Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Rex Humbard, the first televangelist, is dead at 88. At his height he reached 8 million viewers weekly. Comparing him to the folks on television today, described by Will Campbell as "electronic soul-molesters," makes me long for more like Rex. RIP Story here.
Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the more brilliant thinkers born in the U.S., is fashionable again. Story here.
Niebuhr's social thought may be summarized as follows. Human sin permeates all social structures and human actions. While an individual has the capacity for the self-transcendance that leads to repentance, social institutions do not. Therefore social change must involve conflict, pressure, and even the use of force. Pacifism is an irresponsible stance in the world because it ignores the need for justice. We must not, however, think that we are absolutely righteous when working for justice. All human actions are infected with sin; even good actions will be mixed with self-interest and complex motives, not all of them good. We must not, as well, think that we will achieve perfection. At best, human action can achieve approximate justice, not absolute justice. Indeed, the delusion that we can create a perfect world leads to monstrosities as we delude ourselves into believing we are absolutely righteous and our cause is absolutely righteous. With such assumptions we justify doing anything for "the cause."
While often thought of as a social "liberal," Niebuhr was fiercely anti-totalitarian against both Nazism and Communism. Theologically, he was "Neo-Orthodox" rather than "Liberal," because of his stress on a reinterpreted doctrines of "Original Sin" and "Depravity" rather than denying these doctrines.
Niebuhr and his "Christian Realism" inform my social thought.
Niebuhr's social thought may be summarized as follows. Human sin permeates all social structures and human actions. While an individual has the capacity for the self-transcendance that leads to repentance, social institutions do not. Therefore social change must involve conflict, pressure, and even the use of force. Pacifism is an irresponsible stance in the world because it ignores the need for justice. We must not, however, think that we are absolutely righteous when working for justice. All human actions are infected with sin; even good actions will be mixed with self-interest and complex motives, not all of them good. We must not, as well, think that we will achieve perfection. At best, human action can achieve approximate justice, not absolute justice. Indeed, the delusion that we can create a perfect world leads to monstrosities as we delude ourselves into believing we are absolutely righteous and our cause is absolutely righteous. With such assumptions we justify doing anything for "the cause."
While often thought of as a social "liberal," Niebuhr was fiercely anti-totalitarian against both Nazism and Communism. Theologically, he was "Neo-Orthodox" rather than "Liberal," because of his stress on a reinterpreted doctrines of "Original Sin" and "Depravity" rather than denying these doctrines.
Niebuhr and his "Christian Realism" inform my social thought.
27/09: Anglican Split Looming
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
It's on.
World Anglicans have given their American brethren, the Episcopal bishops, until Sept 30 to change policy on practicing gays and lesbians in church office. In its current meeting, the Episcopalian bishops have refused. Stay tuned. Story here from NYT.
World Anglicans have given their American brethren, the Episcopal bishops, until Sept 30 to change policy on practicing gays and lesbians in church office. In its current meeting, the Episcopalian bishops have refused. Stay tuned. Story here from NYT.
27/09: Constitution Day Forum
Category: Courts
Posted by: an okie gardener
I am behind in blogging. Here's a report from a Constitution Day forum I attended at Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma. The panel consisted of 3 judges(J) and one state legislator(L).
Q: what is the most striking feature of the Constitution in your opinion?
J: it is enforcable against the government
J: it is adaptable and flexible
J: its balance between liberties and police powers
L: it is a guarantor of rights , not a grantee of rights
Q: what is the role of states today, given their decrease in power?
J: there are natural ups and downs in the relation of power, someday the states will be up again
J: there is a balance in the system
J: Rehquist began a continuing process of moving power back to the states
L: we in the states are addicted to Federal $, and until that changes, the Feds will be supreme
Q: what about illegal immigration?
J: the situation is "total lawlessness" and we cannot long stand lawlessness in such an important area of our nation's life
J: we cannot stand the undermining of the rule of law; the rule of law is why people come here in the first place
J; how do we enforce immigration without upsetting the balance of police power and liberty in favor of police power?
L: by the Constitution it is a Federal problem, not a state problem
Q: what about terrorist wiretaps under the Patriot Act?
J: an established illegality, being delayed in reaching the Supreme Court
J: be afraid
J: ?
L: a Federal government authority, but I don't want our children to get blown up
Q: what is the most striking feature of the Constitution in your opinion?
J: it is enforcable against the government
J: it is adaptable and flexible
J: its balance between liberties and police powers
L: it is a guarantor of rights , not a grantee of rights
Q: what is the role of states today, given their decrease in power?
J: there are natural ups and downs in the relation of power, someday the states will be up again
J: there is a balance in the system
J: Rehquist began a continuing process of moving power back to the states
L: we in the states are addicted to Federal $, and until that changes, the Feds will be supreme
Q: what about illegal immigration?
J: the situation is "total lawlessness" and we cannot long stand lawlessness in such an important area of our nation's life
J: we cannot stand the undermining of the rule of law; the rule of law is why people come here in the first place
J; how do we enforce immigration without upsetting the balance of police power and liberty in favor of police power?
L: by the Constitution it is a Federal problem, not a state problem
Q: what about terrorist wiretaps under the Patriot Act?
J: an established illegality, being delayed in reaching the Supreme Court
J: be afraid
J: ?
L: a Federal government authority, but I don't want our children to get blown up
President Clinton made news on Anderson Cooper (CNN video here) last night defending Democrats who would not condemn MoveOn.org by attacking "Republicans" as "disingenuous" for their "feigned outrage" regarding the General Betray Us ad.
President Clinton, evidently, thinks it inconceivable that politicians could actually get mad about scurrilous accusations of treason meant to dishonor a no-nonsense, straight-shooting military commander.
When we cry the blues about the "politics of personal destruction," we don't really mean it, right? This is how the game is played.
Even as he criticized the opposition for "feigning outrage," he worked himself up into an angry performance. President Clinton's talent for getting red in the face is impressive--but I think he has started to go there too often. He reminds me of Pacino. How many more times can I watch another variation of: "I should take a flame thrower to this plaaaaaace!"
President Clinton stoked his righteous indignation by retelling the increasingly mythological tale of Max Cleland, who "lost half his body in Vietnam," the President asserted, only to be compared to Saddam and Osama by dastardly Republicans. Ironically, that overly simple and distorted Democratic narrative can only be described as disingenuous. The ad was crude—but accurate.
FYI: see the ad here via YouTube.
The bottom line: if Max Cleland wanted special status accorded to him for his sacrifice and service, he should have avoided politics. Unfortunately, and Bill Clinton has as much to answer for in this regard as any other American politician, American political life is a street brawl.
As for President Clinton, known and praised the world over for his incisive ability to explain events in a nuanced way, regrettably, he chose to broadly assail congressional Republicans and the President as liars and scoundrels. Not very subtle or conciliatory.
A disappointing performance from the President--but not especially out of character. We are likely to have plenty of opportunities to watch him reprise this role over the course of the next nine years.
President Clinton, evidently, thinks it inconceivable that politicians could actually get mad about scurrilous accusations of treason meant to dishonor a no-nonsense, straight-shooting military commander.
When we cry the blues about the "politics of personal destruction," we don't really mean it, right? This is how the game is played.
Even as he criticized the opposition for "feigning outrage," he worked himself up into an angry performance. President Clinton's talent for getting red in the face is impressive--but I think he has started to go there too often. He reminds me of Pacino. How many more times can I watch another variation of: "I should take a flame thrower to this plaaaaaace!"
President Clinton stoked his righteous indignation by retelling the increasingly mythological tale of Max Cleland, who "lost half his body in Vietnam," the President asserted, only to be compared to Saddam and Osama by dastardly Republicans. Ironically, that overly simple and distorted Democratic narrative can only be described as disingenuous. The ad was crude—but accurate.
FYI: see the ad here via YouTube.
The bottom line: if Max Cleland wanted special status accorded to him for his sacrifice and service, he should have avoided politics. Unfortunately, and Bill Clinton has as much to answer for in this regard as any other American politician, American political life is a street brawl.
As for President Clinton, known and praised the world over for his incisive ability to explain events in a nuanced way, regrettably, he chose to broadly assail congressional Republicans and the President as liars and scoundrels. Not very subtle or conciliatory.
A disappointing performance from the President--but not especially out of character. We are likely to have plenty of opportunities to watch him reprise this role over the course of the next nine years.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
I haven't blogged lately, so I missed posting on the actually birthday of George Gershwin.
September 26, the birthday of Jacob Gershovitz, better known as George Gershwin.
America has been blessed with great popular music. For my money it's hard to beat the Great American Songbook. Contributing as much as anyone was George Gershwin. Think Rhapsody in Blue, An American in Paris, George and Ira's collaboration on Porgy and Bess. Here is the official website for George and Ira. You can listen to some of the music the brothers created.
The Gershwins demonstrated that "popular" and "high quality" can go together.
September 26, the birthday of Jacob Gershovitz, better known as George Gershwin.
America has been blessed with great popular music. For my money it's hard to beat the Great American Songbook. Contributing as much as anyone was George Gershwin. Think Rhapsody in Blue, An American in Paris, George and Ira's collaboration on Porgy and Bess. Here is the official website for George and Ira. You can listen to some of the music the brothers created.
The Gershwins demonstrated that "popular" and "high quality" can go together.
We do well to commemorate the heroism of the Little Rock Nine. No group of Americans stands any more deserving of our national commendations and gratitude.
However, too many stories this week, and even some statements emanating from the heroes themselves, identified remnants of segregation and re-segregation as the unfinished work of the Civil Rights Revolution. This far too convenient, conventional, and timid analysis misses the greater tragedy and current crisis:
Too many African American students are far less-prepared to succeed in school and society in 2007 than the Little Rock Nine were in 1957.
Some history:
For fifty years, sometimes ignorantly and sometimes purposefully, we have mischaracterized the goal of school desegregation. In truth, desegregation was never designed primarily to improve education. Rather, court-ordered integration of public schools was always a much larger social experiment designed to break down racial barriers within American culture.
In reply to the plaintiff's evidence presented to the Supreme Court in the storied Brown v. Board case, Justice Robert Jackson privately dismissed the argument as "sociology rather than law."
An aside: I might have added "bad sociology" to boot--but that may strike too many as redundant (something syntactically akin to "cold Vichyssoise").
Not too far removed from his role as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, Justice Jackson understood that second-class citizenship in America based on race was no longer tenable in the post-World War II world. Moreover, Jackson understood that the moment for amelioration had arrived, and the Court was the proper venue for initiating drastic change. The famed jurist set his considerable talents toward cajoling his cohorts into making good law out of a necessary and worthy social goal. And, while reasonable people continue to disagree, for the most part, the Court accomplished its mission in a transcendently sublime way.
Brown inaugurated a social revolution. Thanks to the Supreme Court, Jim Crow fell away. Thanks to Brown, America came to grips with 350 years of oppression, discrimination, and mistreatment. Thanks to the "Washington Nine," the United States redeemed its troubled racial soul.
The Bad News
On the other hand, the pretext for Brown, as a remedy for inferior education for African American citizens, was misleading then and has played out over time as a much less happily successful story. In truth, the state of American education today lies in critical condition. More to the point, the state of education for African American students seems perilously unacceptable.
One of the most under-reported elements of the Little Rock Nine story has always been the scholastic aptitude of the young people tapped to integrate Central High. As Ernest Green asserted recently, the black kids were superior intellectually to vast majority of their 2,000-plus white schoolmates in 1957.
The black students were extremely well prepared to compete at Little Rock's model white high school. The Nine were already poised to excel in post-secondary education long before they attended the big school. They had attended black schools in the Little Rock area where they learned with inferior materials (hand-me-down books) and studied under teachers paid less than their white counterparts. Nevertheless, the Nine emerged from the experience academically disciplined and well-educated.
Why?
They had the support of talented black educators and tight-knit families and communities.
Watching the archival footage of the Nine--and comparing them to the students of today—I am in awe of their courage, demeanor, and sophistication.
What happened?
We lost sight of what makes for good education. Somewhere between then and now, we decided learning revolved around technology, impressive buildings, newer editions of school books, and the shibboleth of self esteem.
This crisis threatens all American students, but African Americans are especially at risk.
The challenge of 2007 is to somehow move beyond political correctness, therapeutic education, and our understandable awkwardness and guilt concerning historic racial injustices. During the first half of the twentieth century, talented and dedicated black educators prepared black students to accomplish great things. Selfless and optimistic black families supported their children and held them to high standards of conduct and achievement.
We won a great battle during the Civil Rights years. However, if we don't find some way to save families and restore discipline in schools, we are going to lose the war for American survival.
However, too many stories this week, and even some statements emanating from the heroes themselves, identified remnants of segregation and re-segregation as the unfinished work of the Civil Rights Revolution. This far too convenient, conventional, and timid analysis misses the greater tragedy and current crisis:
Too many African American students are far less-prepared to succeed in school and society in 2007 than the Little Rock Nine were in 1957.
Some history:
For fifty years, sometimes ignorantly and sometimes purposefully, we have mischaracterized the goal of school desegregation. In truth, desegregation was never designed primarily to improve education. Rather, court-ordered integration of public schools was always a much larger social experiment designed to break down racial barriers within American culture.
In reply to the plaintiff's evidence presented to the Supreme Court in the storied Brown v. Board case, Justice Robert Jackson privately dismissed the argument as "sociology rather than law."
An aside: I might have added "bad sociology" to boot--but that may strike too many as redundant (something syntactically akin to "cold Vichyssoise").
Not too far removed from his role as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, Justice Jackson understood that second-class citizenship in America based on race was no longer tenable in the post-World War II world. Moreover, Jackson understood that the moment for amelioration had arrived, and the Court was the proper venue for initiating drastic change. The famed jurist set his considerable talents toward cajoling his cohorts into making good law out of a necessary and worthy social goal. And, while reasonable people continue to disagree, for the most part, the Court accomplished its mission in a transcendently sublime way.
Brown inaugurated a social revolution. Thanks to the Supreme Court, Jim Crow fell away. Thanks to Brown, America came to grips with 350 years of oppression, discrimination, and mistreatment. Thanks to the "Washington Nine," the United States redeemed its troubled racial soul.
The Bad News
On the other hand, the pretext for Brown, as a remedy for inferior education for African American citizens, was misleading then and has played out over time as a much less happily successful story. In truth, the state of American education today lies in critical condition. More to the point, the state of education for African American students seems perilously unacceptable.
One of the most under-reported elements of the Little Rock Nine story has always been the scholastic aptitude of the young people tapped to integrate Central High. As Ernest Green asserted recently, the black kids were superior intellectually to vast majority of their 2,000-plus white schoolmates in 1957.
The black students were extremely well prepared to compete at Little Rock's model white high school. The Nine were already poised to excel in post-secondary education long before they attended the big school. They had attended black schools in the Little Rock area where they learned with inferior materials (hand-me-down books) and studied under teachers paid less than their white counterparts. Nevertheless, the Nine emerged from the experience academically disciplined and well-educated.
Why?
They had the support of talented black educators and tight-knit families and communities.
Watching the archival footage of the Nine--and comparing them to the students of today—I am in awe of their courage, demeanor, and sophistication.
What happened?
We lost sight of what makes for good education. Somewhere between then and now, we decided learning revolved around technology, impressive buildings, newer editions of school books, and the shibboleth of self esteem.
This crisis threatens all American students, but African Americans are especially at risk.
The challenge of 2007 is to somehow move beyond political correctness, therapeutic education, and our understandable awkwardness and guilt concerning historic racial injustices. During the first half of the twentieth century, talented and dedicated black educators prepared black students to accomplish great things. Selfless and optimistic black families supported their children and held them to high standards of conduct and achievement.
We won a great battle during the Civil Rights years. However, if we don't find some way to save families and restore discipline in schools, we are going to lose the war for American survival.
News flash from the Hill via Drudge:
"House overwhelmingly condemns MoveOn ad."
This is a smart move. Was it sincere? Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men? I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, mark one down for Democratic leadership. They are clearing the decks in preparation for the impending storm over SCHIP. Regardless of principle or specifics, the President et al find themsleves in a particularly vulnerable place on the "insurance for children" bill. Expect an all-out blitzkrieg from the Democrats and their allies.
The "General Betray Us" controversy is at the sunset of its political viability. As I have said previously, I doubt that the Petraeus-MoveOn tempest impacts the political landscape in a long-term meaningful way.
On the other hand, if the President sticks to his guns, the Children's Health Insurance Program veto likely marks the beginning of an extended season of uncomfortably hot and devastating political rhetoric directed at "heartless Republicans."
"House overwhelmingly condemns MoveOn ad."
This is a smart move. Was it sincere? Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men? I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, mark one down for Democratic leadership. They are clearing the decks in preparation for the impending storm over SCHIP. Regardless of principle or specifics, the President et al find themsleves in a particularly vulnerable place on the "insurance for children" bill. Expect an all-out blitzkrieg from the Democrats and their allies.
The "General Betray Us" controversy is at the sunset of its political viability. As I have said previously, I doubt that the Petraeus-MoveOn tempest impacts the political landscape in a long-term meaningful way.
On the other hand, if the President sticks to his guns, the Children's Health Insurance Program veto likely marks the beginning of an extended season of uncomfortably hot and devastating political rhetoric directed at "heartless Republicans."
Tocqueville directs us to this jeremiad against the temptations of modernity from the conservative's conservative, Wendell Berry.
This short paragraph is emblematic of Berry's thinking and writing:
"The conservationist indictment of Christianity is a problem, secondly, because, however just it may be, it does not come from an adequate understanding of the Bible and the cultural traditions that descend from the Bible. The anti-Christian conservationists characteristically deal with the Bible by waving it off. And this dismissal conceals, as such dismissals are apt to do, an ignorance that invalidates it. The Bible is an inspired book written by human hands; as such, it is certainly subject to criticism. But the anti-Christian environmentalists have not mastered the first rule of the criticism of books: you have to read them before you criticize them. Our predicament now, I believe, requires us to learn to read and understand the Bible in the light of the present fact of Creation. This would seem to be a requirement both for Christians and for everyone concerned, but it entails a long work of true criticism--that is, careful and judicious study, not dismissal. It entails, furthermore, the making of very precise distinctions between biblical instruction and the behavior of those peoples supposed to have been biblically instructed."
Read the entire essay here via Crosscurrents.
This short paragraph is emblematic of Berry's thinking and writing:
"The conservationist indictment of Christianity is a problem, secondly, because, however just it may be, it does not come from an adequate understanding of the Bible and the cultural traditions that descend from the Bible. The anti-Christian conservationists characteristically deal with the Bible by waving it off. And this dismissal conceals, as such dismissals are apt to do, an ignorance that invalidates it. The Bible is an inspired book written by human hands; as such, it is certainly subject to criticism. But the anti-Christian environmentalists have not mastered the first rule of the criticism of books: you have to read them before you criticize them. Our predicament now, I believe, requires us to learn to read and understand the Bible in the light of the present fact of Creation. This would seem to be a requirement both for Christians and for everyone concerned, but it entails a long work of true criticism--that is, careful and judicious study, not dismissal. It entails, furthermore, the making of very precise distinctions between biblical instruction and the behavior of those peoples supposed to have been biblically instructed."
Read the entire essay here via Crosscurrents.
24/09: The War
A few reflections after two nights (4/15ths) of The War, a film by Ken Burns:
So far so good. Perhaps it is not the Civil War--but, then again, it is not 1990, Ken Burns no longer has the advantage of surprise, and this war is full of moving images, which makes the narrative much harder to control.
Having said that, I am enthralled--waiting breathlessly to see how it all ends. Well done.
An obvious comparison between then and now is the role of public sacrifice during the time of war. If we did not know already, we see clearly how the WWII generation practiced self-denial and sacrifice on the home front as well as the battlefield. A critique of the Bush administration centering on this divergence has become so ubiquitous in recent days as to seem cliché.
For that reason, I have refrained from making the following observation in print, on the blog, or on other electronic media (until now). Long before I knew what a blog was, the Okie Gardener and I would converse over lunch in a mom and pop Mexican restaurant in Waco during the weeks following 9-11, agreeing that the President must address the nation and ask for sacrifice. Thinking as students of the American past, the reasons were obvious: to win we needed investment of body, soul and mind. Today, among the President's many errors in prosecuting this war, none looms larger than his incapacity to connect the citizenry to the military and the mission in a meaningful way.
However, the exclamation of exasperation most often hurled against President Bush, "instead of sacrifice, President Bush asked us to go shopping," while understandable, is patently off the mark. Quite frankly, America did need to go shopping after the attack. Consumer spending drives the twenty-first century economy, and a robust economy really is the key to keeping this war afloat.
Watching the Burns documentary reminds us that the United States did not prevail in the Second World War because of the wisdom of our leaders, the bravery of our soldiers, the genius of our generals, or the sincerity of our people. Undoubtedly, all those things were true--but they were also true of Germans, Italians and the Japanese.
We persevered and emerged victorious in the long and destructive war because we out-industrialized the great industrial powers of the twentieth century. In the simplest terms, the American economy was key to the American triumph. Shopping was not the basis of our economy during that war--but it may be now.
We are one economic downturn away from crisis—and one crisis away from defeat. That is, a major recession would make further prosecution of the war in Iraq, already unpopular, completely untenable.
So far so good. Perhaps it is not the Civil War--but, then again, it is not 1990, Ken Burns no longer has the advantage of surprise, and this war is full of moving images, which makes the narrative much harder to control.
Having said that, I am enthralled--waiting breathlessly to see how it all ends. Well done.
An obvious comparison between then and now is the role of public sacrifice during the time of war. If we did not know already, we see clearly how the WWII generation practiced self-denial and sacrifice on the home front as well as the battlefield. A critique of the Bush administration centering on this divergence has become so ubiquitous in recent days as to seem cliché.
For that reason, I have refrained from making the following observation in print, on the blog, or on other electronic media (until now). Long before I knew what a blog was, the Okie Gardener and I would converse over lunch in a mom and pop Mexican restaurant in Waco during the weeks following 9-11, agreeing that the President must address the nation and ask for sacrifice. Thinking as students of the American past, the reasons were obvious: to win we needed investment of body, soul and mind. Today, among the President's many errors in prosecuting this war, none looms larger than his incapacity to connect the citizenry to the military and the mission in a meaningful way.
However, the exclamation of exasperation most often hurled against President Bush, "instead of sacrifice, President Bush asked us to go shopping," while understandable, is patently off the mark. Quite frankly, America did need to go shopping after the attack. Consumer spending drives the twenty-first century economy, and a robust economy really is the key to keeping this war afloat.
Watching the Burns documentary reminds us that the United States did not prevail in the Second World War because of the wisdom of our leaders, the bravery of our soldiers, the genius of our generals, or the sincerity of our people. Undoubtedly, all those things were true--but they were also true of Germans, Italians and the Japanese.
We persevered and emerged victorious in the long and destructive war because we out-industrialized the great industrial powers of the twentieth century. In the simplest terms, the American economy was key to the American triumph. Shopping was not the basis of our economy during that war--but it may be now.
We are one economic downturn away from crisis—and one crisis away from defeat. That is, a major recession would make further prosecution of the war in Iraq, already unpopular, completely untenable.
