On February 22, 1946, George Kennan (then Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States to the USSR) sent the Long Telegram, a profoundly significant letter outlining the author’s views of the Soviet enemy and the stakes of the Cold War to come. The telegram helped shape American foreign policy attitudes towards its competing superpower in part because of the force of Kennan’s argumentation. More important, though, was the fact that the foundation of the Long Telegram was unabashedly thrown into the public sphere. The Truman Doctrine was based on it, successive presidents and their administrations embraced it, and the American people were aware of it.
The New York Times has reported that Barack Obama is considering making a major foreign policy address from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office. Surely his aim will be to start the international healing process by articulating a tolerant position on the role of Islam in the numerous threats faced by the Western world. If a modern Long Telegram exists, it would be wise to bet against its appearance in the speech at Cairo, Baghdad or Damascus.
Mr. Obama and his defense team may have already pinpointed the relevant methods, self-perceptions and structures that Islamists possess and must be eliminated through military and diplomatic means. The problem is that, even if this was the case, we don’t really want to hear about it. Countering hateful ideology often requires a step onto an ideological ledge of our own. It requires drawing a line between good and bad beliefs. It is this line that we’ve been told to eliminate.
We’re told to eliminate the line on campus. When a conservative organization at The George Washington University announced its “Islamofascism Awareness Week” last year, student representatives earned a chance to discuss their program on CNN. Except instead of receiving a forum to criticize an ideology that wanted all of them (and everyone in the studio, and everyone at their school) dead, they found themselves on national television backpedaling against criticisms that their project was racist. If only the speed in which multiculturalists eliminated this threat could be replicated by our intelligence services.
When either the back of a Subaru or an actual person tells you to “Coexist,” the message is usually targeted at President Bush and his band of neoconservatives, not the man with the dull razor blade in all those horrible decapitation videos that somehow go ignored. Even if Mr. Obama inherits a nation more acquiescent to his brand of foreign policy, whatever that may be, the fear of ideological confrontation with everything short of a man with a small moustache remains. How could an official serving the Obama administration ever produce an effective Long Telegram when even President Unilateral Aggression didn’t have the heart to call the ‘war on terror’ a ‘war on radical Islam’? Last I checked 9/11 wasn’t caused by a failure of the American government to recognize the Irish Republican Army.
How long before our intellectual cowardice dissipates I don’t know. But until it does, we have about as good a chance of making actual progress against the ideas that form the lifeblood of anti-American terrorism as we have hearing Barack Obama say “Islamofascism” in Damascus.
09 December 2008
08 December 2008
Are We All Immaculately Conceived?
Today, December 8, is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. This Catholic feast day, a Holy Day of Obligation since Pope Pius IX declared it so in 1854, commemorates the Blessed Virgin Mary’s being conceived without the stain of Original Sin present in every other human being since the Fall of Adam. It does not, as many persons both within and outside the Church believe, celebrate Christ’s conception by the Holy Spirit.
This feast is a fascinating one, a fact which is brought home forcefully to those of us at the only true Dominican institution of higher learning in this country. A veritable all-star lineup of Dominican theologians and saints, including Thomas Aquinas himself, were staunchly opposed to the doctrine—a fact which the Dominican homilists did not let their congregations forget today. It was the Franciscans (minus the great St. Bonaventura) whose theology prevailed in this question, and while the other mendicant friars have not forgotten this, they are gracious in acknowledging the error of their predecessors.
It is not only the history of the feast’s commemoration that is fascinating, however. At the very core of this long-standing doctrine is the Catholic belief in Original Sin. The great G.K. Chesterton was once (well, was always) in an argument with the very able playwright George Bernard Shaw, and Chesterton asked this confirmed old agnostic whether he believed in Original Sin.
“Of course not,” said Bernard Shaw. “That’s just a fiction invented by the Catholic Church to keep itself in business.”
“Well,” asked the portly polemicist, “do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?”
“Of course not,” repeated the dramatist. “That’s just an old superstition.”
“I’m afraid,” replied GKC, “Mr. Shaw, that you must choose one or the other. If there is no original sin, then we are all immaculately conceived. Surely you are not less moderate than the Church, which holds that only one person was ever born without sin?”
Chesterton’s question is one with which we all must grapple. Surely we don’t believe that humanity was conceived without at least some propensity to sin? And yet, today Original Sin is widely regarded as exactly the sort of old wives’ tale Bernard Shaw believed it to be. It seems that in eliminating the idea of sin from the public consciousness, we have merely excised all guilt (that stereotypically Catholic emotion). Chesterton is quite good on this point in his writings, pointing out that denying the preponderance of sin is denying objective reality, and that a healthy sense of guilt and shame for bad actions is vital to a just and moral society (and Molly O’Donnell goes “erghh!”).
A dispute on this exact matter, in fact, led a woman sitting in front of two authors of this forum at the Independence Day fireworks this summer to wheel about and yell “Do you realize you haven’t shut up this entire time!?” She was right; but her question went unasked until I uttered the word “sin”. We live in a society that wants to act badly and be congratulated for it. Surely these folks are not less moderate than the Church, which is willing to meet sinners halfway—in the Sacrament of Reconcilation?
This feast is a fascinating one, a fact which is brought home forcefully to those of us at the only true Dominican institution of higher learning in this country. A veritable all-star lineup of Dominican theologians and saints, including Thomas Aquinas himself, were staunchly opposed to the doctrine—a fact which the Dominican homilists did not let their congregations forget today. It was the Franciscans (minus the great St. Bonaventura) whose theology prevailed in this question, and while the other mendicant friars have not forgotten this, they are gracious in acknowledging the error of their predecessors.
It is not only the history of the feast’s commemoration that is fascinating, however. At the very core of this long-standing doctrine is the Catholic belief in Original Sin. The great G.K. Chesterton was once (well, was always) in an argument with the very able playwright George Bernard Shaw, and Chesterton asked this confirmed old agnostic whether he believed in Original Sin.
“Of course not,” said Bernard Shaw. “That’s just a fiction invented by the Catholic Church to keep itself in business.”
“Well,” asked the portly polemicist, “do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?”
“Of course not,” repeated the dramatist. “That’s just an old superstition.”
“I’m afraid,” replied GKC, “Mr. Shaw, that you must choose one or the other. If there is no original sin, then we are all immaculately conceived. Surely you are not less moderate than the Church, which holds that only one person was ever born without sin?”
Chesterton’s question is one with which we all must grapple. Surely we don’t believe that humanity was conceived without at least some propensity to sin? And yet, today Original Sin is widely regarded as exactly the sort of old wives’ tale Bernard Shaw believed it to be. It seems that in eliminating the idea of sin from the public consciousness, we have merely excised all guilt (that stereotypically Catholic emotion). Chesterton is quite good on this point in his writings, pointing out that denying the preponderance of sin is denying objective reality, and that a healthy sense of guilt and shame for bad actions is vital to a just and moral society (and Molly O’Donnell goes “erghh!”).
A dispute on this exact matter, in fact, led a woman sitting in front of two authors of this forum at the Independence Day fireworks this summer to wheel about and yell “Do you realize you haven’t shut up this entire time!?” She was right; but her question went unasked until I uttered the word “sin”. We live in a society that wants to act badly and be congratulated for it. Surely these folks are not less moderate than the Church, which is willing to meet sinners halfway—in the Sacrament of Reconcilation?
05 December 2008
Please Drink Responsibly
Today is the 75th anniversary of the ratification of Amendment XXI to the United States Constitution. It's as good a day as any for Jeremiah to read Aethiopis with a glass of Keystone Light, don't you think?
Above: Bloggers Jason Weischedel and Jeremiah Begley enjoy one beer apiece before returning to campus to finish their homework.
Cheers,
The Ennobler
Above: Bloggers Jason Weischedel and Jeremiah Begley enjoy one beer apiece before returning to campus to finish their homework.
Cheers,
The Ennobler
02 December 2008
Otium Redefined: A Critique of Undergraduate Culture
The following commentary will appear in this week’s issue of The Cowl, the student-run newspaper of Providence College. Once again, The Ennobler scoops the competition.
I used to believe our college to be plagued by a lack of intellectual seriousness. It seemed to me that, in the minds of many on this campus, study was an engagement to be hurried through and avoided if all possible. Intellectual tasks were chores that had to be done before the real fun could begin.
My assessment of the facts has not changed. These pernicious attitudes are still prevalent, but I have begun to question my erstwhile contention that they arise from a lack of seriousness. Indeed, in one sense excessive seriousness about academic work could lead one to equate education with hard labor. Perhaps what is truly lacking at our institution is a healthy measure of intellectual levity, or playfulness.
In the ancient conception of things, life is divided up into two categories: otium, usually rendered as “leisure,” and negotium, the opposite. Significantly, leisure is the primary thing, and “work” is defined as its negation, not as a thing in its own right. One performs the mundane duties of negotium solely for the sake of gaining time and resources for otium, the basis of culture and the true meaning of life.
Although this view is certainly foreign to much of American society, in which people define themselves by their employment to such an extent that they willingly work sixty or more hours per week, it may sound familiar and refreshing to us as youth. If, so to speak, everybody’s working for the weekend, does it not follow that everybody should do only enough to forestall a grade point average disaster?
Actually, it does not. In fact, grades have unquestionably helped bring about the catastrophic redefinition of the life of the mind as negotium. This category mistake is at the very heart of our problem. The otium toward which the Greeks and Romans directed their existence is the very pseudo-negotium which we shunt aside and perform perfunctorily. Intellectual levity, therefore, is the virtue of recognizing the tremendous privilege and blessing of being granted a liberal arts education.
We are given four years of our lives to spend, essentially, however we please. This liberty is intended to afford us the opportunity for intellectual exploration, as we move gradually from a general immersion in Western civilization toward a slightly more specialized area of study to which we become particularly devoted. The theological, philosophical, historical and literary treasures of almost three millennia are laid at our unworthy feet. Here is the best of what has been thought and said, we are told; what would you like to read? And we reply: Thank you, yes. I will have fourteen cans of Natural Ice.
Youthful exuberance and experimentation aside, those who repeatedly and consistently make such a choice declare themselves unworthy of being in college. Those who squander the chance to drink deeply at the bottomless well of truth by habitually drinking deeply at various off-campus establishments are tacitly but unequivocally registering a preference to be in a different environment. They deserve the coal mine. They deserve the steel mill. The treasures of Western culture are wasted on those who wish to dispense with them as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Of course, it is precisely because most of us wish to avoid a career in smelting or coal extraction that we tend to treat our studies solely as a means to another end. It is frequently alleged that the majority of students simply are not here in order to be swept off their feet by Renaissance poetry; they are here because the job market dictates they have a college degree, whether earned or otherwise, and they wish to comply. This fact leads many to major in one of the false disciplines which have crept into our undergraduate catalog and grown, like huge malignant tumors, to a position of dominance. The distinguishing characteristic of these disciplines, most of which have been conveniently consolidated into the new School of Business for easy reference, is that no one could possibly enjoy them on their own merits. Unlike reading Homer, which is an intrinsic good pleasurable to the well-adjusted soul regardless of any additional benefit or outcome, these disciplines are studied only instrumentally, for the purpose of making money.
Preeminent among these are the immensely popular troika of Marketing, Management and Finance, which devour fearful undergraduates like the three heads of Cerberus. These sophistic arts are among the biggest culprits in the destruction of intellectual playfulness. They play upon our fears of rejection in the marketplace, and whisper sweet nothings of financial security in our ears.
I say it's time to end the tyranny of pseudo-practicality. We all need jobs, of course, and it may well be that not everyone will experience a joyful awakening while studying the liberal arts. But there is no better preparation for any job than the skills which attend naturally with the study of a true discipline: reading perceptively, writing well, and having a sense of what life is really about. What need have we for Leadership Studies when Aeneas still leads his men to the Lavinian shore?
I used to believe our college to be plagued by a lack of intellectual seriousness. It seemed to me that, in the minds of many on this campus, study was an engagement to be hurried through and avoided if all possible. Intellectual tasks were chores that had to be done before the real fun could begin.
My assessment of the facts has not changed. These pernicious attitudes are still prevalent, but I have begun to question my erstwhile contention that they arise from a lack of seriousness. Indeed, in one sense excessive seriousness about academic work could lead one to equate education with hard labor. Perhaps what is truly lacking at our institution is a healthy measure of intellectual levity, or playfulness.
In the ancient conception of things, life is divided up into two categories: otium, usually rendered as “leisure,” and negotium, the opposite. Significantly, leisure is the primary thing, and “work” is defined as its negation, not as a thing in its own right. One performs the mundane duties of negotium solely for the sake of gaining time and resources for otium, the basis of culture and the true meaning of life.
Although this view is certainly foreign to much of American society, in which people define themselves by their employment to such an extent that they willingly work sixty or more hours per week, it may sound familiar and refreshing to us as youth. If, so to speak, everybody’s working for the weekend, does it not follow that everybody should do only enough to forestall a grade point average disaster?
Actually, it does not. In fact, grades have unquestionably helped bring about the catastrophic redefinition of the life of the mind as negotium. This category mistake is at the very heart of our problem. The otium toward which the Greeks and Romans directed their existence is the very pseudo-negotium which we shunt aside and perform perfunctorily. Intellectual levity, therefore, is the virtue of recognizing the tremendous privilege and blessing of being granted a liberal arts education.
We are given four years of our lives to spend, essentially, however we please. This liberty is intended to afford us the opportunity for intellectual exploration, as we move gradually from a general immersion in Western civilization toward a slightly more specialized area of study to which we become particularly devoted. The theological, philosophical, historical and literary treasures of almost three millennia are laid at our unworthy feet. Here is the best of what has been thought and said, we are told; what would you like to read? And we reply: Thank you, yes. I will have fourteen cans of Natural Ice.
Youthful exuberance and experimentation aside, those who repeatedly and consistently make such a choice declare themselves unworthy of being in college. Those who squander the chance to drink deeply at the bottomless well of truth by habitually drinking deeply at various off-campus establishments are tacitly but unequivocally registering a preference to be in a different environment. They deserve the coal mine. They deserve the steel mill. The treasures of Western culture are wasted on those who wish to dispense with them as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Of course, it is precisely because most of us wish to avoid a career in smelting or coal extraction that we tend to treat our studies solely as a means to another end. It is frequently alleged that the majority of students simply are not here in order to be swept off their feet by Renaissance poetry; they are here because the job market dictates they have a college degree, whether earned or otherwise, and they wish to comply. This fact leads many to major in one of the false disciplines which have crept into our undergraduate catalog and grown, like huge malignant tumors, to a position of dominance. The distinguishing characteristic of these disciplines, most of which have been conveniently consolidated into the new School of Business for easy reference, is that no one could possibly enjoy them on their own merits. Unlike reading Homer, which is an intrinsic good pleasurable to the well-adjusted soul regardless of any additional benefit or outcome, these disciplines are studied only instrumentally, for the purpose of making money.
Preeminent among these are the immensely popular troika of Marketing, Management and Finance, which devour fearful undergraduates like the three heads of Cerberus. These sophistic arts are among the biggest culprits in the destruction of intellectual playfulness. They play upon our fears of rejection in the marketplace, and whisper sweet nothings of financial security in our ears.
I say it's time to end the tyranny of pseudo-practicality. We all need jobs, of course, and it may well be that not everyone will experience a joyful awakening while studying the liberal arts. But there is no better preparation for any job than the skills which attend naturally with the study of a true discipline: reading perceptively, writing well, and having a sense of what life is really about. What need have we for Leadership Studies when Aeneas still leads his men to the Lavinian shore?
27 November 2008
Happy Thanksgiving
The Wall Street Journal has run And the Fair Land and The Desolate Wilderness every Thanksgiving since 1961. I implore all to pick up a Journal on this day and read. In closing the latter, we recognize a slight similarity between the account of the Plymouth Colonists in 1620 and American conservatives on Thanksgiving, c. 2008:
Being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectations, they had now no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, or much less towns, to repair unto to seek for succour; and for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts.
Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in appearance with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew.
If they looked behind them, there was a mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.
Happy Thanksgiving!18 November 2008
Derrida and the Absence of Authority
Today we will present you with a bit of Ennobler history: the title of this page appeared first in the authors’ discourse in gerund form. One day in August, the debate over what is and is not “ennobling” with respect to high and popular cultures gained far more momentum among us than it really deserved. Jeremiah said “ennobling” tens of times (in the course of two or more sentences), Jason claimed that he’d never heard the word “ennobling” so frequently in so few verbal feet, and here we are as an indirect result.
The value of popular culture may or may not be discussed here again (though I’m afraid I may be playing the role of Epimetheus for mentioning it). What is interesting, however, is the way our academic discourse has mirrored the world-weariness evident in the most modern of popular culture outfits. Why is it that college philosophy students like Nietzsche so much? By my judgment it’s because he’s as clever and sarcastic and glib as they themselves hope to be. It is never about humanity anymore on television as much as it’s about an attempt to distance oneself from it, and so it goes in academic circles as higher educators find a way to feed to their students what it is they’ve been trained to value.
This is not about metaphysical systems and contrived philosophical discourse. It is rare to find a modern philosopher who writes to convince you of his metaphysical system the way Leibniz or Berkeley did; instead, they are content to create terms and words for others to use, the way Heidegger did. We are witnessing the continual collapse of the Grand Narrative, as Lyotard described it, and I’m not sure that it’s a categorical negative. But the result is certainly a lack of progress as such and an absence of authority that might serve to eliminate a large degree of richness in the philosophical traditions to come.
If our philosophical cravings don’t model Nietzsche, they probably mirror Derrida. Popular interpretations of Derrida hold that ultimate philosophical truth is un-attainable, non-existent or uninteresting. It is the third that is most pernicious: whether or not there are metaphysical truths we can know through reason is an open question (and it might serve undergraduate philosophy students to admit that maybe they themselves haven't quite developed the faculties to know those truths), but it is the fallback of the ‘clever and sarcastic and glib’ community to subordinate philosophy as a whole to a literary exercise wherein they are required to do no more than deconstruct. As we know from watching liberals the past eight years, it’s much easier to tear down a theoretical structure than build one, and perhaps a whole lot more fun.
Derrida sought to turn philosophy into a historical conversation of constant interpretation and re-interpretation. Why is this? Well, if there’s no truth to be had, the only place we can go is backwards. The problem with this pattern is not the principle itself, but the effect. You do not need to be very learned to make fun of writings the way Derrida has. The more this suits one’s purpose as a scholar, the more undercutting takes the floor as the dominant mental exercise of those who read to generate commentary.
I am not arguing that Derrida is useless, just that too many young academics are like him. Deconstruction is not without value, but it is not much of a goal, really. With it, we risk a failure to appreciate the philosophical giants, especially the ones that the ‘clever and sarcastic and glib’ would call outdated (like Aquinas or Aristotle, who are just pathetic in their treatment of current issues like feminism and atheism). There is a place for analytics and textual criticism in philosophy (Jeremiah may disagree), but there is also a need for the beautiful cathedrals of thought that people like Spinoza built for us to consider. Here’s to the idea that we can reclaim an appreciation for the great thinker, no matter how large or small his system, nor how inviting his work is for the less-ennobling comedies within us.
The value of popular culture may or may not be discussed here again (though I’m afraid I may be playing the role of Epimetheus for mentioning it). What is interesting, however, is the way our academic discourse has mirrored the world-weariness evident in the most modern of popular culture outfits. Why is it that college philosophy students like Nietzsche so much? By my judgment it’s because he’s as clever and sarcastic and glib as they themselves hope to be. It is never about humanity anymore on television as much as it’s about an attempt to distance oneself from it, and so it goes in academic circles as higher educators find a way to feed to their students what it is they’ve been trained to value.
This is not about metaphysical systems and contrived philosophical discourse. It is rare to find a modern philosopher who writes to convince you of his metaphysical system the way Leibniz or Berkeley did; instead, they are content to create terms and words for others to use, the way Heidegger did. We are witnessing the continual collapse of the Grand Narrative, as Lyotard described it, and I’m not sure that it’s a categorical negative. But the result is certainly a lack of progress as such and an absence of authority that might serve to eliminate a large degree of richness in the philosophical traditions to come.
If our philosophical cravings don’t model Nietzsche, they probably mirror Derrida. Popular interpretations of Derrida hold that ultimate philosophical truth is un-attainable, non-existent or uninteresting. It is the third that is most pernicious: whether or not there are metaphysical truths we can know through reason is an open question (and it might serve undergraduate philosophy students to admit that maybe they themselves haven't quite developed the faculties to know those truths), but it is the fallback of the ‘clever and sarcastic and glib’ community to subordinate philosophy as a whole to a literary exercise wherein they are required to do no more than deconstruct. As we know from watching liberals the past eight years, it’s much easier to tear down a theoretical structure than build one, and perhaps a whole lot more fun.
Derrida sought to turn philosophy into a historical conversation of constant interpretation and re-interpretation. Why is this? Well, if there’s no truth to be had, the only place we can go is backwards. The problem with this pattern is not the principle itself, but the effect. You do not need to be very learned to make fun of writings the way Derrida has. The more this suits one’s purpose as a scholar, the more undercutting takes the floor as the dominant mental exercise of those who read to generate commentary.
I am not arguing that Derrida is useless, just that too many young academics are like him. Deconstruction is not without value, but it is not much of a goal, really. With it, we risk a failure to appreciate the philosophical giants, especially the ones that the ‘clever and sarcastic and glib’ would call outdated (like Aquinas or Aristotle, who are just pathetic in their treatment of current issues like feminism and atheism). There is a place for analytics and textual criticism in philosophy (Jeremiah may disagree), but there is also a need for the beautiful cathedrals of thought that people like Spinoza built for us to consider. Here’s to the idea that we can reclaim an appreciation for the great thinker, no matter how large or small his system, nor how inviting his work is for the less-ennobling comedies within us.
16 November 2008
Happy Birthday Mr. Nozick
Robert Nozick was born on November 16, 1938. He died in 2002 after a long struggle with stomach cancer. He would have been 70 today.Perhaps we will get around to addressing his politics, epistemology or analytics on this page. Certainly the intellectual weight of Nozick's and Rawls's philosophies in higher academia (an environment that, sadly, chooses the latter over the former without much hesitation) recommends it. For now, those of us at The Ennobler would like to wish Mr. Nozick a happy birthday.
Celebrate with us and read some Nozick.
11 November 2008
"What Does the GOP Do Next?"
Just like we did before the election, we will post links from a special editorial series from The Wall Street Journal. Here, GOP leaders attempt to determine the path best traveled in the years to come:
Take Some Political Risks (Paul Ryan)
Diversity Is Destiny (Danny Vargas)
Stay Faithful to Core Values (Richard Land)
Listen. Adapt. Be Positive. (Michael Steele)
What Would Reagan Do? (Henry Olsen)
Put California in Play (Peter Robinson)
Take Some Political Risks (Paul Ryan)
Diversity Is Destiny (Danny Vargas)
Stay Faithful to Core Values (Richard Land)
Listen. Adapt. Be Positive. (Michael Steele)
What Would Reagan Do? (Henry Olsen)
Put California in Play (Peter Robinson)
06 November 2008
Congratulations Mr. Obama
Jeremiah and I share many of the same concerns about the upcoming Obama presidency. Perhaps neither of us are among the many chosen people who are uplifted by his surprisingly dour rhetoric. I know neither of us are particularly excited about what kinds of policy options he will have the political capital to illustrate his widely-praised deliberative thoughtfulness over, what with the incorrigible Democratic Congress gaining strength right alongside him.
Regardless, this victory proves what the more optimistic among us have been saying this whole time: America has rapidly developed into a meritocracy wherein professionally arbitrary factors like race are of little impediment to personal success and opportunity. This is certainly not to be understated, for it is a fantastic thing. How long it has been this way is up for debate, but what is certain is that the sheer impossibility of an African-American president-elect is a living memory for my parents, and certainly for my grandparents. If Mr. Obama's election accelerates the wane of racial grievance ideology in America, well, at least we'll have one change we can truly believe in.
I did not support Mr. Obama's candidacy. In the way of full disclosure, I worked for his opposition. I expect to be highly critical of his policy in the future. But I would like to offer him my encouragement. The shallowness of President Bush's most fervent critics, the ones who would deny him the pleasure of calling himself their president, I hope will be moderated by conservatives who stand in thoughtful opposition of Mr. Obama's actions. The president of my country is my president, no matter what.
We do not need to throw Mr. Obama into Lake Michigan to know that he can't walk on water. We may know relatively little about how he will conduct himself in office, but of this much we should be sure. Let us hope that the better angels of Mr. Obama's nature guide him in his executive decisions over the next four or more years. He has my congratulations and fearful support.
Regardless, this victory proves what the more optimistic among us have been saying this whole time: America has rapidly developed into a meritocracy wherein professionally arbitrary factors like race are of little impediment to personal success and opportunity. This is certainly not to be understated, for it is a fantastic thing. How long it has been this way is up for debate, but what is certain is that the sheer impossibility of an African-American president-elect is a living memory for my parents, and certainly for my grandparents. If Mr. Obama's election accelerates the wane of racial grievance ideology in America, well, at least we'll have one change we can truly believe in.
I did not support Mr. Obama's candidacy. In the way of full disclosure, I worked for his opposition. I expect to be highly critical of his policy in the future. But I would like to offer him my encouragement. The shallowness of President Bush's most fervent critics, the ones who would deny him the pleasure of calling himself their president, I hope will be moderated by conservatives who stand in thoughtful opposition of Mr. Obama's actions. The president of my country is my president, no matter what.
We do not need to throw Mr. Obama into Lake Michigan to know that he can't walk on water. We may know relatively little about how he will conduct himself in office, but of this much we should be sure. Let us hope that the better angels of Mr. Obama's nature guide him in his executive decisions over the next four or more years. He has my congratulations and fearful support.
05 November 2008
Gaga in Grant Park
"Mark my words," I said last night, as the exuberant throng wept with joy across a vast expanse of Chicago's Grant Park. "This will end badly." Mark Steyn is back writing the back page for National Review after his trial in Canada and the Chris Buckley fiasco, and his first column is pretty good—and, as always, very timely. Well-adjusted citizens of a free society, he says, greet "whichever of their fellows would presume to lead them" with naught but "stilted cheers" and occasionally "widespread derision." In other words, the Bush-induced mass disillusionment has been generally bad for the country (not that it isn't immature and stupid), but Obama-mania has the potential to be much worse.
In the Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates describes how people become misanthropes: “Misanthropy comes when a man without knowledge or skill has placed great trust in someone and believes him to be altogether truthful, sound and trustworthy; then, a short time afterwards, he finds him to be wicked and unreliable…in the end, after many such blows, one comes to hate all men and to believe that no one is sound in any way at all. Have you not seen this happen?” (Grube trans., 89 d-e).
I was telling everyone who would listen last night that this whole experiment will end in one of two ways: either our president-elect will be completely, 100% successful in executing his agenda (a self-evidently disastrous proposition) or he won't. And because, in all likelihood, President Obama will have to make major compromises and significant sacrifices, those millions of people who made Harlem a haven of jubilation and Grant Park a sight to be seen will be more disillusioned than ever.
Of course, national misanthropy isn’t the greatest danger of mass adulation toward our leaders. Grant Park last night was indeed a sight to be seen, but it was a sight we had seen before—in a very skillful film by Leni Riefenstahl.
In the Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates describes how people become misanthropes: “Misanthropy comes when a man without knowledge or skill has placed great trust in someone and believes him to be altogether truthful, sound and trustworthy; then, a short time afterwards, he finds him to be wicked and unreliable…in the end, after many such blows, one comes to hate all men and to believe that no one is sound in any way at all. Have you not seen this happen?” (Grube trans., 89 d-e).
I was telling everyone who would listen last night that this whole experiment will end in one of two ways: either our president-elect will be completely, 100% successful in executing his agenda (a self-evidently disastrous proposition) or he won't. And because, in all likelihood, President Obama will have to make major compromises and significant sacrifices, those millions of people who made Harlem a haven of jubilation and Grant Park a sight to be seen will be more disillusioned than ever.
Of course, national misanthropy isn’t the greatest danger of mass adulation toward our leaders. Grant Park last night was indeed a sight to be seen, but it was a sight we had seen before—in a very skillful film by Leni Riefenstahl.
04 November 2008
Dig In
That the man we have just chosen to be our forty-fourth president is to be the most radically pro-abortion chief executive in our nation’s history is not in question, and neither, really, is the fact that he is the most radical person from either side of the political spectrum ever to be elected. I, for one, can live with bad policy; I have for my entire life, those first five months aside. But my fears about the dawning administration go way beyond policy. I am scared because our new president-elect has the will and now the means not only to eliminate obstacles to his extraordinarily radical agenda, but also to eliminate conscientious dissent.
It has often been claimed that this administration will be a bipartisan one, devoted to changing the way we do things in Washington by reaching across the ideological divide. The president-elect himself has occasionally seemed aware that abortion is a difficult moral issue, conceding when Rick Warren asked him when life begins that “that question is above my pay grade” and, in a speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, noting that “There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice.” To this point, the man at the logo-adorned podium at least seems respectful of my right to disagree with him, to live my own beliefs. But then he continues the speech:
“When the real war is being fought abroad,” says the man we have just elected President of the United States, “they would have us fight culture wars here at home. I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are just so nineties. Their days are growing dark...We are tired of arguing about the same old stuff.”
This comment, perhaps more than any other, shows the true nature of the brand of bipartisanship our executive-to-be plans to exercise. Most people view bipartisan compromise as a struggle of thesis and antithesis, resulting eventually in a new synthesis. Our president-elect, however, channels Hegel not so much as Mussolini, who announced one day that his own powers of self-criticism were so great that there no longer needed to be any opposition parties in Italy. And lo, there were not. In three months, the most powerful man in the world will be a person tired of arguing about the same old stuff. And what that means is this: those abidingly inept people of goodwill are free to go about their bitter lives, but their days of calling the progressive agenda into question are over.
Never let it be said that the outgoing junior senator from Illinois does not back up his lofty rhetoric with concrete policy proposals. In response to a question after the Planned Parenthood speech, he promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would essentially declare abortion a fundamental right unalienable by anyone, of goodwill or otherwise. According to his answers to something called the “Reproductive Health Reality Check questionnaire,” he has the will—and now the means—to repeal the Hyde amendment, which does nothing to make abortion illegal, but guarantees that people of conscience will not have to pay for other people’s abortions with their federal tax dollars. His campaign’s response to the question “Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?” was a single word: “No.” Claiming that crisis pregnancy centers are a threat to legal abortion is a bit like attacking that Alcoholics Anonymous for subversively trying to bring back Prohibition, and yet the man who has promised to fund just about everything just can’t seem to bear the thought of a woman getting talked into bearing her child.
Toward what kind of America will be begin our journey on January 20? One clue might be found in New Mexico, where a photographer named Elaine Huguenin declined to be hired by a same-sex couple to take pictures of their “commitment ceremony.” The couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, and they won. Huguenin was assessed $6,600 in damages and barred from ever refusing such a request again. That is, this rather Orwellian extrajudicial body is so tolerant and respectful of diversity that they have compelled Elaine Huguenin to act in a way that contradicts her Christian beliefs.
There is no direct link to our next president here, but when we are speaking of matters judicial and Constitutional, we have to keep in mind the most famous of all the passages from that Planned Parenthood speech: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." Eventually, anywhere from two to as many as five justices of the United States Supreme Court will have been nominated by a former constitutional law professor who values empathy over wisdom, courage, restraint, impartiality, experience, knowledge of the law and grammar itself (“criteria” is plural). Indeed, the evaluation of any quality other than empathy in a potential justice is doubtless above our next president’s pay grade, and anyway, the choice between a gay couple’s feelings and Elaine Huguenin’s constitutional rights is an easy one when one is sick of arguing about the same old stuff. A conscience still fighting the culture wars is no conscience at all, says the man who will throw out the first pitch of the next baseball season; until then, I’ll be digging in to that batter’s box.
It has often been claimed that this administration will be a bipartisan one, devoted to changing the way we do things in Washington by reaching across the ideological divide. The president-elect himself has occasionally seemed aware that abortion is a difficult moral issue, conceding when Rick Warren asked him when life begins that “that question is above my pay grade” and, in a speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, noting that “There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice.” To this point, the man at the logo-adorned podium at least seems respectful of my right to disagree with him, to live my own beliefs. But then he continues the speech:
“When the real war is being fought abroad,” says the man we have just elected President of the United States, “they would have us fight culture wars here at home. I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are just so nineties. Their days are growing dark...We are tired of arguing about the same old stuff.”
This comment, perhaps more than any other, shows the true nature of the brand of bipartisanship our executive-to-be plans to exercise. Most people view bipartisan compromise as a struggle of thesis and antithesis, resulting eventually in a new synthesis. Our president-elect, however, channels Hegel not so much as Mussolini, who announced one day that his own powers of self-criticism were so great that there no longer needed to be any opposition parties in Italy. And lo, there were not. In three months, the most powerful man in the world will be a person tired of arguing about the same old stuff. And what that means is this: those abidingly inept people of goodwill are free to go about their bitter lives, but their days of calling the progressive agenda into question are over.
Never let it be said that the outgoing junior senator from Illinois does not back up his lofty rhetoric with concrete policy proposals. In response to a question after the Planned Parenthood speech, he promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would essentially declare abortion a fundamental right unalienable by anyone, of goodwill or otherwise. According to his answers to something called the “Reproductive Health Reality Check questionnaire,” he has the will—and now the means—to repeal the Hyde amendment, which does nothing to make abortion illegal, but guarantees that people of conscience will not have to pay for other people’s abortions with their federal tax dollars. His campaign’s response to the question “Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?” was a single word: “No.” Claiming that crisis pregnancy centers are a threat to legal abortion is a bit like attacking that Alcoholics Anonymous for subversively trying to bring back Prohibition, and yet the man who has promised to fund just about everything just can’t seem to bear the thought of a woman getting talked into bearing her child.
Toward what kind of America will be begin our journey on January 20? One clue might be found in New Mexico, where a photographer named Elaine Huguenin declined to be hired by a same-sex couple to take pictures of their “commitment ceremony.” The couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, and they won. Huguenin was assessed $6,600 in damages and barred from ever refusing such a request again. That is, this rather Orwellian extrajudicial body is so tolerant and respectful of diversity that they have compelled Elaine Huguenin to act in a way that contradicts her Christian beliefs.
There is no direct link to our next president here, but when we are speaking of matters judicial and Constitutional, we have to keep in mind the most famous of all the passages from that Planned Parenthood speech: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." Eventually, anywhere from two to as many as five justices of the United States Supreme Court will have been nominated by a former constitutional law professor who values empathy over wisdom, courage, restraint, impartiality, experience, knowledge of the law and grammar itself (“criteria” is plural). Indeed, the evaluation of any quality other than empathy in a potential justice is doubtless above our next president’s pay grade, and anyway, the choice between a gay couple’s feelings and Elaine Huguenin’s constitutional rights is an easy one when one is sick of arguing about the same old stuff. A conscience still fighting the culture wars is no conscience at all, says the man who will throw out the first pitch of the next baseball season; until then, I’ll be digging in to that batter’s box.
03 November 2008
The Economist Endorses Obama
This week's issue of The Economist includes a much-anticipated endorsement of presidential candidate Barack Obama. The Economist is a publication that most of us owe a great deal to for helping shape our politics in a classically liberal fashion in our most formative intellectual years. It is out of respect that we respond.
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
I suppose it might be a self-acknowledged stretch for the magazine to use the phrase "wholeheartedly" here, as they proceed to enumerate a number of significant caveats. A theme running through this response will be that the magazine is casting aside many of its deeply-held principles in making this endorsement. Paying lip service to Obama's "inexperience," "lack of clarity" and "the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress" is a clear example.
The endorsement succinctly discusses the long-term challenges our next president will face. The distinction it makes between the two candidates is the marginalization of "the real John McCain" and "the compelling and detailed portrait" of Barack Obama. If the endorsement is about how well each campaign was run, perhaps the magazine is right to support the Democrat. However, the magazine's editorial stance almost always comes down to policy. So is there too little substantial difference between them (in which case the 'transformational' factors of each candidate is the tiebreaker), or is the magazine flying by the seat of its pants?
If The Economist doesn't like the 'fake' John McCain, well, that's fine to a point. Some of us are less inclined to read the 'fake' Economist, where the candidate who better represents the magazine's trade, spending, entitlements, energy, regulatory, education and Iraq policies loses out to the other candidate's 'coolness.'
It appears that The Economist is more willing to bet that the less-appealing rhetoric that John McCain has displayed throughout the campaign is a better indicator of his future in office than Barack Obama's. But it is not clear that the relevance of McCain's embrasure of the "theocratic culture wars" matches up to Obama's pledge to, say, re-negotiate NAFTA. And if a portion of all of this is rhetoric and a portion is promise, The Economist doesn't really attempt to distinguish between the two. Perhaps the best way is to look at experience, an area in which the magazine already admitted Obama is lacking.
Alas, we eventually get to the heart of the matter:
So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
Once upon a time The Economist's definition of "governing well" included beneficial public policy.
On Obama's thin resume, the magazine points out that he possesses the right management skills regardless. Surely he is a thoughtful, intelligent and capable man. It's the response to the second point that seems to shine some light on what this endorsement is all about. The Economist is impressed that in the heat of the campaign, Mr. Obama moved (however slightly) to the center, while Mr. McCain moved (however slightly) to the right.
This is the kind of stuff that the magazine would ordinarily dismiss as "electioneering." This is what people do when they run for office. They pivot in various directions as a result of various electoral conditions. Whether or not each candidate moved one way at some point is not nearly as important as where they are or or where they might go next. At least with McCain we know where he's governed from for the past twenty years. And we know that Obama is far more compatible with a Democratic Congress that The Economist has been quick to criticize. Surely the magazine will be disappointed when the next pivot results in a bundle of new agricultural subsidies, or vastly increased Medicare spending, or an irresponsible timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfill his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
I never thought that The Economist, of all things, might deserve an Obama presidency too.
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
I suppose it might be a self-acknowledged stretch for the magazine to use the phrase "wholeheartedly" here, as they proceed to enumerate a number of significant caveats. A theme running through this response will be that the magazine is casting aside many of its deeply-held principles in making this endorsement. Paying lip service to Obama's "inexperience," "lack of clarity" and "the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress" is a clear example.
The endorsement succinctly discusses the long-term challenges our next president will face. The distinction it makes between the two candidates is the marginalization of "the real John McCain" and "the compelling and detailed portrait" of Barack Obama. If the endorsement is about how well each campaign was run, perhaps the magazine is right to support the Democrat. However, the magazine's editorial stance almost always comes down to policy. So is there too little substantial difference between them (in which case the 'transformational' factors of each candidate is the tiebreaker), or is the magazine flying by the seat of its pants?
If The Economist doesn't like the 'fake' John McCain, well, that's fine to a point. Some of us are less inclined to read the 'fake' Economist, where the candidate who better represents the magazine's trade, spending, entitlements, energy, regulatory, education and Iraq policies loses out to the other candidate's 'coolness.'
It appears that The Economist is more willing to bet that the less-appealing rhetoric that John McCain has displayed throughout the campaign is a better indicator of his future in office than Barack Obama's. But it is not clear that the relevance of McCain's embrasure of the "theocratic culture wars" matches up to Obama's pledge to, say, re-negotiate NAFTA. And if a portion of all of this is rhetoric and a portion is promise, The Economist doesn't really attempt to distinguish between the two. Perhaps the best way is to look at experience, an area in which the magazine already admitted Obama is lacking.
Alas, we eventually get to the heart of the matter:
So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
Once upon a time The Economist's definition of "governing well" included beneficial public policy.
On Obama's thin resume, the magazine points out that he possesses the right management skills regardless. Surely he is a thoughtful, intelligent and capable man. It's the response to the second point that seems to shine some light on what this endorsement is all about. The Economist is impressed that in the heat of the campaign, Mr. Obama moved (however slightly) to the center, while Mr. McCain moved (however slightly) to the right.
This is the kind of stuff that the magazine would ordinarily dismiss as "electioneering." This is what people do when they run for office. They pivot in various directions as a result of various electoral conditions. Whether or not each candidate moved one way at some point is not nearly as important as where they are or or where they might go next. At least with McCain we know where he's governed from for the past twenty years. And we know that Obama is far more compatible with a Democratic Congress that The Economist has been quick to criticize. Surely the magazine will be disappointed when the next pivot results in a bundle of new agricultural subsidies, or vastly increased Medicare spending, or an irresponsible timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfill his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
I never thought that The Economist, of all things, might deserve an Obama presidency too.
29 October 2008
Election Choice(s)
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has been running 'The Election Choice' series about major policy differences between the two candidates. Here is what they have so far:
Health Care (Joseph Rago)
Taxes (Brian M. Carney)
Unions (Jason L. Riley)
Energy (Joseph Rago)
Trade (Mary Anastasia O'Grady)
Education (Joseph Rago)
More issues to be posted daily.
Health Care (Joseph Rago)
Taxes (Brian M. Carney)
Unions (Jason L. Riley)
Energy (Joseph Rago)
Trade (Mary Anastasia O'Grady)
Education (Joseph Rago)
More issues to be posted daily.
28 October 2008
A reason to worry?
Steven Calabresi gives his thoughts on the impact Barack Obama, if elected, could have on our federal courts. This excerpt sums up a large issue at stake in the upcoming election:
If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.
25 October 2008
Fred Smith on taxes
I just came across this wonderful article in today's Wall Street Journal. FedEx CEO Fred Smith points out some essentials to improving our economy, including lowering the corporate tax rate, opening our borders, and providing incentives to our nation's workers. Here's some of the highlights, part of which directly relates to Zach's post three days ago.
"The politicians deplore the fact that we have a disparity of income," he says, but "the only way to make a blue-collar person earn more is to invest in capital, training and infrastructure. So the more you tax capital, the more you hurt workers." He estimates that about 70% of the return from FedEx capital expenditures is captured by workers in the form of higher wages as their productivity rises.He sees a big problem in that so few Americans now pay any income tax. "We're now at a point where a very large part of the population pays no federal income tax at all. When you have a majority of the population that realizes that you can transfer money from the productive to themselves, that's one of the great questions for the future of civilization, as far as I'm concerned."
24 October 2008
Heller and Roe
Jason pointed us to this gem from The New York Times Washington section, written by Adam Liptak. And it pains me to say that our criticism is less directed at any Times writer than the eminently respectable Judges J. Harvey Wilkinson III and Richard A. Posner. The article details the (probably exaggerated) criticisms of the recent D.C. v. Heller decision by conservative legal theorists, comparing the reasoning to, of all cases, the majority in Roe.
This is what Antonin Scalia means, in his Heller majority opinion, when he says that certain policy options are off the table. If the Second Amendment did not exist, or if an abortion amendment did, the 'conservative' legal reasoning on both issues would be far more similar. Scalia et al. would have been happy to leave absolute gun control to the political process if it was something the Constitution allowed the political process to consider.
Scalia and District Court Judge Laurence Silberman provide further historical evidence regarding the term 'militia.' Needless to say, the framers were not thinking of any arm of government, like the National Guard, that would be tasked with saving itself from itself. They were referring to bands of neighbors and citizens who may find it necessary to form a militia to defend their rights against a particular regime. If this seems outdated and absurd today, the amendment process is quite explicit too.
The judges [Wilkinson and Posner] used what in conservative legal circles are the ultimate fighting words: They said the gun ruling was a right-wing version of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Scalia has said that Roe had no basis in the Constitution and amounted to a judicial imposition of a value judgment that should have been left to state legislatures.
Comparisons of the two decisions, then, seemed calculated to sting.
Not quite. There are certainly practical reasons why judges might defer to legislatures (as the pragmatist Posner will tell you). Originalist jurisprudence, however, holds that issues like abortion should be left to state legislatures because that is what the Constitution intended. Nowhere in the text of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is there an explicit right to privacy that the Roe majority so egregiously relied upon. The framers of the Bill of Rights quite explicitly, whether people wish they had or not, dealt with firearms.
This is what Antonin Scalia means, in his Heller majority opinion, when he says that certain policy options are off the table. If the Second Amendment did not exist, or if an abortion amendment did, the 'conservative' legal reasoning on both issues would be far more similar. Scalia et al. would have been happy to leave absolute gun control to the political process if it was something the Constitution allowed the political process to consider.
“In both Roe and Heller,” Judge Wilkinson wrote, “the court claimed to find in the Constitution the authority to overrule the wishes of the people’s representatives. In both cases, the constitutional text did not clearly mandate the result, and the court had discretion to decide the case either way.”Wilkinson is correct in one regard. This is exactly what the court did in Roe. But any other reading of the Second Amendment besides one that guarantees an individual right is sorely mistaken. The text is as follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Nowhere else in the Bill of Rights does the phrase "right of the people" refer to a government's right instead of an individual's. The Bill of Rights was adopted, after much petitioning on the part of anti-federalists, to protect rights of individuals against the state. Just because we tend to think of rights these days as entitlements doesn't mean this has any basis in historical, Constitutional reality.
Scalia and District Court Judge Laurence Silberman provide further historical evidence regarding the term 'militia.' Needless to say, the framers were not thinking of any arm of government, like the National Guard, that would be tasked with saving itself from itself. They were referring to bands of neighbors and citizens who may find it necessary to form a militia to defend their rights against a particular regime. If this seems outdated and absurd today, the amendment process is quite explicit too.
“There is now a real risk that the Second Amendment will damage conservative judicial philosophy” [says Wilkinson] as much as Roe “damaged its liberal counterpart.”The difference is that liberal judicial philosophy is whatever liberal judges want it to be. Heller does not change the fact that originalists place the utmost respect in what the Constitution allows and forbids.
23 October 2008
Cartoon of the Day
This cartoon has been making its way through the conservative blogosphere. Hat tip: JJG.
22 October 2008
Lerrick and the "Tax Tipping Point"
Adam Lerrick, economics professor at Carnegie Mellon, wrote a nice article for The Wall Street Journal's editorial page today which asks, "How long before taxpayers are pushed too far?" He discusses the implications of Barack Obama's proposed tax code, based around the always-nebulous liberal concept of 'fairness,' on our nation's most productive workers.
It's certainly worth a read, as is the entire page, but his succinct summation of the process already underway was my favorite part:
It's certainly worth a read, as is the entire page, but his succinct summation of the process already underway was my favorite part:
The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.
21 October 2008
Whither Burke?
Edmund Burke's Wikipedia page is not particularly impressive. It consists of a biography, a summary of his positions on the American and French Revolutions, and a "legacy" section that contains mostly quotes from his admirers and critics. There is little about his thought that is not tied up in specifics. Ludwig Wittgenstein's page appears to be at least five times as long.
It would be a lot to ask college students, who seem to detest anything that could possibly be labeled 'conservative', to read Burke. It is not a lot to ask the philosophic and academic communities to give him the time of day. And it could only help the state of conservative discourse in this country to heed Burke as a starting point before we get into whatever it is we've been getting ourselves into.
Italian Unification was achieved by a brain, a heart and a sword. There is not a lack of the latter in American conservatism, for it would be hasty to say that much air has been let out of our status as a center-right nation of, largely, patriots. There is plenty of the former. Those of us initially attracted to conservatism because of its empirical aims have more data than we can parse to use against opponents of a flat tax, or sound money or the surge. The American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation, last I checked, are still productive.
But Giuseppe Mazzini's arrival continuously eludes us. We have endorsed and supported McCain-Palin for more than a few reasons, many of which we may discuss in the next two weeks (full disclosure: the author has been associated with the campaign). There is little doubt in our mind that McCain-Palin is the less expensive, more responsible and generally preferable option. Still, no one has prioritized reestablishing a foothold in an intellectual tradition that, ultimately, provides the soil for conservative policy ideals. Some of us saw the plants flourish and looked for the seeds, but for most conservatives the process is more linear. It makes more sense.
What is the reason that conservatives seek high office? Do they want to talk about people, to people or with people? Where does our seriousness come from? And what are the implications of our thought?
I see John McCain and Sarah Palin every night. Where is Edmund Burke?
It would be a lot to ask college students, who seem to detest anything that could possibly be labeled 'conservative', to read Burke. It is not a lot to ask the philosophic and academic communities to give him the time of day. And it could only help the state of conservative discourse in this country to heed Burke as a starting point before we get into whatever it is we've been getting ourselves into.
Italian Unification was achieved by a brain, a heart and a sword. There is not a lack of the latter in American conservatism, for it would be hasty to say that much air has been let out of our status as a center-right nation of, largely, patriots. There is plenty of the former. Those of us initially attracted to conservatism because of its empirical aims have more data than we can parse to use against opponents of a flat tax, or sound money or the surge. The American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation, last I checked, are still productive.
But Giuseppe Mazzini's arrival continuously eludes us. We have endorsed and supported McCain-Palin for more than a few reasons, many of which we may discuss in the next two weeks (full disclosure: the author has been associated with the campaign). There is little doubt in our mind that McCain-Palin is the less expensive, more responsible and generally preferable option. Still, no one has prioritized reestablishing a foothold in an intellectual tradition that, ultimately, provides the soil for conservative policy ideals. Some of us saw the plants flourish and looked for the seeds, but for most conservatives the process is more linear. It makes more sense.
What is the reason that conservatives seek high office? Do they want to talk about people, to people or with people? Where does our seriousness come from? And what are the implications of our thought?
I see John McCain and Sarah Palin every night. Where is Edmund Burke?
Election Time... Let's talk about trade
Seeing how this blog is not intended to be focused on sports, I find it necessary to address another topic. One of my favorites; free trade. The upcoming election provides us with two candidates whose voting records are entirely different. Senator McCain has been an unequivocal supporter of free trade whose voting record can be seen here. Despite his claims that he does, indeed, support free trade, Senator Obama's voting record and economic plan suggest otherwise. Hopefully, if elected, Senator Obama will revoke his populist comments, but his prior record gives us little reason to believe that that will be the case.
More Athletics
Congratulations to Scott Mosher and the Essex boys soccer team for solidifying the top seed in the upcoming playoffs. Unfortunately, the season ended with a heartbreaking 1-0 loss to North Country, but a 13-1 record is not too shabby. Hopes are high for the Tri-Sabers in their attempt to bring the trophy back to Essex in the year of the program's 50th anniversary. They play their quarterfinal match on Friday against the winner of Burlington vs. Brattleboro. Assuming the favored Burlington wins, they could provide a tough test after only losing to Essex 1-0 a couple weeks ago. Essex certainly has a big edge, but Burlington's goalie is very good and sometimes a hot goalie and a lucky break is all it takes to win a soccer game. Fortunately, Essex boasts David Ramada (who, according to my unbiased opinion, is the top netminder in the state) and some talented underclassmen scattered across the field. They shouldn't have too much trouble claiming a spot in the quarterfinals. If anyone wants to read more on the Tri-Sabres and their outlook on the postseason, I'm sure that "Sport Shorts" in the Essex Reporter will have some in-depth analysis on the upcoming matchups.
20 October 2008
MVP thoughts
It's that time of year when we get to hear utterly ridiculous arguments as to why various undeserving players somehow deserve the MVP award. The two races this year are both intriguing, yet completely different. In the NL you have many very good players, but one, Albert Pujols, who is head and shoulders above the rest. In the AL the story is different, many solid players, but none of whom stand out. Here's my rankings:
3. Grady Sizemore- 3.48 WPA (5th) , 62.7 VORP (2nd), 8.1 WARP1, .374 OBP, .502 SLG, 38 SB/5 CS, "clutch" 0.64 (12th)
2. Dustin Pedroia- 3.29 WPA (6th), 62.3 VORP (3rd), 9.8 WARP1, .376 OBP, .493 SLG, 20 SB/1 CS, "clutch" 1.47 (1st)
1. Joe Mauer- 4.88 WPA (1st), 55.5 VORP (8th), 9.6 WARP1, .413 OBP, .451 SLG, "clutch" 1.42 (2nd)
These three would be followed by A-Rod, Kevin Youkilis, Carlos Quentin, Aubrey Huff, Josh Hamilton, Justin Morneau, and Ian Kinsler. Best of luck to all the candidates, may the most valuable player, and preferably the most noble, win.
3. Grady Sizemore- 3.48 WPA (5th) , 62.7 VORP (2nd), 8.1 WARP1, .374 OBP, .502 SLG, 38 SB/5 CS, "clutch" 0.64 (12th)
2. Dustin Pedroia- 3.29 WPA (6th), 62.3 VORP (3rd), 9.8 WARP1, .376 OBP, .493 SLG, 20 SB/1 CS, "clutch" 1.47 (1st)
1. Joe Mauer- 4.88 WPA (1st), 55.5 VORP (8th), 9.6 WARP1, .413 OBP, .451 SLG, "clutch" 1.42 (2nd)
These three would be followed by A-Rod, Kevin Youkilis, Carlos Quentin, Aubrey Huff, Josh Hamilton, Justin Morneau, and Ian Kinsler. Best of luck to all the candidates, may the most valuable player, and preferably the most noble, win.
Manifestly Even, If That Makes Sense
Tampa Bay: 97-65, 4.78 Runs Scored/Game, 4.14 Runs Allowed/Game
Boston: 95-67, 5.22 Runs Scored/Game, 4.26 Runs Allowed/Game
Tampa Bay: Pythagorean Over/Under 5.2 (wins over expected record)
Boston: Pythagorean Over/Under -1.0 (wins under expected record)
Tampa Bay: Hitter VORP 159.4, Pitcher VORP 291.0, Defensive Efficiency .710
Boston: Hitter VORP 238.4, Pitcher VORP 276.0, Defensive Efficiency .699
I would say, Jeremiah, that the only thing manifestly better about the Rays this season is their storyline.
Boston: 95-67, 5.22 Runs Scored/Game, 4.26 Runs Allowed/Game
Tampa Bay: Pythagorean Over/Under 5.2 (wins over expected record)
Boston: Pythagorean Over/Under -1.0 (wins under expected record)
Tampa Bay: Hitter VORP 159.4, Pitcher VORP 291.0, Defensive Efficiency .710
Boston: Hitter VORP 238.4, Pitcher VORP 276.0, Defensive Efficiency .699
I would say, Jeremiah, that the only thing manifestly better about the Rays this season is their storyline.
ALCS Lost, Virtue Regained?
This post may also appear in an upcoming issue of The Cowl, Providence College's student newspaper. Enjoy this sneak peak.
Rooting for the Red Sox during their 86-year championship draught was difficult, but good for the soul. It taught humility, perseverance and hope. Providence College President Fr. Brian Shanley, O.P., Ph.D., whose impressive moral character was formed during a lifetime of Fenway futility, often used to cite his Sox in reference to the problem of evil.
In 2004, however, the Red Sox won the World Series and everything changed. The virtuously loyal were justly rewarded, but sycophants flocked to the proverbial bandwagon. The concurrent success of the Patriots and Celtics created a perfect storm: the green-eyed monster of envy had metamorphosed into a Green Monster of jealousy, and an institutional feeling of entitlement loomed like a massive Citgo sign.
I am not denigrating this Red Sox team. I did not boo David Ortiz minutes before his miraculous home run. I was not affronted when the Red Sox lost the division, lost three games, and finally lost the ALCS, all to a manifestly better team. Job never did curse God; many Sox fans, however, have not even waited for the second cow to perish.
Let us hope this loss will restore some of the lost virtue to Red Sox fans. For an immediate boost in character, however, I suggest becoming a follower of our beloved New York Mets.
Rooting for the Red Sox during their 86-year championship draught was difficult, but good for the soul. It taught humility, perseverance and hope. Providence College President Fr. Brian Shanley, O.P., Ph.D., whose impressive moral character was formed during a lifetime of Fenway futility, often used to cite his Sox in reference to the problem of evil.
In 2004, however, the Red Sox won the World Series and everything changed. The virtuously loyal were justly rewarded, but sycophants flocked to the proverbial bandwagon. The concurrent success of the Patriots and Celtics created a perfect storm: the green-eyed monster of envy had metamorphosed into a Green Monster of jealousy, and an institutional feeling of entitlement loomed like a massive Citgo sign.
I am not denigrating this Red Sox team. I did not boo David Ortiz minutes before his miraculous home run. I was not affronted when the Red Sox lost the division, lost three games, and finally lost the ALCS, all to a manifestly better team. Job never did curse God; many Sox fans, however, have not even waited for the second cow to perish.
Let us hope this loss will restore some of the lost virtue to Red Sox fans. For an immediate boost in character, however, I suggest becoming a follower of our beloved New York Mets.
15 October 2008
Welcome to The Ennobler
The Ennobler is a blog designed to provide commentary on politics, law, philosophy, economics, religion, literature, ethics and even athletics.
We do not necessarily seek to create a forum for the support of free markets, individual autonomy, legal textualism, metaphysical truth or empirical verification. Our brand of conservatism will be dignified only if it deserves to be. Meanwhile, we seek to ennoble that which is worth ennobling.
Join us.
We do not necessarily seek to create a forum for the support of free markets, individual autonomy, legal textualism, metaphysical truth or empirical verification. Our brand of conservatism will be dignified only if it deserves to be. Meanwhile, we seek to ennoble that which is worth ennobling.
Join us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)