The Bosque Boys

This is actually the very first Bosque Boys post, which appeared on March 9, 2006; it also appeared in the Waco Tribune, March 3, 2006.

Benjamin Franklin purportedly cautioned: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Although the provenance of that statement is not without questions, the quote accurately reflected the spirit of the Imperial Crisis and the American Revolution. When Franklin and his compatriots finally “pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” to a War for Independence, they perceived themselves fighting to maintain their rights against a renegade government illegitimately accumulating power and threatening liberty.

Once liberty was defended and independence won, however, Americans found governing more problematic than many of the revolutionary slogans had implied. Motivated by the conviction that “power was the enemy of liberty, but too much liberty was also the enemy of liberty,” the convention in Philadelphia in 1787 yielded the Constitution, which created a more centralized government and traded some liberty for stability.

The framers created a federal system in which the national government shared sovereignty with the states, at the same time asserting the supremacy of the new consolidated government. Although the Constitution backed away from the rhetoric of 1776, the framers showed respect for their revolutionary experience and bowed to their political reality. They placed limits on the new government, and they divided power into three branches, charging each component with oversight of the other two in order to provide “proper checks and balances.”

The framers would be struck by the current form of their handiwork as it has evolved over the course of two centuries. Notwithstanding, the problem that they identified as the central dilemma of Republican government, the tension between power and liberty, has remained constant in American history. And the antidote that they prescribed, competing sources of power, “counteracting ambition with ambition,” creating institutional interests and pitting them against rival interests, has served remarkably well to protect liberty from power over time.

The ancient problem and the eighteenth-century curative speak to an important current question: how much power shall we allow the President to exercise in exchange for security in a hostile world? How much power is too much? When does the power of the presidency pose an unacceptable threat to our liberty? These questions are not unprecedented. Much of our present dilemma is systemic and historical. There is no place on Mount Rushmore for presidents who remained satisfied with the scope of their power. Generally, presidents attempt to enlarge the power of the presidency; it is an institutional instinct.

Having said that, no practiced student of American history would trust ruling presidents to determine wisely the limits of their own power. That role falls to the other branches. In addition to those provided in the founding document, extraconstitutional interests have emerged in contemporary America as powerful players in the oversight of presidential authority. These agents include the opposition party in our two-party system, the free press and the giant federal bureaucracy, all of whom have contributed to the current examination of presidential power. As a result of this healthy debate, the legislative and judicial branches, which remain potent and jealous interests, ultimately and rightly, will determine the extent of presidential authority in this latest chapter concerning power and liberty.

Of course, all of these institutions serve merely as surrogates for the people. The power undergirding all these branches (constitutional and otherwise) is rooted in popular sovereignty. Benjamin Franklin, commenting at the close of the Constitutional Convention, optimistically predicted that a well-administered Republican government could last indefinitely. But the pragmatic Franklin also worried that self rule could easily “end in despotism…when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” The gravest threat to liberty comes when the people abdicate their crucial role in the process. May an enlightened debate with regard to the balance between liberty and power continue to flourish.

Dear Friends,

Just a note to inform you that I have been on the road lately (last week in Austin; this weekend in Southern California). I have had plenty of political thoughts during this stretch of silence, but due to my travel schedule, I have found difficulty in conveying them via this outlet.

However, my hat is off to the Okie Gardener, who has picked up my slack with several especially insightful pieces as of late.

One quick obvious thought on Austin:

My trips to Austin with our student government leaders have become a great source of pleasure for me. The more I see the Capitol, the more I find myself in awe. I have always loved Texas courthouses (the McLennan County Courthouse in Waco is a beauty). Courthouses built Texas-style (at the center of town on the square) and the Capitol in Austin are great examples of meaningful political architecture; they are in fact “cathedrals of democracy.”

Much more than merely functional venues to do the business of the people, these monuments are symbols of the American commitment to the rule of law. Moreover, they are consciously designed to inspire citizens to sacrifice and subordination of personal interest. Like the cathedrals of our ancient past built all over the Western world to embody Christian theology, our modern temples to our civil religion of republican self government stand as dramatic physical statements to our America creed.

One programming note:

I will post a few re-mixes and rewinds over the weekend on the assumption that everything old is new again.

The Pew Forum offers a good survey of the powerful evangelical figures being courted by Republican presidential candidates. So far almost none of these figures has committed to a particular candidate.

This article affirms what I have said before, support for this election's roster of candidates is shallow, allowing room for an attractive conservative still to enter the race.

Yesterday evening, Wednesday, was beautiful--spring temperatures, green grass from recent rain, and only light breezes (for which Okies give thanks). The town was full of people walking in the streets, often arm-in-arm. (We don't have a lot of sidewalks, but also not a lot of traffic.) Many were headed uptown to view the chalk art on the sidewalks (we do have sidewalks there)drawn by local high-school students. Until dusk settled people sauntered past the storefronts, heads down, looking at the drawings. Many paused before the street and vacant lot where the carnival was setting up.

We do this every year, just before Rattlesnake Festival, our big town celebration. In the hills west of town, and further afield, rattlesnakes are caught during the weeks before the Festival. If long enough, they will be butchered, and their meat sold (cooked or raw to take home with you) on main street. Many will be kept in a cooler to be brought out into a pen in the street for shows. Our local "snake man" will stand inside the pen Friday and Saturday and Sunday, ankle deep in rattlesnakes all rattling furiously, and tell the crowd what wonderful creatures of God these snakes are. By this time the snakes are warm and active and not in a good humor. Some he will pick up and hold. Some he will milk the venom from. Even though he wears high-topped boots he has been bitten three times over the years. Antivenom is kept in a refrigerator nearby.

Vendors today were setting up their stands on the roped-off main street. Yard sales have sprouted around town, giving a sort of gypsy-camp look to the place. The ladies of our church are preparing for an all-you-can-eat free-will donation breakfast on Saturday. One of our church members is in charge of the Festival Pow-Wow and is even busier than usual as she makes sure that everything goes well. Dancers both local and from out-of-town will dance, drum, and sing. Early on Sunday morning I am to conduct a church service uptown before the stands and carnival opens--rather than my usual congregation of local Indians I'll be leading vendors and carnies in worship. (more below)

» Read More

When the Democrats were running for Congress they promised a new day of honesty if elected. Right. I missed this article when it came out last month about how an election finance loophole was used by the Dems. Technically legal, but a violation of the spirit of their campaign promises. Never ask a politician--how dumb do you think the voters are?--you won't want to hear the answer.

This article from Frontpage is damning for the WCC simply by stating the facts. (Link from The Institute on Religion and Democracy)The tyrant of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, was aided in coming to power by church money through the WCC, especially from American Methodists. Even at an early stage Mugabe showed his brutality, his group committing atrocities on civilians white and black. The WCC owes the world, and the people of Zimbabwe, an apology.

Jesus told his disciples to be harmless as doves and as wise as serpents. The two characteristics go together. When churchmen are not wise as serpents then they can do great harm. Not every group with "Liberation" in its name is on the side of the angels. (As I think David Read once observed.) Another example of the Jane Fonda fallacy, I suppose: side A is evil therefore their opponents side B must be righteous.

The Church should always be on the side of justice. And the Church should exercise wisdom in weighing options for support. Shame on the WCC for its lack of wisdom.

This excerpt from the President's remarks at Cassell Coliseum on the campus of Virginia Tech yesterday are worth noting:

THE PRESIDENT: Yesterday began like any other day. Students woke up, and they grabbed their backpacks and they headed for class. And soon the day took a dark turn, with students and faculty barricading themselves in classrooms and dormitories -- confused, terrified, and deeply worried. By the end of the morning, it was the worst day of violence on a college campus in American history -- and for many of you here today, it was the worst day of your lives.

It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering. Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they're gone -- and they leave behind grieving families, and grieving classmates, and a grieving nation.

In such times as this, we look for sources of strength to sustain us.

» Read More

In all politics, French included, I echo Farmer's thought: nobody knows nuthin. But, the next French government may indeed move away from big-state socialism. Here. We'll know more after Sunday's first round of voting. Perhaps there is hope for Europe yet.

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants for U.S. Democrats.

Good news. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the Congressionally approved restrictions on partial-birth abortions. Story here. The 5-4 vote underscores the importance of the '08 elections. In all probability the next president will nominate one and perhaps two Supreme Court judges. We should be asking presidential candidates, and Senate candidates, what sort of judges they want on the courts.

Here is the link from the Supreme Court official site to the ruling (pdf file). I'll comment after I've read all 73 pages.

Reader and commentator Photognome points us to this article on a court case in Austria that may give rights to apes.

Personally, I am against cruelty to animals, and think that the more intelligent animals (such as chimps, elephants, dolphins, etc) deserve special protection. I am not sure that the structure of "rights" is the best way to go, though. I see potential court problems if this is the approach taken.

On a related note, while I think the idea of human rights is a handy way of thinking and talking, the idea has its limits. Perhaps it is no accident that neither of the two pillars of Western thought--Greek philosophy and Judaism/Christianity--think in terms of rights. Both think in terms of justice tied into a suprahuman agency.