Fred, Huck and Rudy Part I

There appears to be a significant realignment of support in progress among Republicans who are following the primaries. Evangelical Christians are are re-assessing Rudy Giuliani and everyone is getting to know Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.

Fred Thompson was supposed to be the man we all wished were running. Socially and fiscally conservative. An able and winsome communicator. Federalism. Only one divorce, and that was a while ago. Experience in the Senate. But he took forever to get into the race. And now that he's in, where's the fire? Instead of exploding into the campaign as the obvious choice, he has people asking, "Is he too lazy to win?" Read "Idle Worship: In Praise of Fred Thompson" by Michael Crowley of the New Republic (October 25, 2007). He gives an unconvincing defense of Thompson's lackadaisical campaign style. He says we Americans work too hard. Perhaps we need another Calvin Coolidge in office who slept twelve hours a day. Oh but that was back before the President had lots to do as leader of the free world, not mention the vastly expanded domestic duties.

His Saturday Night Live character explained, "I'm not sayin' I don't want to be your president, because I kinda do." That's funny only because there's truth in it. But there is good reason that Alexander Hamilton believed it necessary that a strong presidency draw "men of ambition" to the office. People who combine ambition with virtue (or we would say drive and good character) are people who actually want to accomplish something in office. Reagan combined both of these qualities. Bill Clinton was ambitious, but only for power, money, babes and flying in a cool plane. Bob Dole just wanted his turn at the top. George Bush wanted to be "the education president" and then lost in 1992 because of his indifference toward re-election.

A president who is actually able to govern must have ambition. It is fundamental. Thompson has not demonstrated that he has this. There is a fault in being overly detail oriented. Jimmy Carter. A good President will make his principles clear, then delegate. But even so, the job is demanding. The consequences of falling short in that seat of power are vast.

Given this, I'm less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on his support for McCain-Feingold. Ann Coulter is quite opposed to him based exclusively it seems on his vote to oppose removing President Clinton from office in 1999. Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has abandoned ship. "If Thompson manages to slouch his way into St. Paul and gets the Republican nomination, he'll have my vote. But I refuse to continue putting more energy into supporting him than he's put into his own campaign." He and others at EO have thrown their support to Huckabee.

No African Development Without Local Political Wisdom

Everyone puzzles over Africa. Much of the world is enjoying runaway economic growth and increasingly widespread prosperity, but that huge and wealthy continent is left largely behind. It's a human tragedy. In today's Wall Street Journal, 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner, and one of the fathers of the 1960s Green Revolution in world food production, Norman Borlaug lays out what is required to save Africa from it's chronic development crisis. He emphasizes science and agriculture, but the subtext is a political challenge to the African leaders themselves.

He compares the Green Revolution in Asia to that of Africa. He says that small-holder agricultural production in sub-Saharan Africa has been especially anemic. Unlike Asia which has a good road and rail network, "African farmlands are generally isolated from motorized transport systems." In addition, population growth "has resulted in progressive -- and now often dramatic -- degradation of the soil resource base, while fertilizer use has hardly increased at all, and is the lowest in the world." Whereas agricultural R&D in Asia has tripled over the last 20 years, in Africa is has grown by only 20%, and in half the countries it has actually declined. This is especially tragic given the "special production circumstances" that put Africa in particular need of research and development investment.

He recommends a "broad and more integrated perspective" that focuses on "transforming staple-food production" and giving greater attention to "post-production market linkages -- especially to grain markets and agro-industrial food processing that offer off-farm employment opportunities." Improvement also requires "[s]ubstantially greater investments in infrastructure -- roads, electrical power, water resources." Without this, "there is little hope for real progress in reversing the alarming food insecurity trends or in making agriculture an engine of economic growth."

Borlaug has been calling for an African Green Revolution for years (e.g. International Herald Tribune 1992; New York Times 2003). He did his great work in the 1960s. He is 93 and he is still beating the drum for this cause. So what's the hold up? There is a important political aspect to all this that Borlaug touches upon at several points, but does not emphasize. Perhaps he is being subtle. Perhaps he is leaving it to the multitude of political leaders, government and NGO officials, journalists and scholars to see the political point and make it explicit. Let me do my part.

These nations are governed by more or less sovereign governments. Implementing many of his recommendations presupposes governments that actually care about their people, i.e. that they are not tyrannies which sadly many of them are. In his opening paragraph, concerning Asia's Green Revolution and the global development agenda, Borlaug quietly underscores the critical role that wise political leadership must play: "Research and development, political courage, effective policies and good governance were the driving forces." African leaders are not known for their"political courage, effective policies and good governance."

One cannot help but wonder why "political courage" should be necessary, at least at the highest levels of power. Why shouldn't crass self-interest and naked ambition not suffice to bring the thug-tyrants of the African continent into line with this program? Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe comes first to mind. It is a marvel, especially in view of the enormous productive power that modern economic and political principles have made possible, that they see their personal security, prosperity, and glory in brutalizing their peoples whom they keep in heart-rending poverty, rather than in securing their peoples' property, enriching their nations' economies and establishing themselves as the fathers and protectors of these accomplishments.

John Locke argued this point, appealing the the shrewdness of every ruler, in his great Second Treatise on Civil Government (section 42):

This shews how much numbers of men are to be preferred to largeness of dominions; and that the increase of lands, and the right employing of them, is the great art of government: and that prince, who shall be so wise and godlike, as by established laws of liberty to secure protection and encouragement to the honest industry of mankind, against the oppression of power and narrowness of party, will quickly be too hard for his neighbours.

I am not an Africa specialist by any measure, but as a student of politics I find Africa a vivid illustration (all too often a sad one) of many political principles, and of course it draws my Christian concern. You might refer back to two of my previous posts on Africa.

Debating Christianity? Debate Hitchens!

Miserable Old Sinner

Source: www.observer.com

We are debating all sorts of new ideas these days, from homosexual marriage to the flat tax. But strangely enough, we have also taken up debating Christianity which has been around for almost 2000 years (thousands more years if you trace it back to its seed in God's promise to Adam). Last night, The King's College, along with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and ToTheSource.org, sponsored a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens on the question, "Is Christianity the Problem?" (The debate will be aired on BookTV (C-SPAN2), Saturday, October 27, at 7 p.m., or you can view it on The King's College webite) Of course, this debate is in response not only to Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, but also to a wave of angry, aggressively atheist books that argue not only that religion is delusional, but also that, for the sake of humanity, it should be wiped out and religious people should be disenfranchised.

I seriously wonder if Hitchens actually believes this stuff he spouts, or if he is largely an entertainer, something like a shock jock for the literati. He mentioned that Giuseppe Verdi, though he wrote beautiful sacred music for the Catholic Church, was himself an unbeliever. There was good money in it. It is possible that Hitchens is writing these books because they create controversy, and controversy sells books and produces lucrative speaking tours. If I am right, look for a well timed Hitchens conversion and then another series of fortune-generating books and speaking engagements.

As for the debate itself, I think that I am the only one at The King's College who thinks that Hitchens won. (Correct me if I am wrong...about being the only one, that is.) Not that I think he argued the correct position, but his arguments were more forceful and went unrefuted. He attacked Christianity on three points. God’s sovereign rule itself (God is a divine totalitarian despot who wants us groveling in slavish subservience), God’s providential ordering of history (he has watched the torture chamber that is human history, only to intervene much too late with a solution that only compounds the problem), and the redemptive work of Christ in his death and resurrection (barbaric, sadistic nonsense). D’Souza had nothing to say in response. He offered ad hominim arguments (Hitchens hates God) and some charges of logical inconsistency (Hitchens traces the horrors of modern totalitarianism back to Christianity where he lays the blame, but does not trace his own moral sentiments to the same source, as he ought, and offer praise). But his opponent’s blasphemous charges lay untouched.

This is the poverty of classical, evidentialist apologetics. D’Souza restricted himself from the outset to naturalistic arguments, foreswearing reference to Scripture. He caged the lion. For his part, Hitchens, who knows all those arguments, used the Bible freely. A good student or Cornelius Van Til with a presuppositionalist apologetic would have struck at the root of the disagreement, and had this guy for breakfast, as formidable as he is. Hitchens’ attack was at the biblical and theological level, where the Christian should have had the advantage. (“The cross is monstrous? Yes it is! Because sin is monstrous! You know it is!”) Had D’Souza presented a biblically more sophisticated and theologically more substantive rebuttal, he could have educated the audience and exposed Hitchens as the straw man slayer that he is. Instead, he wasted his time with discussions about science and the laws of nature, and with various sociological, consequentialist defenses. (Look at all the hospitals, and see how we abolished slavery.) Of course D'Souza made many excellent points, though Hitchens ably countered many of them. But D'Souza was defending the religion while Hitchens was attacking the faith.

Source: www.stanfordreview.org

But this also is worth mentioning. I was struck during the debate with how cheerful D'Souza seemed and how clearly miserable Hitchens is. After the debate, one of my students asked him if he is happy. He said no, but his goal is not to be happy. Of course, that is nonsense. Everyone seeks happiness, even if sometimes perversely in self-indulgent grumpiness. Someone else remarked on his continuous drinking. He said that he drinks so that the people around him will appear more interesting than they are. So he hates life and he generally dislikes the people with whom he has to share it. But it is religion that poisons everything. If religion, or even the Lord himself, is not the source of well-being in this world, Christopher Hitchens cannot offer anything in himself or in his experience as an alternative.

In the Q&A, another of my students, a mature student from Tonga, posed one of the best questions of the evening to Prof. Hitchens. He said that before Christianity came to his region, people in Figi were eating each other and on his own island...well, all he said was "what a mess!" He then asked, "If you had arrived there first, what would you have offered us in place of Christianity." Hitchens did not answer the question, but instead returned to an earlier rant against God for leaving such people in misery without intervening with effective relief. That silence in response to the student's simple challenge spoke volumes to anyone who was listening.


Let me repeat, you can view the debate on The King's College website at www.tkc.edu/debate/

The last word goes to the Lord (as of course in the end it will):

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (I Cornthians 1:18-25 ESV)

Safe in the Clintons' Arms

A few weeks ago (Sept. 25), I posted on Hillary's watch-the-debate-with-Bill lottery. Well, the Clinton campaign has announced the winners. They are two women (undisclosed age and body type) and one man. So, it seems, there will indeed be an outside male chaperon.

Hillary's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, emailed me to say (she's quite diligent to keep me in the loop), "Clare from Beaumont, Texas; Glenda from Spring Hill, Kansas; and David from Melrose Park, Illinois are the winners of our debate contest and will be traveling to New York to watch the October 30 debate with President Clinton and John Grisham."

David of Melrose Park is reported to have said, "I am SO excited to meet former President Bill Clinton and the added bonus of meeting John Grisham! Many of my friends are jealous. I voted for President Clinton twice and was very proud of everything he did while in office and still am, watching all of the good things he's been doing. Now, it's GO HILLARY!" (emphasis added)

I notice that only "most" of his friends envy him (it's envy, David, not jealousy...a common mistake). Some of his friends must be Republicans, or they're Democrats with good memories.

As he voted for President Clinton twice (I assume that he means in separate elections; perhaps I'm naive), he must be at least 33. So he is old enough to be a restraining influence on any potential "living room snugglefest" with the fun-loving former President.

But this may be an unwarranted assumption. The unrepentant, two-time Clinton supporter then adds that he "was very proud of everything he [Clinton] did while in office." Everything? Of course, any President is bound to have a morally mixed time of service to one extent or another. They are drawn from among us, and so, like us, they are human, all too human. But one of the distinguishing features of Bubba's presidency was behavior of a particularly lurid sort with a young intern in the oval office itself that led to impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate, a scandal and controversy that dominated most of his second term.

With reference to this particular President, you cannot say that you are "proud of everything he did while in office" without affirming your moral indifference to his adulterous, lecherous and at times criminal escapades, all of which were well publicized and beyond dispute by reasonable people of goodwill. The Clinton campaign strategists, who no doubt wrote the statements from all three lottery winners, are either genuinely blind to the issue, or they are using the subtext of the statement to signal a reaffirmation of the moral character of the first two Clinton terms and a continuation of it in the next two.

So David of Melrose Park may not be any use to Clare and Glenda as a restraining presence anyway. And perhaps it's not an issue.

One more observation: the campaign has the two women speaking exclusively about Hillary, whereas the only man in the group speaks solely in praise of Bill.

Clare: "Obviously, I think it's important for America and the world that a Democrat wins the White House. Hillary's my choice because she has the best experience and the deepest knowledge of the issues. She is a leader ready to repair America's standing in the world, put the economy back on track, and end the Iraq war with diplomacy and patience." (Then comes David's "quote," followed by...)

Glenda: "I believe Hillary has the qualities to get things done for the American people, to make America the best place to live, and to help America get along with the rest of the world."

There's strategy in that. These are very clever people.

Schools Supplying Birth Control to 11 Year Olds

AP reports that the Portland School Committee voted 7-2 yesterday to make a full range of contraceptives available, including birth control pills, to middle school children as young as 11 years old.

Committee member Robert O'Brien (not one of the two dissenters, it seems) assures us that distribution would only follow "extensive counseling" and would not be given to prepubescent children. This is his notion of scrupulous moral responsibility as a public educator.

"Students would need parental permission to use the city-run health center in the school, but they wouldn't have to tell them they were seeking birth control." (AP)

Nancy Gibbs at TIME adds,

"Parents would have to consent for their children to be treated at the King Middle School clinic, but the nature of the treatment provided, including prescribing contraception, falls under state laws protecting patient privacy."

No doubt these schools are willing to discipline or counsel (as appropriate) any of these children on a range of behavioral issues, even bringing the parents into the process. But when children as young as 11 are having sexual intercourse, suddenly its a privacy issue. But an 11 year old is not making an adult choice when engaging in this adult behavior. He or she is being exploited and needs to be protected, not from his or her parents but from the sexual "partner." Those in charge of the Portland school system, however, think of themselves as "protecting" the children by supplying them with birth control and keeping the matter a secret from the parents.

Because you are surely wondering, here is the answer from AP: "Sex with a nonspousal minor under 14 is considered gross sexual assault in Maine, and officials said it was unclear whether nurses at the health center would be required to report such activities."

Advocates claim that they are simply facing reality:

"Five of the 134 students who visited King Middle School's health center last year admitted they were sexually active; in the last four years, Portland's three middle schools reported 17 pregnancies, not counting miscarriages or unreported pregnancies that ended in abortions." (TIME)

From this, writer Nancy Gibbs reasons that, "...while ideally parents should be responsible for transmitting information and values to their children, the school has a responsibility to children whose parents can't or won't do so." She takes it as axiomatic that government schools have a responsibility to become the parents of children whose actual parents appear to be deficient. There's one of the problems right there.

Further facts from TIME:

• "Roughly 30% of the country's 1,700 school health clinics offer some form of contraception, but condoms are far more common than prescription contraception."

• "Maine Middle schoolers, like kids all across the country, are already postponing sex longer: The percentage who reported having sexual intercourse dropped from 23% in 1997 to 13% in 2005, according to the Maine Youth Risk Behavior Survey."

Again I ask: Why do people continue to send their children to government schools? You do this even knowing that, should your child enter into moral confusion, the school will facilitate it by supplying birth control without your knowledge, even birth control pills which (for good medical reason) are prescription drugs.

What does it take before the leaders in our nation -- from the school committees and town councils to the United States Congress -- and those who elect them see that a community cannot live this way and continue as a community in the proper sense of the world. These people have the same moral outlook that defended leniency for criminals and liberty for the insane while New York City was slipping into anarchy in the 1970s and 1980s. A people cannot adopt the moral premises that our cultural leaders defend and continue as a productive and civil people.

Parents of Portland! You know the seven who voted for this. Throw the bums out!

Meanwhile, consider this freak show of quotations:

Gov. John Baldacci said he had reservations about the program and was trying to learn more. (AP)

Carol Schiller, the mother of a boy and girl who graduated from King, said she was "elated" at the committee's vote. She said critics shocked that 11-year-olds have sex should "get over it." She added, "It's much more important that we reach out to these kids and get them the tools they need to stay safe, stay in school and get an education." (AP)

One committee member, Sarah Thompson, mother of an eighth grader, admitted that the proposal made her "uncomfortable," but she understood the need. "I know I've done my job as a parent," Thompson said. "[But there] may be a time when she doesn't feel comfortable coming to me [and] not all these kids have a strong parental advocate at home." (TIME)

December 14, 2007: AP supplied this correction in the comments. In light of this, Mrs Schiller's idea of "reaching out" to sexually active children is only slightly less appalling, but appalling just the same.

¶ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) _ In an Oct. 18 story about contraceptive prescriptions provided at King Middle School health clinic, The Associated Press quoted Carol Schiller, a mother, saying that critics who are shocked that 11-year-olds have sex "should get over it." Schiller now says she was referring to 14- and 15-year-old middle school students, rather than the youngest students at the school. The story should have specified the age range.

Some Recent Good Political Books

Here are five interesting political books that have come to my attention.

The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America (Penguin Press, 2004), by two writers for the Economist, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge. These men are not themselves conservatives and have the advantage of being outsiders looking in. That does not make them objective, but it does give them a distance that can be helpful. From the flap: “In a relatively short span of time, because of the conservative movement’s power, America has veered sharply to the right, so that now, compared with Europe or even with America under Richard Nixon, we are a distinctly more conservative nation in many crucial respects no matter which party occupies the Oval Office.” I found their chapter on the birth of the conservative movement in America particularly informative.

A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State (Ivan R. Dee, 2007) is the latest book from church historian Darryl Hart, formerly at Wheaton and now at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Hart argues that “when Christians have tried to establish a Christian basis for the planks of political party platforms, or even for broad-based social reforms, they have fundamentally misconstrued their religion” (pp.10f.). Christianity is apolitical in the sense that “Christianity is essentially a spiritual and eternal faith, one occupied with a world to come rather than the passing and temporal affairs of this world” (p.12). That does not entail cultural withdrawal for Christians. He alerts us, however, to the difference between “the work the church is called to do in proclaiming the message of Christianity and the vocations to which church members are called as citizens” (p.14). The book is provocative. It is annoying however that in place of footnotes, he has left us with a seven page “note on sources” where he discusses the various works he used.

Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views (IVP, 2007), edited by P.C. Kemeny, addresses the question of the Christian view of the just political order as Gary Scott Smith did almost twenty years ago in God and Politics (P&R, 1989). Whereas Smith viewed the matter strictly from within the Protestant tradition (theonomy, principled pluralism, Christian America and national confessionalism), Kemeny is more catholic. The five views he includes are from Clark E. Cochran, a Roman Catholic, Derek H. Davis, speaking for classical separation, Corwin Smidt for principled pluralism, Ronald Sider for the Anabaptist tradition, and J. Philip Wogaman brings the social justice perspective. They are all described a “perspectives,” and each one is followed by a response from each of the other four. Kemeny teaches religion and humanities at Grove City College.

Christianity and American Democracy (Harvard, 2007) by Hugh Heclo of George Mason University is Harvard’s second annual Alexis de Tocqueville Lecture on American Politics with three responses. From the flap: “Christianity, not religion in general, has been important for American democracy. With this bold thesis, Hugh Heclo offers a panoramic view of how Christianity and democracy have shaped each other. Heclo shows that amid deeply felt religious differences, a Protestant colonial society gradually convinced itself of the truly Christian reasons for, as well as the enlightened political advantages of, religious liberty. By the mid-twentieth century, American Christianity and democracy appeared locked in a mutual embrace. But it was a problematic union vulnerable to fundamental challenge in the Sixties. Despite the subsequent rise of the religious right and glib talk of a conservative Republican theocracy, Heclo sees a longer term, reciprocal estrangement between Christianity and American democracy.” Heclo suggests that “both secularists and Christians should worry about a coming rupture between the Christian and democratic faiths.”

Watch a video of Hugh Heclo's lecture, "Is America a 'Christian Nation'?"

The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective (Crossway, 2004) by Russell D. Moore examines this fundamentally important biblical concept in its connection with political life, and in the context of its eschatological, soteriological and ecclesiological meanings. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where Moore is dean of the School of Theology, says this: “For far too long, evangelicals have waited for a serious study of the Kingdom of God and its political application. That book has now arrived, and The Kingdom of Christ will redefine the conversation about evangelicalism and politics. Russell Moore combined stellar historical and theological research with a keen understanding of cultural and political realities. This is a landmark book by one of evangelicalism’s finest minds.”

Freedom's Orphans: Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children (Princeton, 2007) by David L. Tubbs, my colleague at The King's College here in New York City, is a scholarly reassessment of contemporary liberalism measured against it's effects on children, and thus eventually on everyone it governs and on the whole society they constitute. From the cover: "Has conteporary liberalism's devotiuon to individual liberty come at the expense of our society's obligation to children?...Evaluating large changes in liberal political theory and jurisprudence particulalrly American liberalsim after the Second World War, avid Tubbs argues that an expansion of rights for adults has come at a high and generally unnoticed cost. In championing new 'lifestyle' freedoms, liberal jurists and theorists have ignored, forgotten, or discounbted the competing interests of children. In the porocess of his argument, he engages Isaiah Berlin, Ronald Dworkin, and Susan Moller Okin, among others. He also analyses three key deveopments in American civil liberties: the emergence of the 'right to privacy' in sexual and reproductive matters; the abandonment of the traditional standard for obscenity prosecutions; and the gradual aceptance of the doctrine of 'strict separation' between religion and public life."

Liberty Winning Against Islamic Libel War

For anyone who does not know, City Journal was the think tank behind Mayor Giuliani's revitalization of New York City (perhaps "reconquest" is just as apt a word) in the 1990s. Peggy Noonan still calls it "the best magazine in America."

Judith Miller has a story in the recent issue following up on an issue I addressed in two previous posts, Troubling Saudi Arms Deal and Follow-up on Saudi Terror Funding. Well-funded Islamic organizations and individuals have found it more prudent in the West to silence their critics with libels suits than with violence. If nothing else, the victims pay your expenses. (And you can't beat that!) Recent cases, however, at least in this country, have been discouraging that sort of legal brutality.

• In 2006, Yale University Press published a book on Hamas by Matthew Levitt of the Institute for Near East Policy. KinderUSA, an Islamic charity, and its board chairman, Laila Al-Marayati, brought a libel suit against Levitt and Yale UP in California state court for linking them with the terrorist organization. In June, Levitt charged his accusers with bringing a SLAPP suit (strategic litigation against public participation), i.e. a suit designed not seriously to recover damages, but simply to intimidate. They won. KinderUSA backed off.

• In May, the Islamic Society of Boston dropped a suit against the Boston Herald and others for claiming that they had been passing funds to terrorist organizations. In the course of the trial, it came to light that the ISB had in fact given money to two groups on the government's list of terrorist organizations.

• Earlier this year, six Muslim imams who had been removed from a flight for reportedly suspicious behavior sued US Airways, the Minneapolis airport and several passengers who had reported them. In August, they dropped their suit after Congress passed a law, sponsored by my Congressman, Rep. Peter King (R-LI), protecting such civic spirited tips from intimidating lawsuits. Plaintiffs must prove that the finger pointers lied or they must pay all court and legal fees.

That sounds like a series of victories for domestic Tranquility, the common defence, the general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty. Were KinderUSA or the Islamic Society of Boston falsely accused? I am not in a position to judge with certainty, though I certainly have my inclinations on the matter. Either way, the remedy is not to shut down all public inquiry and discussion on the matter -- which has been the effect of plaintiff-friendly libel laws in Britain. Rather, aggrieved parties should defend the truth by challenging and refuting their accusers in public debate.

Without Christianity, We Are Not America

Jon Meacham, Newsweek editor, has a really fine, well informed and nicely balanced essay in the New York Times, "A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation" (October 7, 2007), responding to Sen. John McCain's remark in a recent Beliefnet.com interview that, "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

He begins by stating what is called the Theologico-Political Problem, the inescapable limitation on Christian political allegiances on account of a Christian's prior allegiance to the holy God who transcends and judges all nations.

According to Scripture,...believers are to be wary of all mortal powers. Their home is the kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly things, not any particular nation-state. The Psalmist advises believers to “put not your trust in princes.” The author of Job says that the Lord “shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they are all the work of his hands.” Before Pilate, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” And if, as Paul writes in Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then it is difficult to see how there could be a distinction in God’s eyes between, say, an American and an Australian. In fact, there is no distinction if you believe Peter’s words in the Acts of the Apostles: “I most certainly believe now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him.”

He reviews some noteworthy counterfactuals from the historical record, including the Constitution itself, Thomas Jefferson (who was not at the Constitutional Convention), and George Washington. (It is interesting that the editor of Newsweek, to determine what "the Constitution established," looks in large part to the expressed intention of the Framers and of the Founding generation. He must be a judicial conservative.)

The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed. ...

Thomas Jefferson said that his bill for religious liberty in Virginia was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination.” When George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789, Gershom Seixas, the hazan of Shearith Israel, was listed among the city’s clergymen (there were 14 in New York at the time) — a sign of acceptance and respect. The next year, Washington wrote the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., saying, “happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Meacham shows his sobriety on the subject when he recognizes the good conscience these Founders had when speaking of God in public pronouncements. He even points to the fundamental and vital connection between God and "the founding principle of the nation -- that all men are created equal...."

He closes with a classic "original intent" argument, relating how the Senate in 1790 established in law a denial of Sen. McCain's proposition.

In the 1790s, in the waters off Tripoli, pirates were making sport of American shipping near the Barbary Coast. Toward the end of his second term, Washington sent Joel Barlow, the diplomat-poet, to Tripoli to settle matters, and the resulting treaty, finished after Washington left office, bought a few years of peace. Article 11 of this long-ago document says that “as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” there should be no cause for conflict over differences of “religious opinion” between countries.

Touché.

The article is sweet music to my ears as far as it goes. But it does not settle all questions. He tells us that, "Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed 'Christian amendment' to the Constitution to declare the nation’s fealty to Jesus." America rejected it, but does Psalm 2:10 require it?

Though the Constitution studiously avoids a religious foundation for the regime, is such a foundation presupposed? For example, does the American republican system of electoral accountability, separation of powers, and checks and balances presuppose a Christian view of human depravity?

Does the Constitution require a particular sort of character in most citizens? Since we're quoting Washington, we should remember his Farewell Address (1796): "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports....And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Granted, he says "religion," not Christianity in particular. But shouldn't we recognize that some religions are more supportive of individual self-restraint, mutual respect and industrious habits than others?

Also, some religions are so inherently political, such as Islam, that with a critical mass of adherents they would, by their very nature, present a popular threat to the Constitution.

So while Meacham makes an excellent point, it is still fair to ask, were Christianity to disappear entirely from this land and be replaced by atheism, could we maintain the protection of our liberties (as well as civil decency at the social level)? Were Christianity to be replaced by Islam as the dominant religion, would we have the same attachment to our Constitution?

"Christian nation" can mean different things. We are not an officially Christian nation. We are a nation of people affiliated with predominantly Christian traditions. As Meacham says, the Founders "wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry." I would strengthen the claim, changing "faith" to Christianity specifically. American may not be a "Christian nation" as such, but without Christianity, we are not America...or least we will not be for long.

Angry Left: Bush is a Beast – I’m Unconvinced

Historically, in order to bring us out of our natural isolationism and onto the battlefield overseas, we have had to view an enemy as the embodiment of evil. Alas, this moralistic, apocalyptic view of the world (in some cases justified internationally) has come home to domestic politics. No, it is not the Religious Right we have to thank for this. The bitterness of our present political discourse began with the response of the New Left to the Vietnam Conflict. In the 1980s, it took a new form in opposition to Ronald Reagan whom, they warned us with dread thunderings, would bring upon us the scourge of nuclear nightmare. For the past six years, it is George W. Bush who is not merely a bad choice, a fool, a crook or even the corrupter of virgins and patriots, but the Beast himself.

Now I’m all for calling a beast a beast (Saddam), a tyrant a tyrant (Mugabe), an evil empire an evil empire (you know who) and a fool a fool (let’s not get into it). I support the Republican Party, and I do so on principle. But if one of our number goes bad, I join with other principled Republicans in crying, “Bad!” But I see no moral fault in this President. There is much to debate in his presidency. Reasonable and patriotic people can disagree with him and even oppose him politically. But I see no reasonable grounds for the hatred that animates his sharpest critics.

There is any number of left wing rants we could consider. But recently I happened to come across this speech by E. L. Doctorow. Though it is now more than three years old, it expresses the rage and loathing that characterizes the hard left view of our sitting President.

Doctorow published this essay on September 9, 2004 in the East Hampton Star here on Long Island where Doctorow has a home in Sag Harbor. The previous May, he gave the commencement address at Long Island's Hofstra University where he accused the president of telling "bad stories" about there being WMDs in Iraq when he knew there were none. (After all, who would believe the obviously wild speculations and frantic concerns of those UN weapons inspectors?) Incidentally, he was booed into silence for what many viewed as an unwelcome intrusion of fanatically angry politics into an otherwise happy event.

His charge was this: “I fault this president for not knowing what death is…. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. …To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. …He is the president who does not feel. … He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.” There are two pages of this unbroken invective.

In other words, the president is a criminal psychopath but, sadly, a brilliantly deceptive one. Of course, Reagan was the same…except stupid…but in a crafty way. Nixon was Tyrannosaurus Nix. Like Columbia’s Lee Bollinger, this accomplished novelist seems to think that a tongue lashing is persuasive rhetoric, words that topple thrones.

So what am I to make of this? I have various data available to me regarding GWB. I have this opinion from Doctorow. But on what does he base his opinion? It seems all that he offers is the fact that, unlike Eisenhower, Bush has never seen combat. “On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was.” Well, most of us have never seen combat or any kind of death up close, but from that fact it would be rash and unjustified to conclude that we are all unfeeling monsters.

Consider another similarly situated American president. Bill Clinton as commander-in-chief sent young men to die in Mogadishu and Bosnia. If Doctorow had similar words for President Clinton, they have not come to my attention.

Incidentally, notice that he does not say that Eisenhower wept for the boys he sent overseas, only that he prayed for them. That, of course, could be a politically calculated act though I assume he was sincere. Bush himself is widely known as a praying man. President Clinton, on the other hand, the darling of the left, was a notorious weeper, but also an infamous dissembler. While leaving the Ron Brown funeral, he was caught on camera laughing it up with Rev. Tony Campolo. The instant his eye caught the camera filming him he broke into tears, much to the confusion of his companion.

I have other reports, however (to me, credible ones), that President Bush weeps with the parents of those who fall in battle and that he understands -- and yes even feels -- the awesome weight of the consequences of his decisions as commander-in-chief. He also feels the profound weight of his responsibility for keeping this country safe from an Al Qaeda nuclear device in New York Harbor or some other American nerve center. (As someone who works in Manhattan, I personally appreciate his concern.) When I saw him at the Ames Straw Poll in 2000, I saw man who loved his country, who was jealous for the honor of the office of the president and who could lead the country with firmness and integrity. I have neither read nor seen anything to discredit those impressions. (The picture is of President Bush grieving with Ashley Faulkner whose mother, Wendy, died in the WTC south tower on 9/11.)

This Doctorow piece is just another hysterical screed from the left wing cultural elite who cannot fathom why, despite the years of cultural and political education which they have liberally bestowed upon this nation, the "red state" bubbas, bozos and Bible thumping obscurantists with whom they are forced to share citizenship continue to elect conservatives and refuse to be enlightened. Whatever happened to progress?

***

Answering Columbia: A Healthy Respect for Politics

Source: www.library.ohiou.edu

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent speaking engagement at Columbia University has, among other things, focused attention on the exclusion of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) from Ivy League campuses. Isn’t it strange (as people have been wondering) that Columbia welcomes this political oppressor onto campus, giving him not only a voice, but a prestigious platform from which to address, by virtue of that platform, not only the university but the nation, and yet they are careful to shield their tender and impressionable students from exposure to the ROTC. They justify their invitation to the morally repulsive Ahmadinejad by citing free speech and the free exchange of ideas while they forbid ROTC access to the campus on specifically moral grounds.

ROTC has been barred from all the Ivy League campuses since the 1960s when the New Left anti-war student agitators drove them off. Those radicals now dominate the university faculties…and they loath the military. (Remember the early days of the Clinton White House, and how Hillary, a child of the 60s, was reported to resent the presence of uniformed military personnel, forgetting that her husband was commander-in-chief?)

These people are supposedly intelligent, learned and observant. Yet they cannot see their own dependence as citizens, and in particular as a thinking and speaking class of citizens, on the national armed forces that prevent foreign powers from taking away their freedom to think and speak. Has this intelligent, learned and observant class convinced itself that all the world is Mayberry? Have they honestly concluded from their study of man and the history of man that we can safely leave our national doors unlocked because all the neighbors are civil and decent, or would be if only we ourselves would behave as good neighbors?

Source: www.fema.gov

I have seen this absurdity elsewhere. After the 9/11 attacks on our country, many people began displaying "God Bless America" signs. This seemed to me a natural and healthy response to what amounted to an attack on all Americans and on the foundations of the liberties we rightly hold dear. In that context, someone in my neighborhood put up a large, plywood sign saying, “God Bless the World.” In other words, “Unlike my neighbors, I am above these irrational, even immoral, parochial attachments which do nothing but divide people and lead to bloodshed.” It struck me as not only naively apolitical, but also hypocritical.

Rising above politics certainly has its time and place. But as a moral absolute, it is neither practical nor wise.

We have nations – separate and armed political communities – because there is bloodshed, not the reverse. We live in a world of scarcity, a world of competitive goods. There is only so much land, only so much gold. Glory shared is glory diminished. We need political communities, political life and political attachments because, in pursuit of these goods, people (or too many of them) are selfish and rapacious.

The sentiment expressed on my neighbor’s sign is, on one level, admirable. But as a denial and condemnation of political sentiments it is hypocritical. The person who posted the sign did so because he or she has the liberty to do so. Furthermore, the people in this person’s neighborhood are of such a character that they did not deface or remove the sign, much less turn violently on its author. In other words, to exercise the liberties that his sign presupposes, this globally minded neighbor depends on the same political community and on the coercive authorities that preserve it that he condemns.

The Ivy League universities are in the same position. I’m sorry to have to resort to seemingly uncharitable language, but those who oppose ROTC simply because it represents and advances the United States Armed Forces are either hypocritical or stupid. I suppose it would be more charitable to assume the latter.

Common Sense on Health Care

John Stossel has been listening in on my conversations. Or we have both been consulting with the same common sense on health care.

Why has health insurance become such a big issue for everyone? Paying for it is hugely expensive...and that is the "discount" price. The health insurance company pays the rest. And the situation is getting worse all the time.

At some point it became clear to me that at least a large part of the answer to this problem lay in the word "insurance." You buy insurance to protect you against the unlikely possibility, but nonetheless the possibility, of a ruinous disaster. If your house were to burn down, if you were to wreck your new car, or if you were to require extensive treatment for a serious and debilitating illness, you would be ruined financially. But though these things are unlikely to happen, and because everyone faces and fears the same possibility, everyone pays a small amount into what becomes a large pool and agrees to compensate any contributor who might find himself in one of these unhappy circumstances. We call this "insurance." It's a prudent way of managing risk communally.

It is of essence of insurance, however, that it pertains to risk and rarity. Your home insurance does not cover leaky faucets, lawn care, or even replacing your shingles. These are common and predictable expenses. Roofs are even expensive, but you know that they last only 20 years so you save accordingly. So too, your car insurance does not cover gas, oil changes and scheduled maintenance visits. You don't buy insurance for clothing and groceries. Even though these are necessities, it is the responsibility of neither your employer nor the government to provide you with insurance to cover these things. You pay for all of these expenses out of your regular income. It is why you have income. If you have difficulty in paying for one or a number of these these things, you have to prioritize, budget more wisely, generate more income, and so on.

So why do we treat medical insurance differently? We demand that it cover not only reconstructive surgery and cancer treatment, but also vaccinations, check ups, eye glasses and dental fillings. And people get angry if these things are not covered. One's employer is considered evil for providing "lousy" health coverage that does not cover these minor benefits. But what should be minor expenses have become quite expensive precisely because everyone is paying for them through insurance instead directly of out of their own pockets.

Stossel does a great of job of explaining this:

Almost daily, we're bombarded with apocalyptic warnings about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. ...America's health care problem is not that some people lack insurance -- it's that 250 million Americans do have it. ...

Insurance is a lousy way to pay for things. Your premiums go not only to pay for medical care but also for fraud, paper-work and insurance-company employee salaries. This is bad for you and bad for doctors.

Read his brief column, "A Move in the Wrong Direction," which reflects on Hillary Clinton's proposed new national health care plan.

Alone with Bill? Interesting Prize.

He's at it again!

The Clintons fill my inbox with these requests. I find them very needy. Don't you?

This one is disturbing in a different way. It's from Bill. (I call him Bill.)

Dear David,

There are two things in this world that I love more than anything else -- my family and politics. So you can imagine just how fired up I get when Hillary is on the stage debating the issues that matter to our country.

So here's an idea: why don't you and I share that excitement together during an upcoming debate. Hillary's campaign will pick three people -- each invited with a guest to watch one of the upcoming presidential debates with me. We'll sit down in front of a big TV with a big bowl of chips, watch the debate, and talk about the race. If you enter before the Sunday midnight deadline, you and a guest could be the ones to sit down with me to watch a presidential debate.

Join me for a debate. Make a contribution today.

...Sincerely,



Bill Clinton

What do you bet that the three people selected are young women -- only by chance, of course -- and that there is no chaperon. Just Bill and three lucky winners with Hillary's distant location monitored at every moment. It makes you wonder -- and with good grounds, I might add -- just what he means when he says: "When I tell you I like watching Hillary debate, I mean it."

Sunday Reflection: The Indispensable Christ

David Martyn Lloyd-Jones was easily the greatest preacher of the 20th century in Britain. The Lord used him to preserve orthodox Protestant Christianity in that land, but also to revitalize it in America.

He says this regarding the place of Christ in Christianity:

"There is no such thing as Christianity apart from the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That does not mean that the Lord Jesus Christ is a 'bearer' of good news from God. No! It means that He Himself is the good news. It is the Person and what the Person has done. It is not merely that he is one of a great series of prophets and of teachers who have been raised up by God. No! There is an absolute uniqueness here -- He Himself. And He Himself is absolutely vital, and must always be central and in the most prominent position.

"Now that is what constitutes the uniqueness of the whole Christian gospel. Take any religion that you like; you will generally find a man's name associated with it; but in none of these can it be said that the particular man is absolutely essential. You have Buddhism, but you can have Buddhism without Buddha. You have Confucianism, but you can have Confucianism without Confucius. It is more or less and accident that a particular man happens to put forward the teaching. But here, when you come to the realm of the Christian faith, the whole position is absolutely different. Take away the Person and there is no message at all. There is no teaching. There is nothing. The connection, in other words, between our Lord Himself, as a Person, and Christianity is obviously something which is of central significance."

(Taken from the first volume of Lloyd-Jones's exposition of Paul's Letter to the Romans, pp. 98-99.)

MoveOn.org a Far Left Farce

As you surely recall, back on September 10, coinciding with General Petraeus's report to Congress, those zany madcap fellow citizens over at MoveOn.org published an "over the top" ad in the always obliging New York Times. RedState.com has published a spoof. Touché. Here are both.

General Petraeus or
General Betray Us?
Cooking the books for the White House

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.


Some statements do not merit a reasoned response, for example when a statement demonstrates that the speaker is closed to civil, rational discussion. In such a case, mockery is the suitable response. Here is such a response to MoveOn.org from RedState response. Notice that it did not come from a "blue state" source, such as the Clinton campaign.

source: RedState.com

GENERAL EISENHOWER OR

GENERAL LIES AND POWER?

COOKING THE BOOKS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE

General Eisenhower is a man constantly at war with the facts. He believes that Nazi Germany is a direct threat to the United States. It was Japan that attacked us, not Nazi Germany.

Most importantly, General Eisenhower will not admit what everyone knows: America is in an unwinnable war on two fronts that are thousands of miles away. Even if America could win, we could have to keep thousands of troops in Europe for decades.

General Eisenhower has become General Lies and Power for not retreating and sending our troops home.

Hillary's Luncheon Lottery

The more I think about that Hill and Billary luncheon pitch, the more it bothers me.

I was describing it over breakfast to my wife (a much better table companion by far, and with no need for a donation), and what angered her about it is that this Democrat who claims to care for the poor is exploiting the poor with a lottery.

This is a particularly odious form of fundraising. It is not a straight donation, as in: if you support me, send in $100. It is not a standard "pay up and you get close to the candidate" donation. That would be the $1000 a plate dinner. Wealthy people go to those things, and they know what they are getting for their money. You pay your $1000 and you know that you will get a nice meal, a relatively exclusive audience with the candidate, and the status boost for having been there.

Hillary Clinton is running a lottery, however. Lotteries take advantage of the poor. They take money from people who can ill afford to spend it, but who spend it anyway in the vain hope of easy wealth or, in this case, a brief encounter with fame and power.

On top of that, she adds the deceitful hook. She addresses me personally, asking me to get together with her informally. You have to scroll down to find out that it's a lottery that requires a donation. (Of course, as I read it I'm skeptical. Where's the catch? What's her angle? But you respond this way to people whom you suspect are conning you.) And that line about Hillary popping out to pick up groceries for the meal? Whatever.

Then the letter from Bill as though he just "heard about it" and wants in on the pleasant conversation. He gets so little time with her...and there's also you! None of this is presented as a joke. There is no tongue in cheek, no wink. They are preying on the silly dreams of "the little people." It seems that P.T. Barnum is on the payroll. There's a sucker born every minute, and these emails trolling for them.

Then to complete the hard sell, they send out this email from Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary's campaign manager.

Dear David,

Here at campaign headquarters we can't stop talking about the response to Hillary and Bill's latest messages -- it seems like everyone in the country wants to sit down and have lunch with the two of them. And I know Hillary is looking forward to meeting the winner!

If you haven't participated yet, you haven't missed your chance to have lunch with Hillary and Bill -- there are still a few hours left. If you make a contribution to the campaign by midnight tonight, you could be having lunch with the Clintons at their home in Washington.

Click here to make a contribution.

...You have until midnight tonight. Make a contribution, and you could be coming to Washington, DC for lunch with Hillary and Bill. Why miss this chance?

Thank you for everything you do!

Sincerely,
Patti Solis Doyle

How often have you been pressured to "take advantage of this deal now because quantities are limited and the sale ends at midnight?"

Does this provide us with insight into how she views the people she proposes to govern and how she would conduct her presidency?

Hillary's problem is that most people see her as inhumanly cold, selfishly ambitious, and fundamentally dishonest. This stunt, part of her "national conversation" theme which is here reduced to the level of personal chit chat with the common man or woman, is perhaps designed to address the first problem. Humanize Hillary. (If you have to be "humanized," you have a problem from the start. Remember John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis? Do you see a pattern here?) Convince people that she just like one of them. (News: Almost no one in Washington is like "one of us." Hillary Clinton even less than most.)

But that appeal will fail unless the campaign first addresses the credibility problem. People's perception is that she is so "up there" and "into herself" that you cannot trust a word that she says or anything that she does. But the Hillsters will not address this problem because Hillary doesn't see it, and no one around her has metal to tell her.

Update: I got another email from Hillary today. She's so sweet. It looks like "Julie" from Milford, Ohio, will be shooting the breeze with the Clintons over tofu bulgar salad and (no doubt) home baked cookies. Even though she's hugely busy, she takes time to tell me personally who won the luncheon lottery. All is forgiven.

I Get Invited to the Clintons'

I got an email from Hillary the other day. Yes, Senator Hillary Clinton! It was really nice. We're on a first name basis. She invited me over to her house to hang out and talk about just whatever. I was so excited. I thought to myself, perhaps she has read my blog or some of my work on Francis Bacon. But then I read on, and whammo! Her offer was not what it seemed. My ideals were exposed and mocked, and my trust was shattered. I’ll never love again.

Read this and feel my exhilaration...and my pain.

Dear David,

Let's do lunch. Let's talk, you and me -- about whatever you'd like. Our hopes. Our goals. Our work. The weather. Maybe even politics.

I think it would be fun to have you over for lunch, at my table, in my home in Washington. You and I both know that we need a serious change of direction in this country. So let's sit down for a meal and talk about exactly the best way to make that change a reality.

Of course, that change can't happen if we don't win. So I'm asking you today to demonstrate your commitment to real change by supporting my campaign with a contribution. We're going to choose one supporter to come to my house in DC, along with a guest, to share lunch and talk. And if you contribute between now and midnight Friday, September 7, it could be you.

Click here to make a contribution.

...I'm really looking forward to this conversation. I'll pick up the groceries before you get there. Let's sit down and talk about how to change America!

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Well, as though that were not enough. Today, I got an email from Bill Himself!

Back on the emotional rollercoaster.

Dear David,

I hear you might be having lunch with Hillary -- do you mind if I drop in?

I've met some of the greatest people of our time from every walk of life. But of all the people I have ever shared a table with, I still learn the most when I sit down to a meal with Hillary.

There's no one smarter, no one better informed, and no one whose conversation I enjoy more. So if you have the chance to sit down and talk with Hillary -- like you do right now -- you don't want to miss it. That's why I'm going to join the two of you.

I know Hillary would be the best president, and you know she's ready to change America. So why not help her win today? The campaign will choose one supporter to have lunch with Hillary and me -- along with a guest -- and if you make a contribution by midnight Friday, September 7, it might just be you.

Click here to make a contribution.

...Thirty-six years ago, Hillary and I started a conversation, and it hasn't stopped since. I hope you'll join our conversation for a day. If you make a contribution by Friday and help Hillary's campaign make history, you might just be sitting down to lunch with the two of us soon. Trust me, you don't want to miss it.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton

It seems that they are serious about pitching this intimate, nationwide tete-a-tete with Hillary, the open-minded, prospective philosopher-queen who even at this late stage in her life and campaign will not settle on a plan of government without first dialoguing with the people on what justice is, as well as the good, the true and the beautiful.

Of course, when I get these personal emails I'm just swept away every time. I am such a sucker.

Hypocrisy and Just Plain Human

In addition to giving us good laugh, part of which I shared in my previous post, Mark Steyn, in "A Measure of Hypocrisy" (New York Sun, Sept. 4, 2007), also makes a serious point about the principled life. "A measure of hypocrisy is necessary to a functioning society." He does not quite identify why it is necessary, but I would agree that it is at least inevitable, being a function of our human, all too human, condition even under the best circumstances...indeed, I would say precisely under the best circumstances.

There are those on the left who would recognize no standards when it comes to this sort of personal behavior. "The left gives the impression that a Republican Senator caught in a whorehouse ought immediately to say, 'You're right. I should have supported earmarks for hookers in the 2005 appropriations bill.'" They forget (or suppress the fact for political expediency) that there is always a gap between principle and practice -- in a nation, in a political party, and in each one of us. "Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them." Anyone with with even marginally serious moral standards who isn't simply self-righteous can see this.

It is the nature of principles that they are never fully realizable because it is the nature of human beings, fallen as we are, to miss the mark which they establish, even by a soul crushing distance. But that does not necessarily either discredit our principles or identify us as hypocrites (and here I depart from Mr. Steyn). Samuel Huntington once described what he called the American IvI gap -- American ideals versus American institutions, or the distance that always exists, to some degree or another, between the principles we hold as a nation and our faithful practice of them. Huntington sums it up: "Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so far short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie; it is a disappointment. But it can be a disappointment only because it is also a hope."

Cynics like to seize upon these human failings to deny the validity of any such principles. Flags of our Fathers, a particularly cynical film, is an example of such debunking on a political level. It presents the Battle of Iwo Jima, the flag raising, the use of the memorable photo to promote war bonds, and various falsehoods and tragedies that underlay and surrounded the event. "There are no heroes" is the explicit moral of the story. Assuming the accuracy of everything the film reports, the film's conclusion does not necessarily follow. The world is not ideal. We know this. But that does not mean that there are not true ideals.

The particular circumstances of Senator Larry Craig's arrest in a Minneapolis airport restroom -- the tapping foot, the baggage against the door -- seem inconclusive on their own as evidence of guilt. But judging by his "sad and pathetic" post-arrest interview as well as other reported incidents, Craig certainly appears to be guilty, though I have learned to reserve judgment even in seemingly obvious cases. Life is complicated. Nonetheless, Steyn is likely correct in saying that "he should disappear from public life as swiftly as possible and embrace full time the anonymity he cherishes in his sexual encounters."

As to how sincerely Larry Craig has held his moral principles in the course of his double life, I cannot say. I don't know what's lurking in the dark subterranean passageways of his soul. But I do know that many of the principles that he advocated are true, regardless of his or anyone's inability to honor them. Is this record of failure evidence that the standards which these principles set are inhumanly high? No. The problem is not the principles, but the humanity. The solution is not in defining evil away by removing the principles. The solution is partly political and ultimately spiritual: a political system such as the Founders gave us that takes into account both the nobility and the frailty of those involved, and, on a personal level, a divine administration of grace, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Bathroom Humor

Part of the sadness of conservative and Republican sex scandals is that the press serves up all the revolting details of matters we would be happier not knowing exist. (Liberals and Democrats are involved in the same dark deeds, but it is not considered a scandal and so we are spared the details.) But Mark Steyn's "A Measure of Hypocrisy" (New York Sun, Sept. 4, 2007) brings out the hilarious absurdities of the matter.

Sergeant Dave Karsnia is paid by the police department to sit in a stall in the men's room all day, like a spider waiting for the flies. The Baron von Richthoven of the Minneapolis Bathroom Patrol has notched up a phenomenal number of kills and knows what to look for -- the tapping foot in the adjoining stall, a hand signal under the divider. Did you know that tapping your foot in a bathroom was a recognized indicator that a criminal act is about to occur? Don't take your i-Pod in with you!

As an aside, Steyn adds this reflection on public restrooms:

As it happens, I passed by the very same men's room at the Lindbergh Terminal only a couple of months ago. I didn't go in, however. My general philosophy on public restrooms was summed up by the late Derek Jackson, the Oxford professor and jockey, in his advice to a Frenchman about to visit Britain. "Never go to a public lavatory in London," warned Professor Jackson. "I always pee in the street. You may be fined a few pounds for committing a nuisance, but in a public lavatory you risk two years in prison because a policeman in plain clothes says you smiled at him."

The rest you really must read for yourself.

You Been Farming Long?

With Iowa recently in the news for the Straw Poll and soon the caucuses, I am reminded of my seven years there in rural Buchanan County, north of Cedar Rapids. These two Little Farmers in their bib overalls might be any two guys you see at the grain elevator in any little Iowa town.


Here (edited) is the story behind the picture, which I know to be true because I found it on the internet.

When I took this picture of my twin sons, Matt and Chris, in September, 1978, they were only 1-1/2 years old. At that time, we lived on "the mesa", just across from a little town called San Miguel, CA (northern San Luis Obispo County). An overnight visitor was on her way home that morning and wanted a couple pictures of the boys before she left. So, I got my camera out and took a few also. After all, they had their brand new Osh Kosh overalls on!

When the photos came back, there was that one extra-special shot--the lighting was just right, the focus just right, and the expression was priceless. I decided to enter it in the San Luis Obispo County Fair (now known at the Mid-State Fair). Well, it came in 3rd place! But, so many people liked it that they were looking up my name in the phone book in order to ask if they could buy a reprint.

Over the next couple of years the photo was used on a Guernsey cow breeders magazine, a Babson Bros. dairy equipment company calendar and then a Saturday newspaper supplement cover that was syndicated across the U.S.

One day in 1982, I got a telephone call from a man named Roy Reiman, a publisher of magazines mainly geared to "country" type people. He had an idea for using the picture on the first issue of a new magazine he was about to publish--Country Kids. When I received the offer, he had decided he wanted to do a poster instead of the cover and then he would offer one poster free for each new subscription to Country Kids. The poster came out with the caption "You been farming long?" on it and that seemed to be exactly what it took for people to love it.

For a good book on this American farm life, a fine novel is Farm: A Year in the Life of an American Farmer by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes. Sadly, it is currently out of print.

Accountability a One Way Street in NYC Schools

Here is an interesting insight into how public school teachers think...perhaps just in New York City. "Schools Wait, Teeth Gritted: Their Grades are Coming," by Julie Bosman (New York Times, Sept. 1, 2007). It seems that New York's Mayor Bloomberg is holding schools accountable for their job performance.

Making good on a promise to hold educators more accountable for student performance, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will oversee the distribution of report cards for each of the city’s schools next month. Each school (and by extension its principal) will receive a letter grade in the mail, and the grade and the data that led to it will be posted on the Web, where parents can see and possibly stew over them.

Of course, you cannot expect a complacent, inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy to cooperate supportively. If teachers and administrators were doing all that they could to provide the best public service, these measures would never have crossed anyone's mind (as in earlier times they didn't).

Judith Menken, the outspoken principal of the small Muscota New School in Inwood, Manhattan, is bracing for the moment when she will receive a stark appraisal of her school’s performance, a letter grade of A through F. She is still debating whether or not she will read the report.

Why would she not read the report? She's a school principal. Assessing and grading people is what her own institution does. Does she see no value in it for herself? Perhaps she sees no value in it for her students. Is that the problem?

“I guess I’ll probably look at it,” said Ms. Menken. She expects a B, at best, she added. “I’m sure I’ll feel bad. People are going to be very hurt and demoralized. It’s like a public embarrassment.”

Yes, that's an aspect of accountability. Public schools are a public trust. They should be publicly accountable. When they fail, they fail publicly. When held to account, they should be held to account publicly. Furthermore, public humiliation is a good incentive for avoiding it in the future by improving performance.

Back at the Muscota school, Ms. Menken, who has seen countless changes and reorganizations over the years, is holding out hope that Mr. Klein will eventually abandon the grading system. “It’ll be like everything else,” said Ms. Menken, who has worked in the New York City public schools for 36 years. “It won’t work, and they’ll chuck it.”

Principal Menken appears to believe that nothing can improve the public school system in New York. And she's comfortable with that. On the theory that if something does not work you chuck it, perhaps that is the only practical and publicly responsible thing to do with the New York public schools. I have no doubt that private initiatives would far outperform what we have now. As a businessman, the mayor must secretly know this. (My children are thriving at a classical Christian school.)