical reviews of James Cameron’s new film Avatar. It drew a huge response and one of the respondents (# 24 December 2009 at 7:13 pm) brought up a point which delves into a deeper issue for those living on the Porch:

But I think that this sort of rhetoric does serve as a good springboard for some troubling questions of Front Porch Republicanism. The Front Porchers’ reverence for community is admirable; but their reverence for community-above-all-else (as I understand it) is not. Those Front Porchers who are men and women of faith may value their creeds above their communities, but to read their writings, one could draw the conclusion that faith was merely worth preserving as one cog in the communal machinery. This is one issue that Front Porchers should address–i.e. is there a higher good than “community” and are there spheres in which it is appropriate for an individual to act and think as a cosmopolitan rather than a local?

In another post, I discuss Patrick Deneen’s essay “Patriotic Vision” in which he recognizes the tension between Principle and Place. It would be nice to see a fuller treatment of the question on the Porch itself.
And to stir the pot a little, I’ll toss in a quote from that Front Porcher Fav, Edmund Burke: “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.”
(Since pasting parts of this post in the comments section of Caleb Stegall’s article, D.W. Sabin and John Wilson have made some helpful responses # 29 December 2009 at 12:02 pm & # 29 December 2009 at 1:21 pm)

Free and/or Virtuous Society

2009-12-26T11:58:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, I presented an example in favor of Patrick Deneen’s thesis that Modern Ideals are inherent to Modern Institutions. The example I gave was India, which has been modernizing technologically, but has also been importing the worst aspects of our culture e.g. hemlines are getting shorter in Bollywood Films. Moreover, the children of Eastern Immigrants to America are cohabitating, contracepting, and divorcing at rates no different from Americans.

Deneen linked that post on Front Porch Republic and Peter Lawler responded in the comment section. He raised some interesting problems which are worth delving into.

1)He says Harvey Mansfield is not a PoMo Con because he is Aristotelian and not a Thomist. But is a commitment to Thomism something all PoMo Cons share? Would James Poulos characterize himself that way? The reason why I associated Mansfield with Postmodern Conservatism is because he is trying to provide an alternative philosophy of man for Modern Institutions.

This seemed to have been JPII’s goal also. He did not oppose the Modern Ideal of Freedom with the Ancient or Medieval Ideal of Virtue; instead, he argued for a “Free and Virtuous Society.”

2) Lawler does not think India is a good example; He refers to their traditional values as ‘creepy’. Having just read Aravind Adiga’s White Tiger, I might be inclined to agree. The novel portrays a traditional society in the midst of modernization. Adiga depicts the ‘Old Ways’ in the most unsavory light. The Hindu religion and the hierarchical family structure are sources of injustice in the story; on the other hand, the hero which emerges from it all is a bundle of all the terrible ideals we associate with modernity: a skeptical and rootless individual. The novel could be read as confirming Lawler’s Tocquevillian observation that things in India are “getting better and worse.”

Replacing the Declaration with Darwin

2009-12-16T19:35:00.000-08:00

Carson Holloway has an article on Darwin in the Public Discourse. We’re all aware of Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism, which was a political philosophy of the right. What is more interesting is Darwin’s influence on the Left, in this case, John Dewey.

Holloway explains that Dewey welcomed Darwin’s views because it allowed him to reject the fixed standard of “the law of nature and nature’s God” which was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Like President Obama, Dewey could now stress “change” and “hope” in the future. But Holloway goes on to state the following problem:

Dewey’s politicization of Darwinism, however, seems to lead him into incoherence. For him, we must not concern ourselves with “the good” or “the just” in any ultimate sense, but should merely seek incremental progress in goodness and justice. But how can we speak of improvement, or betterment, without some sense of “the good”—without implying that we have some knowledge, however imperfect, of what is simply good? How can we speak of “increments” of justice without some intuition of “the just”?

I would say this is where Darwin’s influence on Dewey ends and Hegel’s German Idealism begins. The moral standard for Dewey is fixed, just as it was for the Founders. Unlike the Founders, however, Dewey does not find that standard in Nature, but History. The Absolute Moment, which will be realized in the future within human history, provides the measuring stick for our practices today.

Tocqueville's take on Private Judgment

2009-12-09T19:58:00.000-08:00

Peter Robinson interviewed Paul Rahe, who has just published a book titled Soft Despotism: Democracy’s Drift. The book is an anaylsis of our current state of affairs in light of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. In the interview, Rahe discusses the four institutions which shielded Americans from the desire to surrender their liberty to the state in the past:

1) Local Government
2) Civic Associations
3) Family
4) Church

The first two cultivate a do-it-yourself attitude. The third provides a safety net of stability and comfort for individuals who would otherwise experience anxiety. Where Rahe gets Tocqueville wrong is on the fourth institution, religion. Rahe describe it in the same terms as the first two: cultivation of a do-it-yourself attitude. Indeed, he depicts Tocqueville as saying that it encourages skepticism toward authority. I, however, remember Tocqueville’s take on the matter as more akin to his view on the family: a source for certain truths in a world that seemed to be more and more in flux. But don’t take my word on it. Here is a direct quote from Mr. T himself:

General ideas respecting God and human nature are therefore the ideas above all others which it is most suitable to withdraw from the habitual action of private judgment and in which there is most to gain and least to lose by recognizing a principle of authority. The first object and one of the principal advantages of religion is to furnish to each of these fundamental questions a solution that is at once clear, precise, intelligible, and lasting, to the mass of mankind….This is especially true of men living in free countries. When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect and half paralyzes all the others. Every man accustoms himself to having only confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow creatures and himself. His opinions are ill-defended and easily abandoned; and, in despair of ever solving by himself the hard problems respecting the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them…Such a condition cannot but enervate the soul, relax the springs of the will, and prepare a people for servitude.

For Tocqueville, the skeptic is more, not less, susceptible to surrendering his freedom due to his uncertainty about the biggest questions.

The Young and the Productive

2009-11-28T20:51:00.000-08:00

David Brooks’ article is very helpful in seeing what is at stake in the current healthcare debate. Obamacare promises to reconcile two apparent opposites:

1) Cover 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured.
2) Bend the cost curve

Now these two claims are incompatible since it should increase costs to cover people who were previously not covered. Brooks explains how these incompatible claims will be made compatible:

1) Cut Medicare payments
2) Raise taxes in the future (the present Congress requests future Congresses to do this.)

Lets look at the first one. Who will decide what Medicare payments are cut and what criterion will they use? A technocrat, a government bureaucrat with scientific expertise, will do so on the basis of “productivity.” In other words, the person’s medical costs will be covered if he is deemed productive member of society. This tips the scales in favor of the young and industrious in society.

This doesn’t mean the young have it made because there is still number two: Raise taxes in the future. Remember, taxes will be raised later, not now. It will be the young and productive who get stuck with the bill.

Lexus And/Or the Olive Tree

2009-11-27T19:39:00.000-08:00

The PoMo Con argument, or hope, is that we can separate modern institutions (Democracy, Capitalism, Science) from modern values (individualism, moral relativism, atheism). If this separation can occur, then these values can be replaced with a more robust understanding of who we are and our place in the cosmos. Harvey Mansfield succinctly summarizes the argument, “John Stuart Mill in the public sphere and Aristotle in private.”

Front Porcher Patrick Deneen’s counter to this argument is that modern values are wedded to modern institutions so one must either accept or reject the project in toto.

One way to test this question is to look at globalization and immigration issues. Easterners make a distinction similar to the one made by PoMo Cons above. They say yes to modernization (institutions) but no to Westernization (values). Have they been able to do so? Has India, which is a rising economic power, been able to maintain its traditional culture? Have Easterners who have moved to the U.S. been able to instill their values in their children? The early returns do not look good: Bollywood and ABCD’s.

Political Science versus Political Philosophy

2009-11-15T19:56:00.000-08:00

Today is rather commonplace that Government professors refer to their disciplines as political science. The belief is that politics (and economics for that matter) should be modeled after the natural sciences. In order to achieve this, the study of human affairs will be reduced only to the quantifiable. Students should study charts and graphs which are black and white and thus non-debatable. If a fact cannot be assigned a numerical value, then it is not a fact or at least not matter for the political scientist to consider.

This method replaced the older view which studied the words and deeds of statesmen and the works of political philosophers i.e. the study of arguments. Arguments cannot be quantified, yet they are the lifeblood of politics. What sustains the interest of students (and citizens) is not polling data, but the give and take of debate. The more thought provoking question is not whether health care reform will pass this year, but whether it should pass.

Harvard’s Harvey Mansfield has argued for a return to the more traditional model. In an essay titled “How to Understand Politics”, he argues that the Humanities gives us a more complete picture of human nature.

One theory that political scientists adhere to is ‘rational choice’ which reduces human beings to calculators. Mansfield points to characters like Achilles in Homer’s Iliad as a counterexample to this assumption. Achilles does not calculate every move. Instead, he disregards his material self-interest in favor of glory and honor. The Humanities reveals the complex motivation of human beings which the more scientific theories fail to account for.

Elsewhere, Mansfield discusses that this scientific reduction of human motivation is part of a larger project of modern political thought to implement ‘rational control.’ One consequence of this view is the ability to predict future events, say elections. Yet the inability of political scientists to accurately predict such things calls into question the possibility of such control.

While unable to guarantee any of its answers, a humanistic approach towards the study of politics might yield a truer account of public affairs.

Euripides on Elvis

2009-11-05T19:59:00.000-08:00

I have never understood The Bacchae by Euripides and the various interpretations of it have rung hollow. With that in mind, I was surprised to find myself nodding in agreement over Robert Reilly's take on the play:

Euripides and the Classical Greeks, from whom our Founders learned, knew that Eros is not a plaything. In The Bacchae, Euripides showed exactly how unsafe sex is when disconnected from the moral order. When Dionysus visits Thebes, he entices King Penthius to view secretly the women dancing naked on the mountainside in Dionysian revelries. Because Penthius succumbs to his desire to see "their wild obscenities," the political order is toppled, and the queen mother, Agave, one of the bacchants, ends up with the severed head of her son Penthius in her lap -- an eerie premonition of abortion.

The lesson is clear: Once Eros is released from the bonds of family, Dionysian passions can possess the soul. Giving in to them is a form of madness because erotic desire is not directed toward any end that can satisfy it. It is insatiable.

Reilly then applies this reading to an indictment on pornography.
I would link Reilly’s argument to Carson Holloway’s critique of pop music. The logic behind such music, e.g. Rock N’Roll & Rap, can traced back to Rousseau and Nietzsche who argued IN FAVOR OF Dionysian 'madness' i.e. music should indulge and even inflame one’s passions. What was criticized by Euripides and Plato is encouraged by the late Modern thinkers and is accepted as a matter of course by us today.
Elvis, a symbol of the Sex, Drugs, and Rock N’Roll since the 60’s, might vindicate Euripides on this point. Like King Penthius, his desire for the Bacchic frenzy led to him to a bad end. While it might not qualify as Tragedy, it was rather pitiable finish.

Why would a Democracy support a Dictator?

2009-11-04T19:03:00.000-08:00

An argument that opponents make against post WWII U.S. Foreign Policy is that the U.S. was hypocritical in its support of Freedom. One of the examples given is the U.S. overthrew Mohammed Mossadeq, who was the democratically elected leader Iran in 1953. The U.S. then installed the Shah of Iran, who ruled the regime as a despot. His despotic rule caused a backlash and in 1979 the Islamic Radicals revolted in the Iranian Revolution. Thus the rise of the Islamic Radicalism can be laid at the footsteps of the U.S. Foreign Policy or so the argument goes.

Dinesh D’Souza discusses this example in a debate with Ward Churchill. He points out that Mossadeq was appointed, not elected. And to top it off, he was appointed and ratified by the SHAH himself. Afterwards, a power struggle ensued between Mossadeq and the Shah and the latter lost. At that point, the doctrine of the lesser evil comes into play. Who is the lesser evil at the moment? On one side, you have Mossadeq, a Secular Socialist who would certainly ally with the Soviet Union and allow its influence to spread throughout the Middle East. (His nationalization of an oil company two years before confirms his Socialism.) And on the other side you have the Shah, a bad guy for sure, but one whose evils would be limited to a particular place. Given these options, the U.S. decision to support the Shah does not seem that sinister (I’m assuming here that the Reagan’s characterization of the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire is on the mark.)

In regards to Islamic Radicalism, D’Souza points out the Khomeini actually supported the Shah against Mossadeq in 1953. Given the options, it makes sense that a religious fundamentalist would support a king over a secular socialist. In that case, it is plausible the Revolution would have occurred regardless of what the U.S. did.

The issue comes up at the following points in the video:

104:30-106:30; 107:10-108:10
109:00-111:30

Harvard's Michael Sandel goes Public

2009-10-28T19:38:00.000-07:00

Michael Gerson has an op-ed today on the Communitarian Michael Sandel. Professor Sandel is making several of his lectures available online at http://justiceharvard.org/. What makes Sandel an anomaly on campus is that he is willing to critique the cultural libertarian view which says, “that government's only job is to set fair rules and procedures; it is entirely up to free individuals to choose the best way to live.”

"I do not think," He says, "that freedom of choice -- even freedom of choice under fair conditions -- is an adequate basis for a just society." For Sandel to say something like that on a campus which is filled with professors and students who assume it as a matter of fact is quite gutsy. Gerson’s nicely summarizes Sandel’s Communitarianism:

This equation of justice with freedom, he says, is unrealistic about the way human beings actually live. Our views of right and wrong, duty and betrayal, are not merely the result of individual free choice. All of us are born into institutions -- a family that involves our unconditional love, a community that elicits feelings of solidarity, a country that may demand a costly loyalty. Sandel argues that a liberal individualism cannot explain these deep attachments. We are "bound by some moral ties we haven't chosen."
Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing "the right thing to do" in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose. And the purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights but also to honor and reward civic virtues -- patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor. This third definition of justice, by nature, is a moral enterprise.

Right before your very eyes

2009-10-23T21:58:00.000-07:00

Gregory Wolfe, editor of IMAGE Journal, has a interesting set of posts on the state of Catholic literature today. He says most Traditional Catholics subscribe to the ‘myth of decline’: Catholic Letters has fallen off since the mid-twentieth century when writers like Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, and Flannery O’Connor were around. Wolfe points out that these critics probably would not have appreciated these writers if they had been alive at that time. Take Waugh’s reception by his fellow Catholics for instance:

Even as conservative a writer as Evelyn Waugh had to write a long, impassioned letter defending his satirical novels to the Archbishop of Westminster, after he had been attacked in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet. Poor Waugh had to do the worst thing possible for a satirist and comedian—he had to explain his jokes. (In his novel Black Mischief he had described a campaign by white colonialists to bring contraception to the native African population, with hilarious and unpredictable side effects—as a form of undermining anti-Catholic thinking.)

Another argument in the myth of decline thesis is that these mid-twentieth century writers wrote ‘muscular’ prose. Think of Flannery O’Connor’s use of the Grotesque as an example of this. Wolfe responds that such a method was needed at the time, but that our own age requires a different tact:

But what happened when the century moved on, past world wars and into a less overtly dramatic time? When it came to a writer like Walker Percy—whose credentials as a traditional, Mass-attending Catholic are not in question—that cultural change can be seen clearly. Percy put it quite bluntly: the world he lived in was not the stark world of his Southern friend Flannery. His was a South of golf courses and gated subdivisions, not bleak homesteads set off in the woods.
For Percy, the absence of God was still an issue, but he felt that it had been submerged by prosperity, that modern unbelief and despair had become domesticated, anesthetized by shopping malls, new-fangled pills, and inane movies.
In such a world, God is not likely to be heard in shouts but in whispers.

This might be the weaker part of his argument because a case could easily be made that Walker Percy tried to shock his readers just as much in the same way that O’Connor ever did.

That aside, Wolfe concludes his posts by mentioning some contemporary Catholic writers, like Ron Hansen, Alice McDermott, and Andre Dubus. His concern, and it is one worth discussing, is that Traditional Catholics are failing to recognize that they are living through a type of literary renaissance as we speak.

Who are you going to trust?

2009-10-21T20:23:00.000-07:00

The most recent Harry Potter film, the 6th in the series, is actually the best one so far. And it is directed by David Yates, who made the 5th film, which might be the worst in the series.

A criticism leveled against the series is that it presents Harry’s rule-breaking as praiseworthy. For example, Dumbledore lists it as one of Harry’s virtues in the second book.

Yet it is clear that Harry is not a rule-breaker in the ‘rebel without a cause’ sense. There are two types of rules, moral and legal, and Harry never breaks the former. To my knowledge, he never commits intrinsically evil act or does evil so good may result. The legal rules he breaks are general, not absolute, because they are meant to capture the majority of cases and thus do not apply in emergencies.

Of course, what gets parents up in arms is that an adolescent does not know when a particular situation is normal or extreme and so they are apt to break a rule which ought to have been obeyed.

The solution to the above problem can be found in Rowling’s stories itself. Harry, it must be admitted, does not seem concerned about abstract rules. On the other hand, rules given by a flesh and blood person do interest him. In those cases, Harry always looks for signs of credibility and if he finds them, then he is willing to defer his judgment. Take the most recent film. Professor Dumbledore asks Harry, more than once, to trust him on a matter in which Harry disagrees with him. And Harry obeys. The film ends on a note in which it appears that Dumbledore was mistaken and that Harry should have handled things his own way. But I suspect that is Rowling’s way of keeping the reader/viewer in suspense and that Dumbledore’s judgment (and by implication, Harry’s submission to it) will be vindicated by the end.

The message then is not to disregard rules; instead, we should defer to them when they are promulgated by the credible authority. Moreover, we should do so even when the rule might not make sense for the moment. Our concern for rules should not be because they are ends in themselves, but because we trust the person behind them.

Social Conservatives and Libertarians: why we might not be able to get along

2009-10-08T19:48:00.000-07:00

Hunter Baker has an interesting post in First Thoughts on the differences between Libertarians and Social Conservatives:

“My fellow panelist (Doug Bandow) will speak better for libertarians than I can, but I think it is fair to say that in their view, the reason we choose to live together in political association rather than as hermits in the woods is so that we can enjoy the benefits of mutual defense and commerce. Thus, all the government we really need is a military to protect against external threats, police to protect against internal ones, and maybe courts to enforce contracts between individuals.
Social conservatives, in contrast, line up more or less with Aristotle, who insisted that political life is about more than just mutual defense and commerce. Instead, political associations exist to enable us to develop a civic friendship whereby we will discover moral excellence as a community.
For social conservatives, that Aristotelian civic friendship means there is value in turning the law to certain moral purposes beyond things like mutual defense and enforcing contracts. Instead, we hope to make law in such a way that it promotes human flourishing and prevents or discourages things that lead to decay and decline.”

I appreciate Hunter offering Aristotle’s thought, not Edmund Burke’s, as representative of social conservatism; however, I would parse the divergences with Libertarians this way:

1) The nature of freedom. Libertarians are concerned ONLY WITH exterior freedom-meaning they are worried about the pressure the state can apply. Social Conservatives, on the hand, are concerned with a deeper understanding of freedom, interior freedom. There are things other than the state which can enslave you e.g. your appetites. A drug addict or alcoholic is free according to a Libertarian, but not according to a Social Conservative.

2) Human nature and Bioethics. The Libertarian values Autonomy so he recognizes no authority outside of the self. In this scenario, redesigning human nature through biotechnology is permissible. The Social Conservative values Human Dignity and which requires a transcendent reference point. Tampering with human nature then would be playing God.

Putting Locke in a Locke Box-or at least his image

2009-10-07T19:29:00.000-07:00

David Brooks and Stephen Hayward are worried about the undue influence of guys like Limbaugh and Beck. Hayward writes, “We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.”

Peter Lawler, on the other hand, appears to take a broader look at the conservative movement as a whole:

In general, I wonder whether the Founders=Locke=good and the Progressives=Germans=bad narrative has run its course or needs a lot of supplementing at this point. A lot of younger conservatives see that part of our problem today is our promiscuous libertinism, and that it might be caused by our inability to keep Locke (or the spirit of calculation, contract, and consent) in a "Locke box." Increasingly, all of life is being turned over to a self-indulgent view of "autonomy," and that really does erode both a proper understanding of love and a manly spirit of self-government.

Anyone familiar with Claremont Review will recognize that Lawler is taking aim at the “narrative” which is popular there. For people at Claremont are more concerned with the growth of government than with the Culture Wars. Postmodern Conservatives see the latter problem as being more worrisome as every aspect of our lives becomes more and more Lockean.

Thomas G. West, who has popularized the Founders=Locke=good storyline, would and has contested Lawler’s portrayal of Locke. But I wonder if the Straussian distinction between intention and influence comes into play here. Regardless of Locke’s intention, his influence or role in the history of political philosophy is that his thought represents autonomous individualism. And it is the influence which has to be put into the ”Locke box.” (A similar argument could be made for Machiavelli and ‘Machiavellian’.)

Big Government Health Care PSA

2009-10-06T19:58:00.000-07:00

">

Ken Thomas of No Left Turns posted this video by former UD students.

"Would you like that with Nature or History?"

2009-10-01T20:17:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton was the first sitting President to speak before a Gay Advocacy group. At times he sounds like a moral relativist in the speech: “Our ideals were never meant to be frozen in stone or time.” And again here: “We are redefining, in practical terms, the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning.”

Yet moral relativism cannot be his final position since he wants to be able to say things like this: “So I say to you tonight, should we change the law? You bet. Should we keep fighting discrimination? Absolutely.” The injustice of discrimination only makes sense if there is a fixed standard of morality it fails to live up to.

Where, one wonders, does Clinton find that standard? Is it in the “law of nature and nature’s God” as the founders argued in the Declaration of Independence? Clinton’s answer is no because “….when we started out with Thomas Jefferson's credo that all of us are created equal by God, what that really meant in civic political terms was that you had to be white, you had to be male, and that wasn't enough -- you had to own property…” (For a counter to the hypocrisy charge, read Thomas G. West’s response)

Where does this fix standard exist if it isn’t found in our nature? The alternative proposal in modern times (think Hegel) is History. Clinton says, “Indeed, the story of how we kept going higher and higher and higher to new and higher definitions -- and more meaningful definitions -- of equality and dignity and freedom is in its essence the fundamental story of our country.” He also talks our imaginations being “limited” but it will be “broadened” in the future. We can see here the Progressive notion that history itself is a rational process which provides an evaluative standard. The End of History or the Absolute Moment is the measuring stick which all previous ages must stack up against. This is why Modern Liberals can say we are “better off” in 2009 than 1909 and the people of 1909 were “better” than ones living in 1809.

The Marxist version of history as a rational process has long been discredited, but the Progressive understanding is alive and well among Modern Liberals. Consequently, the real debate between Conservatives and Liberals today is not over an absolute or relative standard of morality, since both believe in an absolute, but whether Nature or History is foundation for it.

Leisure: working hard or hardly working

2009-09-18T20:36:00.000-07:00

Having just finished Sertillanges’ book The Intellectual Life, I was struck by the similarities and differences between it and Josef Pieper’s Leisure: The Basis of Culture.

Both authors share the same concern: they are living in a world in which the life of the mind is being marginalized. Pieper discusses how the world of work is consuming all other aspects of life, especially the activities which encourage reflection. Sertillanges sees industrialists playing dice when they could be reading Pascal instead.

The authors diverge on the question of what constitutes the intellectual life. Pieper maintains a firm distinction between philosophy and work. As a professor once told me, “Philosophy is NOT useful...it is completely useless! That is why it is so important.” Philosophy, in this picture, is an end in itself. It enables a person to escape the confines of the cave and to see reality as it is.

This permits Pieper to present Philosophy in joyful terms. It is akin to festivity. Like other forms of festivity, we do not see them in utilitarian terms. Instead, they are the moments in which we escape, at least momentarily, our work-a-day world.

Sertillanges, I think, would reject such a distinction. He sees philosophy as a type of work. A nobler type of work, but work nonetheless. The intellectual has obligations to his fellow man which require him to sacrifice his private wants for the sake of a greater good. He must return to the cave and share what he has learned with others. Or better yet, encourage them to leave the cave also. This presentation of philosophy subordinates it while at the same time revealing how much is at stake when one engages in it.

This debate, whether the contemplative or active life is superior, goes all the way back to Aristotle. Thus, I’m not embarrassed to say that I can’t solve it. Pieper and Sertillanges are both Thomists, so you have to look at other sources for the divergence. Plato was an important influence on Pieper and you can see it in his understanding of philosophy as type of “divine madness.” Sertillanges, on the other hand, argues that the Intellectual, to be a true Intellectual, must accept Divine Revelation. That doesn’t seem right since it would disqualify Aristotle; however, one can see that revelation’s aid transforms the philosopher’s attitude toward others. The Platonic view cultivates an indifference towards those mucking around in the cave, while the religious view suggests charity towards one’s neighbor. Christian revelation, which is believed by many to subordinate politics, might actually take it more seriously than Platonic Philosophy in this picture.

Films for the Queue

2009-09-15T20:17:00.000-07:00

I was talking to some friends about films and question arose whether there any contemporary ones have anything thoughtful religious themes in them. Here are the ones that came to mind:

The Mission: Robert Joffe has been praised because he raises ethical dilemmas which have no cookie cutter solution to them. The fact the Vatican has put this film on its ‘Greats’ list shows that the Church is not taken aback by the questions it raises.

Gattaca: This is a Sci-Fi film that deals with problems traditional religious believers are especially concerned about. The film takes place in the future in which designer babies (or as I like to say ‘re-designed babies’) are now the norm. A Catholic woman decides to buck the trend and go natural. This God-child, a term meant reference his inferiority, has to compete in a world in which workplaces are only interested in Human Beings 2.0. The film, I suspect, will be seen as more and more prophetic as “science is put in its proper place.”

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: This is not a typical horror film. The priest is not depicted as a wild-eyed shaman, but as a cautious and composed man. The film presents the views of the religious believer and the skeptic, but ultimately sides with the former. Loosely based on a true story.

Signs: Unlike any Aliens movie, the film’s title has a double meaning as the deeper question the film raises is whether coincidences are the evidence of Providence at work or merely the result of random chance. Shymalan shows his familiarity with ID arguments as he forces the viewer to take a stand on the meaning of the final events of the film.

Brideshead Revisited: This is the BBC series, not the recent remake. The director of the 2008 version explicitly rejected the religious elements in the earlier series and wanted to “depict God as a villain.” Evelyn Waugh who wrote the novel, is certainly turning over in his grave on that one. Moving on, Catholicism permeates the story and the popularity of the novel and series in England shows that the anti-Catholicism, which was so virulent in the country, has been mitigated in the last fifty years.

I have left off several contemporary films like Therese, Bella, and Into the Great Silence. This is not because I have not seen them, but because I didn’t like them. In regards to the first two, the filmmakers have dropped the ball when it comes to engaging the culture. The sentimentality, which is rampant in the films, is not a help to the Church and in some instances might even be hindrance.

24’s Tortuous Logic

2009-09-07T14:01:00.000-07:00

Last Spring, President Obama released the “Torture Memos” in an effort to close “a dark and painful chapter in our history.” Instead, he reignited a national debate on the issue. Fox’s hit show, 24, incorporates news items like this and for many Americans, provides the framework in which to think about the problem. An espionage series occurring in real time, the show depicts U.S. Government agents combating terrorist threats to the country. With a storyline like that, the show can look at the torture question from a variety of angles and vantage points. The thoughts and emotions of the interrogator, suspect, and victims are all on display for the viewing public to see and discuss. Tonight’s episode will be debated tomorrow at the water cooler.

The most recent season, especially, supplies ammo for both sides. The pro-torture camp can cite the show’s hero Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, who constantly talks about “national security” and “doing what’s necessary.” On the other hand, there are plenty of incidents, from mistaken identities to blowback, which provide fodder for torture opponents. Nevertheless, 24’s attempt to be balanced should mislead the viewer into thinking the show’s writers are neutral; far from it. There is an underlying preference for interrogation techniques so advanced, they would make even Dick Cheney blush. For instance, take this quote from Jack Bauer in the season finale:

“You took an oath. You made a promise to uphold the law. When you cross that line, it always starts off with a small step. Before you know it, you're running as fast as you can in the wrong direction just to justify why you started in the first place. These laws were written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, I know that these laws have to be more important than the 15 people on the bus. I know that's right. In my mind, I know that's right. I just don't think my heart could ever have lived with that. I guess the only advice I can give you is... try to make choices that you can live with.”

Bauer has conceded nothing to the other side up till this point, but he appears to acquiesce, at least partially, to the anti-torture camp. But notice he is placing the burden of proof on them. Jack’s testimony that he could not live with the deaths of innocents is meant to convince the listener of the guilt he would most certainly feel in that situation too. In other words, the person who tortures has a clear conscience while the person who does not will be burdened by guilt. The anti-torture advocate has a hurdle to overcome which the pro-torture defender does not.

What Jack leaves out of the moral equation is the guilt which will come from torturing the suspect. Furthermore, he places the responsibility for the deaths of the innocents on the wrong set of shoulders. The interrogator did not place a bomb on the bus, the terrorist did.

Regardless, this reevaluation of the scenario is still unable to address a host of other problems. The people on the bus are certainly innocent while the suspect probably is not. Moreover, even if the interrogator is not personally responsible for the attack, he will surely feel guilt of some kind. Finally, placing guilt on a set of scales is rather subjective. When the stakes are so high, ‘what your gut tells you’ can be a bit fuzzy. All of these complications suggest scrapping Bauer’s view and looking elsewhere for a solution.

In an earlier episode, the character Jonas Hodges, played by Jon Voight, says the following: “But do not forget that every war worth fighting involves collateral damage. And what we're doing is fundamentally and absolutely necessary.”

Hodges is a villian in the show, but his reasoning is eerily similar to Bauer’s. Both justify ‘necessary’ actions despite the collateral damage which results. Even their situations are similar, something Hodges points out to Bauer. They were both employed by the government to do unsavory things and are now being attacked by that same employer for those very actions. Jack is unable to rebut Hodges’ claim about their similarities, so he simply dismisses it.

Bauer’s defenders would probably argue that Hodges engages in actions Jack would never do, like directly attack innocent civilians. But Jack is open to doing such things, which he demonstrates when he tells FBI Agent Renee Walker to ‘visit’ a guilty Secret Service Agent’s wife and two year old child in order to get the him to reveal critical information. Bauer does not flinch when Walker’s boss, Larry Moss, questions the morality of torturing innocents in the name of the greater good. Even a toddler is not immune to Bauer’s utilitarian calculus. The difference, in the end, between Bauer and Hodges is only a matter of degree; Hodges is willing to attack more innocents.

By displaying Hodges claim and Jack’s curt dismissal of it, the writers hint at the moral equilavence between the show’s hero and villian. This can only be hinted at because most viewers would be unwilling to admire Jack if he was no different from Hodges. This is probably why we never see Jack torture a child or the wrong person. By hearing his words, but not seeing the corresponding deed, the viewer’s disapproval is averted. Traditionally, the line between heroes and villians has been a clear one: there are certain things bad guys will do, which good guys will not. As Larry Moss tells Bauer, “It’s the rules which make us better, Jack.” But more and more, we are seeing writers and directors say that line is fuzzy. From The Dark Knight to 3:10 to Yuma, the traditional division of labor is either called into question or eliminated altogether.

24 does not go that far, but the suggestion is there. The belief that the old distinction no longer suffices is based on the idea that we live in a world more complicated than the one our parents grew up in. The complexity of the world creates situations and dilemmas which were unimaginable before now. This is the justification for why Jack has to do things which we find morally questionable.

Obviously, aspects of this claim are true. The Spanish Inquisitors never had to deal with a ticking time bomb scenario. Modern Technology creates a whole host of possibilities which have never been contemplated before: the number of casualties, the speed of the attack and so on. Yet torture is not new; it is as old as civilization itself. The situations might change, but the principles at stake do not. The questions raised by torture are in the end simple and straightforward: Do the ends justify the means? Is there such a thing as an intrinsically evil act? If so, what particular acts would fall under that category? Is torture one of them? These are the fundamental issues at the heart of the debate. And it does not matter whether we are discussing it in the modern or middle ages.

Obama and Brooks: disciples of Edmund Burke?

2009-08-31T19:58:00.000-07:00

Gabriel Sherman discusses the Obama-Brooks bromance in the New Republic today. It turns out both of them are fans of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. (Sam Tanenhaus drew a connection to Obama and Burke in his “Death of Conservatism” article also.) This is surprising because Russell Kirk had crowned Burke the father of modern conservatism. What is it about Burke that could attract these three very different figures?

Burke’s most famous book, Reflections on the Revolutions of France, disavows abstract principles in favor of ‘prescription’ or what we would call tradition. Kirk buys into all of this. Obama and Brooks, on the other hand, are probably interested in the first part-disavowal of principles. President Obama prides himself on being post-partisan and a pragmatist. David Brooks has made a name for himself for NOT being a doctrinaire conservative. Peter Lawler has said about Brooks, “He has the ambiguous title of being the most conservative columnist at the NY Times.”

Burke’s (and Kirk’s) disavowal of principles is the reason why Harry Jaffa has argued against this particular vision of conservatism. Practices presuppose principles and their divorce leaves the former without a guide. The result is the reduction of Burke’s prescription to our current President’s pragmatism. Orginal Burkeans like Kirk opposed innovation; today's Burkeans demand change.

Mad Men are Bad Men

2009-08-23T04:56:00.001-07:00

Mad Men is entering its third season and has earned rave reviews from critics. In regards to its cultural commentary, Ross Douthat summarizes a typical liberal view of the show:

Mad Men, she [The Nation’s Anna McCarthy] writes, is "concerned with
demonstrating the progress we've made in gender relations since the alienated
years before the women's movement," and with dramatizing "the disaffection of
midcentury suburbia's 'lonely crowd' and the oppressive expectations of the
feminine mystique," not to mention "the hatefulness of conformist WASP culture.

Since Conservatives usually oppose ‘progress,’ one would expect that they would hate the show; however, Rod Dreher argues, “Surely conservatives don't want to be in the position of defending a social order that degraded women, subordinated blacks…” I hope not. Moreover, Conservatives should contest Gordon Gekko prototype presented in the show. Unfortunately, Gekko is stil popular among many Conservatives today.

The characters in Mad Men want to come across as virtuous (family men who work hard) while in secret they are not (domineering husbands and neglectful parents who are never at their desk). Lacking goodness, they are unhappy too-a point missed by this POMO Cons post.
Don Draper, the show's lead, is an updated version of Fitzgerald's Gatsby. As Thomas Hibbs puts it, he "is the ultimate self-made man, an identity thief who wants to escape from his past." Like Gatsby, we see Draper's divided self as he constantly tries to sustain a myth. The difference between the two is we pity Gatsby, but not Draper. To this point, someone recently told me he stopped watching the show because "there was no one to root for." Whether or not Draper repeats Gatsby's swimming mishap, we can be fairly certain where he will end up.

What's love got to do with it?

2009-08-16T20:15:00.000-07:00

David McCullough’s success is the result of his ability to rehabilitate the reputation of Presidents (John Adams, Truman) who have been unpopular for sometime now. His mo is to focus less on their statesmanship, which is controversial, and more on their personal lives, especially their relationship to their wives. Thus, Adams and Truman’s stock with the public has gone up, not because of their handling of public affairs, but because of the love letters they sent their significant others.

McCullough’s book on Adams was made into an award winning series on HBO. The series was actually better than McCullough’s book because it focused more on Adams role in the great events of his time. His relationship with his wife is given less and less attention as the series progresses. And in the last two episodes, which deal with his Vice-Presidency and Presidency, it does not play an important part in the story at all. If McCullough should be praised, then it should be for revealing to Hollywood (and to the Academy) that there is a public who is hungry to learn more about our Founding Fathers. Who knew?

How do you like your heroes?

2009-08-14T17:09:00.000-07:00

Whether it is film (Star Trek), television (Battlestar Galactica), or print (Harry Potter), our most recent heroes seem to be made out of the same mold.

1. He is guided by instinct. This isn’t to say the hero is unintelligent. Kirk’s “aptitudes scores are off the charts,” while Starbuck is a flight instructor. Harry does well on his exams, though he only seems to be tested once a year. What is important is that none of them deliberate when they’re in a dilemma. Instead, they instinctively or intuitively react to the situation. Often, they are praised for not thinking. Moreover, they are contrasted with characters who are characterized by their rationality: Spock, Apollo, and Hermione. Notice that none of these other characters are villains. They’re either sidekicks or backups to the heroes. They’re praised for their braininess, but their subordinate status is never in doubt.

2. He has a propensity to break rules. The hero is not a rebel, but he is not an establishment man (e.g. Percy) either. He works within the system-until an emergency arises. This usually annoys the establishment to no end. Spock tells Kirk, “I would cite protocol, but I know you would ignore it.” Starbuck has to be thrown into the brig a few times and Dumbledore actually praises Harry for his rule-breaking. Of course, the rules they break are never moral principles, only legal ones. Legal rules, the product of finite minds, cannot cover all cases. Emergencies reveal the need for practical wisdom or prudence-the ability to judge what solution will work in a unique situation. And it is this ability to think outside of the box which distinguishes the heroes from their supporting cast.

3. He is very young. All of the characters know someone significantly older than them who you would expect to be the actual hero. The cult of youth is at work here, but not in its most pernicious form. Captain Pike, Commander Adama, and Professor Dumbledore are all portrayed as venerable, yet they are never on center stage. Pike’s self-sacrifice is noble, but Kirk has to rescue him. Adama orders others around while Starbuck is in the battle. Dumbledore usually shows up at the end of the final scene to clean things up. They’re never in the thick of it, like the youngsters are. The celebration of youth is clear, although mild.

The “If only” school

2009-08-12T08:25:00.000-07:00

Its tough being a Commie because the most famous instantiation of your philosophy, the Soviet Union, produced the Show Trials, Gulag, and Berlin Wall. You’re not going to win any popularity contests that way.

Consequently, the Red strategy is to argue that Stalin’s Russia was a distortion of Marxist-Leninism. “If only,” they say, “Trotsky had been in charge, then we would have seen the humane face of Communism.” The thuggish Stalin had the sophisticated Trotsky killed so the true teaching was never implemented.

Robert Service and Christopher Hitchens look into this claim on Uncommon Knowledge. Service argues that Trotsky would have been more aggressive than Stalin in pushing Communism globally. For Trotsky, the Cold War would have heated up as he would have disposed of the proxies and just invaded the countries directly. The topic is an interesting one because it bears upon the question of whether Communism should be taken seriously as an option today. And Chavez seems to be persuading many Latin Americans that it is viable as they “lurch to the left.”