Last week I commented on Terry Eagleton’s “intriguing ramble” on Peter Conrad’s Creation. A reader, Tracy Altman, writes in to clarify, noting that when Eagleton speaks of creation as a “dismal truth,” he may be obliquely critiquing the Romantic notion of human transcendence, not siding with it. The Romantics and successive secular humanists extolled man’s potential to fashion the world and himself, but Eagleton is ambiguous about his own position. He mentions St. Augustine’s admonition against men who presume to create, and he tells us that Conrad vehemently disagrees. But (speaking for himself or just Augustine?), Eagleton goes on, “The myth that human beings are self-originating and self-fashioning lies at the root of a great deal of human disaster.” Ms. Altman wrestles with all this:

Eagleton seems unable to put his bits into any kind of coherent picture. The common thread that runs through nearly all of the points I’ve managed to dredge from his article is that of what we would call sin (and its consequences)–failure, isolation, error, uncertainty, self-alienation, depravity. But is there any more to the world than that? Is there a broader horizon, a bigger picture? Is there any salvation?

Eagleton appears to think not. Perhaps he is just being zealous, overcompensating for Conrad’s more (falsely) optimistic secular humanism. What I fear, though, is that he is not only unable, but unwilling, to seek a fuller, more coherent understanding of the creation. This is a position far worse than that of a Miltonic Satan. So long as one desires to rule anywhere (short of Hell, I’ll say–cautiously circumscribing myself), one needs a structure, an organization, a superficially coherent system of thought by which to rule. It may be wrong; it may be radically incoherent; but it is some continued participation in the good creation through which God reveals His glory. The Spirit can work through these things. But the man who believes only in sin, only in limitation, can hardly desire even to rule. Life is a small conglomeration of negative beliefs; the question, “What is the chief end of man?” is disregarded as meaningless. There is no end, no telos. One can only . . . well, ramble.

It’s like reading Augustine’s City of God with God. And while I’m not qualified to adjudicate on what precisely Eagleton believes, there’s something striking about his haziness in this piece. There’s something striking, for that matter, about a great deal of cultural and literary criticism. Remember the description in Paradise Lost, book 1, when Satan and his troops have been cast out of heaven (or, rather, when they have chosen to do without God). “Awake, arise, or be for ever fall’n,” says their leader, and then Milton comments, “Nor did they not perceive the evil plight / In which they were, or the fierce pains not feel.” The rhetoric is confusing and twisted, especially with the use of double negatives, for there is no real vision, no clarity of sight divorced from God. Instead, truth is perceived in the shadows–or, as Augustine might say, perceived as the negation of a lack.

Later the troops come marching by, and we get this splendid passage: On their faces appeared

Obscure some glimpse of joy, to have found their chief
Not in despair, to have found themselves not lost
In loss itself; which on his count’nance cast
Like doubtful hue: but he his wonted pride
Soon recollecting, with high words, that bore
Semblance of worth, not substance, gently raised
Their fainting courage, and dispelled their fears.

I am not sure how to decipher “not lost / In loss itself”—found in loss?—but the ambiguity is perfect here. Semblance not substance, high words but doubtful hue: I don’t accuse Eagleton, but this is a temptation indeed!

David Brooks’ column today offers advice for “Fresh Start Conservatism.”

This jumped out at me:

The first group of policies would foster two-parent families. If all American families looked like the intact middle-class ones, we wouldn’t have nationally low education outcomes. Married men earn 10 percent to 40 percent more than single men with similar skills, and their children are much more likely to graduate from high school. But among the lower-middle class, there is a poisonous spiral of economic stress and cultural decay.

A new working class tax credit applied against the payroll tax would reduce some of the stress. So would a larger child tax credit and increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit. The federal budget should bestow less on seniors and more on young families.

Tax policy, no doubt, plays a part in fostering stable families and marital childbearing. But somehow I don’t think it plays the primary part. We might need to look somewhere other than government to accomplish this great task. Conservatism, whether fresh or stale, should know that. So what can the state do to empower those organs of civil society that make the difference on the ground? Getting out of the way may be a start.

In the June/July issue of First Things, then assistant editor John Rose reviewed a fascinating book about a certain kind of youth culture in Japan. The book was Shutting Out the Sun: How Japan Created Its Own Lost Generation by Michael Zielenziger. The culture, more a sociological phenomenon, is called hikikomori, or, as John described it, “young people who, in protest against their families and society that bred them, don’t leave their homes or, in some cases, their rooms for years.”

Zielenziger sheds some light on the spiritual dimension of this problem by contrasting South Korean culture with Japan’s. The author, who is not religious, also had to note that Christianity, especially in its evangelical form, had provided a framework for “notions of a self apart from the group,” which had helped Korean young people ward off this shutting down that some Japanese youth experience.

Needless to say there are young Christians in this country who have experienced the great gift of a renewed and reborn self by virtue of their faith in Christ, and who want to share that faith with their Japanese peers. The Navigators is a 75-year-old interdenominational youth and missions organization that has ministries planted around the world, including such exotic places as NYU, where one Megan Smith happened to be studying not too long ago.

Megan and a group of other Navigators are in the process of raising money to fund a mission to Japan to share their faith there. Christianity has but an infinitesimally small presence in Japan, but through the dedication of young Christians such as Megan, and the work of the Holy Spirit, the Land of the Rising Sun may soon see another Son on the horizon, offering escape from a “futile way of life” (1 Pet. 1:18).

Thanks to Justin Moffatt for bringing this to my attention.

Douglas Kmiec—former dean of the law school at the Catholic University of America, the current chair of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and the man who chaired Mitt Romney’s Committee on the Constitution—wrote this article for Slate: “Reaganites for Obama? Sorry McCain. Barack Obama is a Natural for the Catholic Vote” I can’t quite follow the argument he’s making; I’m not even sure if there is an argument.

And in an online piece for The New Republic, Debbie Nathan argues that the New York Times is squishy about abortion: “What is The New York Times’ problem with abortion? The editorial page consistently supports sex education, birth control, and the right to legally end unwanted pregnancy. The rest of the Times, however, often seems uncomfortable with concrete applications of these principles. Not a season goes by that a news item or magazine feature doesn’t imply that women who get abortions are acting with egotism, unhealthiness, and cruelty.” Ross Douthat has some helpful comments on it here.

The Drudge Report is highlighting this address that President Bush gave yesterday. A taste:

Declaring the age of paternalism over, President Bush said Thursday the United States demands clear results for the billions of taxpayer dollars it sends to Africa. He accused other nations of exploiting the continent’s resources or irresponsibly offering aid as charity. “America is serving as an investor, not as a donor,” Bush said in a tone-setting preview of his six-day trip to Africa, which begins Saturday.

Bush’s speech was largely aimed at Congress, which sets the foreign aid budgets that will ultimately shape whether his initiatives outlast his presidency.

The president said the United States has a moral imperative and a vital security interest in helping Africa overcome disease, poverty and instability. His message reflected that foreign aid goes over better with lawmakers and the taxpaying public when it turns up tangible results and lasting change.

…

“We have also revolutionized the way we approach development,” Bush said. “Too many nations continue to follow either the paternalistic notion that treats African countries as charity cases, or a model of exploitation that seeks only to buy up their resources. America rejects both approaches.”

Instead, Bush said, the U.S. treats African leaders as equal partners who must set clear goals and achieve measurable results.

It reminded me to link to this article—”Hearts of Darkness: Trendy Paternalism is Keeping Africa in Chains“—in the current issue of City Journal. Its opening:

Paternalism was supposed to be finished. The belief that grown men and women are childlike creatures who can thrive in the world only if they submit to the guardianship of benevolent mandarins underlay more than a century’s worth of welfare-state social policy, beginning with Otto von Bismarck’s first Wohlfahrtsstaat experiments in nineteenth-century Germany. But paternalism’s centrally directed systems of subsidies failed to raise up submerged classes, and by the end of the twentieth century even many liberals, surveying the cultural wreckage left behind by the Great Society, had abandoned their faith in the welfare state.

Yet in one area, foreign aid, the paternalist spirit is far from dead. A new generation of economists and activists is calling for a “big push” in Africa to expand programs that in practice institutionalize poverty rather than end it. The Africrats’ enthusiasm for the failed policies of the past threatens to turn a struggling continent into a permanent ghetto—and to block the progress of ideas that really can liberate Africa’s oppressed populations.

Give the entire thing a read. And if you’re not familiar with City Journal, check it out online—it’s the leading journal for urban policy and many of its ideas fueled the Giuliani revolution—or, better yet, take out a subscription.