One of my new intellectual heroes is Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sidney. In an address given a couple of years ago, he reminds us that democracy is not necessarily good in itself, but is only an instrument for meeting goals which may be good or not. He also asks us to consider different kinds of “democracies." The following few paragraphs are from his address.
"The purpose of my observations about television standards, and the past and present situation on contraception and abortion, is to highlight the point that for secular militants today democracy, more than anything else, means that anything is possible. Freedom today, in its everyday sense, means the limitlessness of possibility: whatever you want, whatever you like, you can do it. This is nonsense, of course. A moment’s reflection on any number of “possibilities” reminds us that they are impossibilities. The American sociologist Philip Rieff has written of the important part that culture plays in creating a basic resistance to possibility, something within us that can give a compelling answer when our desires and will ask us the question “why not?” [8] Compelling answers to this need for self-restraint, for delayed gratification, are in short supply. The resources secular democracy has for this purpose seem to be exhausted, in a sea of rhetoric about individual rights.
I use the term “secular democracy” deliberately, because democracy is never unqualified. We are used to speaking of “liberal democracy”, which as currently understood is a synonym for secular democracy; in Europe there are (or were) parties advocating “Christian democracy”; lately there has been much interest in the possibility of “Islamic democracy”, and the shape it might take. These descriptors do not simply refer to how democracy might be constituted, but to the moral vision democracy is intended to serve. This is true even, or especially, in the case of secular democracy, which some commentators—John Rawls, for example—insist is intended to serve no moral vision at all. In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II makes just this point when he argues that democracy “is a means and not an end. Its ‘moral’ value is not automatic”, but depends on “the ends which it pursues and the means which it employs. . . . [T]he value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes”. [9] Democracy is not a good in itself. Its value is instrumental and depends on the vision it serves. "
(cont.)
"The purpose of my observations about television standards, and the past and present situation on contraception and abortion, is to highlight the point that for secular militants today democracy, more than anything else, means that anything is possible. Freedom today, in its everyday sense, means the limitlessness of possibility: whatever you want, whatever you like, you can do it. This is nonsense, of course. A moment’s reflection on any number of “possibilities” reminds us that they are impossibilities. The American sociologist Philip Rieff has written of the important part that culture plays in creating a basic resistance to possibility, something within us that can give a compelling answer when our desires and will ask us the question “why not?” [8] Compelling answers to this need for self-restraint, for delayed gratification, are in short supply. The resources secular democracy has for this purpose seem to be exhausted, in a sea of rhetoric about individual rights.
I use the term “secular democracy” deliberately, because democracy is never unqualified. We are used to speaking of “liberal democracy”, which as currently understood is a synonym for secular democracy; in Europe there are (or were) parties advocating “Christian democracy”; lately there has been much interest in the possibility of “Islamic democracy”, and the shape it might take. These descriptors do not simply refer to how democracy might be constituted, but to the moral vision democracy is intended to serve. This is true even, or especially, in the case of secular democracy, which some commentators—John Rawls, for example—insist is intended to serve no moral vision at all. In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II makes just this point when he argues that democracy “is a means and not an end. Its ‘moral’ value is not automatic”, but depends on “the ends which it pursues and the means which it employs. . . . [T]he value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes”. [9] Democracy is not a good in itself. Its value is instrumental and depends on the vision it serves. "
(cont.)
21/05: More Waco Horror
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today (Sunday, May 21) the Waco Tribune-Herald published a portion of my piece on the Waco Horror (read it here) extracted from the fuller blog piece that appeared earlier in the month. The piece underwent a fairly heavy edit from the Trib , which probably improved it stylistically, and certainly freshened it up (a lot had happened since I wrote it two weeks ago).
You will note that the introductory narrative of the event and the portion asking that the pain of the Fryer family not be forgotten were forgotten. But the essence of the piece remained in tact.
The Waco Horror continues to interest a national audience. Here is a very limited sampling of some of the national news organizations that have covered the story recently:
NPR (last weekend): Waco Recalls a 90-Year-Old 'Horror'
The Washington Post (in late April): In Waco, a Push To Atone for The Region's Lynch-Mob Past
Fox News (May 16): Group Denounces Lynchings 90 Years After 'Waco Horror'
You will note that the introductory narrative of the event and the portion asking that the pain of the Fryer family not be forgotten were forgotten. But the essence of the piece remained in tact.
The Waco Horror continues to interest a national audience. Here is a very limited sampling of some of the national news organizations that have covered the story recently:
NPR (last weekend): Waco Recalls a 90-Year-Old 'Horror'
The Washington Post (in late April): In Waco, a Push To Atone for The Region's Lynch-Mob Past
Fox News (May 16): Group Denounces Lynchings 90 Years After 'Waco Horror'
20/05: An American Creed?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Submitted for your approval:
As Americans, we believe that religion is necessary to the establishment of social order. Man must construct a moral government and an efficient religion to guide him and bring out the brighter side of his nature. Human institutions are finite while God is infinite. Personal piety has much more consequence than social order. Political liberty and religious liberty are inseparable. Slavish obedience to nobles and bishops are equally reprehensible. Persecution is wrong and tolerance is right. National identity and national unity are dependent on a national orientation toward religion. Religion equals morality; rational religion that rises above dogma, superstition and mystery lays the foundation for a citizenry that is good and moral and free. A religion that does not promote morality is bankrupt. A childlike faith in God as Creator and Father and master of the universe is the beginning of wisdom and upright behavior. God is omnipotent and awesome. Be wary of a human-centered religion. Hubris and arrogance and pride of place and self is the original sin. Man must acknowledge God over man. Religious diversity is good. Religion unshackled by government is good. A vital religious community of Christ doing the work of God on earth is an essential part of God's plan. There is great power for good in a unified community of Christ.
Are you willing to sign on?
Some of you may recognize the long paragraph above as a conflation of Edwin Gaustad's seven basic religious imperatives in American history, government and culture. Obviously some of these seven are easily compatible, while others, you will notice, are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, all of these impulses have made great impact on who we are as a people.
Accept this as notice of my intention to consider the inherent and historic tension between church and state in American politics and religion and culture. I intend to develop this narrative over a series of essays this summer.
One more note: The backbone of these posts come from a series of three lectures that I composed for a Chautauqua at Seventh & James Baptist Church (Waco, Texas), which I delivered last summer.
One last caveat: almost of all of this material will be synthetic and derivative. I am not a church historian or theologian. I leaned heavily on scholars with expertise in these areas to make the story of American religion make sense in the context of a larger narrative of American political history.
As Americans, we believe that religion is necessary to the establishment of social order. Man must construct a moral government and an efficient religion to guide him and bring out the brighter side of his nature. Human institutions are finite while God is infinite. Personal piety has much more consequence than social order. Political liberty and religious liberty are inseparable. Slavish obedience to nobles and bishops are equally reprehensible. Persecution is wrong and tolerance is right. National identity and national unity are dependent on a national orientation toward religion. Religion equals morality; rational religion that rises above dogma, superstition and mystery lays the foundation for a citizenry that is good and moral and free. A religion that does not promote morality is bankrupt. A childlike faith in God as Creator and Father and master of the universe is the beginning of wisdom and upright behavior. God is omnipotent and awesome. Be wary of a human-centered religion. Hubris and arrogance and pride of place and self is the original sin. Man must acknowledge God over man. Religious diversity is good. Religion unshackled by government is good. A vital religious community of Christ doing the work of God on earth is an essential part of God's plan. There is great power for good in a unified community of Christ.
Are you willing to sign on?
Some of you may recognize the long paragraph above as a conflation of Edwin Gaustad's seven basic religious imperatives in American history, government and culture. Obviously some of these seven are easily compatible, while others, you will notice, are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, all of these impulses have made great impact on who we are as a people.
Accept this as notice of my intention to consider the inherent and historic tension between church and state in American politics and religion and culture. I intend to develop this narrative over a series of essays this summer.
One more note: The backbone of these posts come from a series of three lectures that I composed for a Chautauqua at Seventh & James Baptist Church (Waco, Texas), which I delivered last summer.
One last caveat: almost of all of this material will be synthetic and derivative. I am not a church historian or theologian. I leaned heavily on scholars with expertise in these areas to make the story of American religion make sense in the context of a larger narrative of American political history.
Powerline has this discussion of Romney and his chances with GOP evangelicals. While I think they may be correct in that many evangelicals could embrace him as a fellow "Christian," the identification still is problematic. See my earlier post.
May Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) be called “Christian?” To put it another way, is Mormonism part of the Christian tradition? The question may be kicked around in the press in the coming year as the ’08 presidential race gets underway. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, seems to want the Republican nomination. Given the strength of conservative Christians in the GOP, his religion could be an issue. A few years back, Senator Orrin Hatch, a fellow Mormon, expressed dismay that not everyone would recognize him as a Christian. To Senator Hatch it seemed self-evident—he was a Mormon, Mormons are the true Christian Church, so he must be a Christian. After all, the official name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But, . . .
09/05: The Waco Horror
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In the spring of 1916, a group of white Waco citizens surged into the 54th District Court and seized Jesse Washington, a seventeen-year-old African American who had been convicted of raping and murdering a white Robinson woman, Lucy Fryer. The mob hanged and burned and tortured Washington and then dragged his mutilated corpse through town. A huge crowd of spectators (15,000 by some estimates) looked on with glee, while storied local photographer, Fred Gildersleeve, recorded the event in gruesome detail.
Washington had confessed to the crime, the prosecution produced compelling evidence, and a jury of twelve white men found him guilty after four minutes of deliberation, seven days after his arrest. Nevertheless, for many reasons, we cannot make a conclusive finding of guilt or innocence in this 90-year-old case at this juncture, and we should not try. Also, we should be mindful that the brutal murder of Mrs. Fryer was a tragic event for her family, and we should be sensitive to the reality that the slaying lingers as a painful legacy for her descendants.
Notwithstanding, clearly the community of Waco, Texas permitted an egregious violation of Jesse Washington’s fundamental rights to due process under the Constitution of the United States. Although a McLennan County jury sentenced the convicted man to death, the preemptory actions of the mob, and their exhorters, deprived an American citizen of his right to appeal to a higher court and short-circuited the legal process. For all of us who salute the flag and pledge “justice for all,” the events of May 15, 1916 sting with inequity and disgrace.
Washington had confessed to the crime, the prosecution produced compelling evidence, and a jury of twelve white men found him guilty after four minutes of deliberation, seven days after his arrest. Nevertheless, for many reasons, we cannot make a conclusive finding of guilt or innocence in this 90-year-old case at this juncture, and we should not try. Also, we should be mindful that the brutal murder of Mrs. Fryer was a tragic event for her family, and we should be sensitive to the reality that the slaying lingers as a painful legacy for her descendants.
Notwithstanding, clearly the community of Waco, Texas permitted an egregious violation of Jesse Washington’s fundamental rights to due process under the Constitution of the United States. Although a McLennan County jury sentenced the convicted man to death, the preemptory actions of the mob, and their exhorters, deprived an American citizen of his right to appeal to a higher court and short-circuited the legal process. For all of us who salute the flag and pledge “justice for all,” the events of May 15, 1916 sting with inequity and disgrace.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Written Saturday, Nov. 26
This morning I attended the funeral of a young Marine from Apache, Oklahoma, killed in combat in Iraq. His name was Josh Ware. You may have seen him along with 5 or 6 other marines on the cover of Time magazine during the battle of Fallujah. He was killed by hostile small arms fire last week during operation Steel Curtain. Josh was of Kiowa and Comanche descent, and registered with the Kiowa tribe. He was 20 years old.
I walked down to the Comanche Tribal Center in Apache for the funeral. A local Indian man picked me up and gave me a ride. We were waved through the security cordon around the center. Rumor had it that the group from Kansas (God Hates Fags) would be coming to protest. The tribal center and the land on
This morning I attended the funeral of a young Marine from Apache, Oklahoma, killed in combat in Iraq. His name was Josh Ware. You may have seen him along with 5 or 6 other marines on the cover of Time magazine during the battle of Fallujah. He was killed by hostile small arms fire last week during operation Steel Curtain. Josh was of Kiowa and Comanche descent, and registered with the Kiowa tribe. He was 20 years old.
I walked down to the Comanche Tribal Center in Apache for the funeral. A local Indian man picked me up and gave me a ride. We were waved through the security cordon around the center. Rumor had it that the group from Kansas (God Hates Fags) would be coming to protest. The tribal center and the land on
27/04: Ranking Bush
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Presidential rankings fluctuate over time. Each generation struggles to understand themselves and find consensus and community by reinterpreting their collective past, which is one of the most vital and noble functions of history. On the downside, our historical figures most often ascend or diminish in our estimation as a result of how we view their actions through the lens of our experience and culture rather than viewing their actions in their own time and place.
If all rankings are slightly deceptive and self indulgent, then attempting to rank contemporary presidents is pure folly. For example, see the Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. poll (circa 1996) that ranked Ronald Reagan in the thirties, which apparently rested on the political views of Schlesinger and his cronies much more than their historical judgment. Although I greatly admire Schlesinger as a scholar, his dismissal of Reagan as a president of note was not only petty but proved silly and embarrassing as well (and he is at it again, read his latest blend of history and politics here).
Other “conservative” polls have come along since then that tried to place Reagan much closer to the top of the list, but part of the problem with rating presidents on whom we voted (for or against) is that we seek to push our objectivity beyond normal human limits. History is best understood and cataloged and interpreted by dispassionate and disinterested practitioners of the art.
Having said all that (and mindful of my hypocrisy), let me indulge in some speculation in terms of ranking President George W. Bush.
If all rankings are slightly deceptive and self indulgent, then attempting to rank contemporary presidents is pure folly. For example, see the Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. poll (circa 1996) that ranked Ronald Reagan in the thirties, which apparently rested on the political views of Schlesinger and his cronies much more than their historical judgment. Although I greatly admire Schlesinger as a scholar, his dismissal of Reagan as a president of note was not only petty but proved silly and embarrassing as well (and he is at it again, read his latest blend of history and politics here).
Other “conservative” polls have come along since then that tried to place Reagan much closer to the top of the list, but part of the problem with rating presidents on whom we voted (for or against) is that we seek to push our objectivity beyond normal human limits. History is best understood and cataloged and interpreted by dispassionate and disinterested practitioners of the art.
Having said all that (and mindful of my hypocrisy), let me indulge in some speculation in terms of ranking President George W. Bush.
Defining my terms:
A First Level Intellect is aware of the complexities of an idea, event, or problem, knows how to evaluate ideas and evidence, knows the odds against reaching certainty, but is able to reach good conclusions and make an advance, whether that means a plan of action, a new theory, or a historical conclusion; a second-level intellect is aware of the complexities of an idea, event, or problem and discuss them ad infinitum, but cannot reach good conclusions; a third-level intellect reaches conclusions in blithe ignorance of the complexities to be worked through. The contrast between first-level and second-level is not the difference between smart and dumb. Both can be very, very smart. The second-rater, however, can only analyze/ only deconstruct; the first-rater can analyze and construct.
(Someone has written that most Academics, who have the luxury of hedging their thought with maybes and probably's because their conclusions do not require action, often misunderstand and think they are intellectually superior to those in business or engineering or the military whose thought must lead to specific decisions that are implemented, and so do not have the luxury of stopping with on-the-one-hand ... )
We all have trouble separating style and substance. Liberals may be worse at this than conservatives, to paint with a broad brush. Bill Clinton is very verbal, knows how to allude to ideas and issues without really engaging them, does the indecision in public --damn how complex the world is-- thing very well. And liberals hailed him as a genius on par with Jefferson. Liberals mistook glibness, verbal skill, and persona for intellectual acumen. GW Bush is not verbally blessed, not glib, does not have the persona of an intellectual, and does not do the public dithering --damn how complex the world is --thing. So libs assume him to be a dunce--judging his substance simply on his style. GW seems to me, however, to be operating with a first-rate intellect. He has analyzed the terror attacks on America as an act of war, seems aware that there are no perfect choices, but is able to advance to defensible conclusions and actions.
Here's a theory: I'll admit that Billie Boy is bright, but all I have read from him and about him makes me think that he is a second-level intellectual: by my definitions that means that he knows how to knock ideas back and forth like volleyballs, but hasn't the intellectual bones actually to make up his mind on most things. I think part of the reason for Clinton's last-minute decision-making behavior comes from this quality. I am aware that I may be mistaking one of Bill's character flaws for his intellectual prowess--I did not inhale, I did not have [intercourse] with that woman, we cannot take bin Laden from the Sudan--Bill does not seem able to make the final "do it" decision very often. Perhaps at the moment of decision Slick Willie becomes Limp Willie.
A First Level Intellect is aware of the complexities of an idea, event, or problem, knows how to evaluate ideas and evidence, knows the odds against reaching certainty, but is able to reach good conclusions and make an advance, whether that means a plan of action, a new theory, or a historical conclusion; a second-level intellect is aware of the complexities of an idea, event, or problem and discuss them ad infinitum, but cannot reach good conclusions; a third-level intellect reaches conclusions in blithe ignorance of the complexities to be worked through. The contrast between first-level and second-level is not the difference between smart and dumb. Both can be very, very smart. The second-rater, however, can only analyze/ only deconstruct; the first-rater can analyze and construct.
(Someone has written that most Academics, who have the luxury of hedging their thought with maybes and probably's because their conclusions do not require action, often misunderstand and think they are intellectually superior to those in business or engineering or the military whose thought must lead to specific decisions that are implemented, and so do not have the luxury of stopping with on-the-one-hand ... )
We all have trouble separating style and substance. Liberals may be worse at this than conservatives, to paint with a broad brush. Bill Clinton is very verbal, knows how to allude to ideas and issues without really engaging them, does the indecision in public --damn how complex the world is-- thing very well. And liberals hailed him as a genius on par with Jefferson. Liberals mistook glibness, verbal skill, and persona for intellectual acumen. GW Bush is not verbally blessed, not glib, does not have the persona of an intellectual, and does not do the public dithering --damn how complex the world is --thing. So libs assume him to be a dunce--judging his substance simply on his style. GW seems to me, however, to be operating with a first-rate intellect. He has analyzed the terror attacks on America as an act of war, seems aware that there are no perfect choices, but is able to advance to defensible conclusions and actions.
Here's a theory: I'll admit that Billie Boy is bright, but all I have read from him and about him makes me think that he is a second-level intellectual: by my definitions that means that he knows how to knock ideas back and forth like volleyballs, but hasn't the intellectual bones actually to make up his mind on most things. I think part of the reason for Clinton's last-minute decision-making behavior comes from this quality. I am aware that I may be mistaking one of Bill's character flaws for his intellectual prowess--I did not inhale, I did not have [intercourse] with that woman, we cannot take bin Laden from the Sudan--Bill does not seem able to make the final "do it" decision very often. Perhaps at the moment of decision Slick Willie becomes Limp Willie.
26/04: Eye on American History
Is it possible that Dick Meyer, "the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com," has never read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America?
Read this story and tell me if you share my impression that Mr. Meyer has no idea that "self interest rightly understood" is one of Tocqueville's (the historical one) most famous maxims.
Read this story and tell me if you share my impression that Mr. Meyer has no idea that "self interest rightly understood" is one of Tocqueville's (the historical one) most famous maxims.
