Jeremy Lin, the Harvard educated, Asian-American, basketball phenom who makes public proclamations about his Christian faith, is all the rage right now. There are a variety of questions his success raises, yet surely the most unique (or esoteric) analysis must go to David Brooks who takes a Straussian spin on the New York Knicks point guard. In yesterday’s Op-Ed, Brooks uses Lin’s sudden fame as an opportunity to discuss the possible tension between Greek Magnanimity and Biblical humility:

“The modern sports hero is competitive and ambitious. (Let’s say he’s a man, though these traits apply to female athletes as well). He is theatrical. He puts himself on display. He is assertive, proud and intimidating. He makes himself the center of attention when the game is on the line. His identity is built around his prowess. His achievement is measured by how much he can elicit the admiration of other people — the roar of the crowd and the respect of ESPN….The religious ethos is about redemption, self-abnegation and surrender to God…The odds are that Lin will never figure it out because the two moral universes are not reconcilable.”

Brooks doesn’t buy Lin’s argument that he is motivated to excel for the sake of God’s glory, but the Christian synthesis of magnanimity and humility has a long pedigree which goes back as far as Aquinas. Either way, it should be a good topic for conversation when you’re having friends over for the Knicks game.

Clifford Orwin discusses here how liberal democracy is officially neutral towards all ways of life.  Each individual is free to put into practice whatever worldview he subscribes to.  Justice Kennedy confirms this view in Casey v. Planned Parenthood when he says an individual is free to “define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe.”

Orwin goes on to say that Liberal Democracy doesn’t work like that in practice because it actually assumes a particular conception of the good: “For so long as you observe prevailing liberal democratic norms on all fundamental social questions, you’re free in merely secondary matters to continue in the ways of your ancestors.”

You can see the truth of this statement in the recent HHS ruling on birth control.  Employer based health insurance must cover birth control and conscience exemptions from the rule are so narrow that it makes it practically impossible for religious believers to qualify. Religious liberty is downgraded to a secondary matter in favor of the prevailing liberal democratic norm of reproductive health.

How does the Liberal Democrat determine the right to birth control should trump right to religious liberty?  Peter has written here in previous posts how supporters of Autonomy are willing to violate their own principle in the name of Health and Safety.  Also, let us not forget Justice O’Connor argument from Casey about liberating women from their baby making bodies so they can help boost the GDP: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”  Autonomy and Productivity go hand in hand.

Orwin says what ends up happening for traditional religious believers in a liberal democracy is they have to settle for a watered down version of their practice e.g. Catholic Lite, Jewish Lite etc.  With the General Election looming, we’ll soon see if Orwin’s depiction of democracy is correct.

The following musing is the result of rereading a very old speech while listening to current events on the radio:

George Washington’s Farewell Address is concerned with national unity: “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” Being an American should matter more than being a Virginian.  Washington tries to persuade the people of this by making both classical and modern arguments.  His first argument is all Americans share “the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.”  This cultural appeal is classical because he sees things in terms of the ancient notion of regime or society’s character and way of life.

Washington’s modern argument is an appeal to the people’s self-interest: national unity ensures productivity and security.  It will facilitate trade between the different regions and the states are better off defensively when they back each other up-“Join or Die” as the Ben Franklin’s political cartoon said.

People today claim GW’s modern arguments are more substantive because they are grounded in something concrete.  Cultural Unity, rooted in patriotism, piety, or just speaking the same language, is too soft a soil for a nation to be planted in.  Lockean Productivity and Hobbesian security are considered the sure and stable foundation for a nation’s future due to their reliance on materialist motives.

Yet the current crisis in the European Union clearly shows the hollowness of this claim.  The basis of the European Union is a common currency and trade zone, but that has not strengthened bonds between Europeans.  As the financial crisis worsens national discriminations will exalt the just pride of patriotism more than the name European ever could.

With the Emmy Awards coming up, it might be worth discussing the recent season of Mad Men, which garnered 19 nominations this year.  Throughout the first three seasons, Don has been able to divide up his life into neat professional and private compartments.  In his professional life, he is rational, industrious, and loyal. But in his private life, he is hedonistic, selfish, and a slave to his appetites.  Yet the vices of his private life did not affect his professional life.  He explains to Peggy that he erected this wall of separation in order to protect the integrity of his work.

But as the season progresses, cracks began to show in his wall.  His private life spills into his professional life as he has affairs with at least three different women from his workplace, one of which he proposes to in the season finale.  His daughter, distraught over her parents’ divorce, shows up at his office and makes a scene in an earlier episode.

In the previous season, Don was contemptuous of Roger Sterling for many reasons, but a key one was his lack of professionalism.  Sterling’s personal life was a mess and was on display for everyone at the office.  It culminated in his divorce and remarriage to his much younger secretary. Yet this season ends with Don following in Roger’s footsteps: he is engaged to his very young secretary.  Over time, it seems Draper is unable to keep his vices privatized.  To see where his character is headed, just take a look at Sterling now.

The film Nine Days That Changed The World is about JPII’s pilgrimage to Poland in 1979 while it was still under the Soviet Union’s control.  It documents the uproar his visit caused and how fragile the Communist hold over that country really was.  His stay sparked the Solidarity Movement which became a thorn in the Soviets’ side.

The film is also clear that JPII did not see the Cold War in terms of Evil Empire A v. Evil Empire B; instead, he sided with the Americans over the Soviets.  Far from reactionary, he was an advocate of modern notions such as human rights, democracy, and capitalism.

At the same time, his support for Western democracies was not absolute.  The end of the film (very) briefly mentions his worry that Western democracies like America will endorse moral relativism as its public philosophy.  A polity which recognizes no objective standard above the human will would allow might to make right.  In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, JPII discusses this problem in terms of the ‘culture of death.’ The growing acceptance of abortion and euthanasia in Western societies depicts the weak and vulnerable as being outside the human community.

While the film does not discuss this question, it is worth pondering whether the culture of death is the inevitable byproduct of democratic capitalism.  If the political system of democracy and economic system of capitalism both emphasize freedom, isn’t  a ‘Culture of Choice’ the necessary result?   In that case, aren’t social conservatives’ hopes for a Pro-Life policy doomed in this country?

Porcher Patrick Deneen would answer in the affirmative to the previous two questions.  He argues that democratic capitalism is solely the product of the Modern Enlightenment and thus necessarily leads to the culture of death.  JPII would agree with a part of his assessment.  In his book Memory and Identity, JPII says “In all its different forms, the Enlightenment was opposed to what Europehad become as a result of evangelization.” He would agree  Enlightenment ideals are hostile to the culture of life.

But he would not agree that Western democracies like America are inevitably headed towards the culture of death.  In Evangelium Vitae, he thinks the two cultures are future possibilities before Western democracies and so there is nothing determined about what is ahead. Like Tocqueville, he accepts the democratic revolution, but thinks what path it will take is still up in the air.

John B. Kienker, managing editor of Claremont Review of Books, has a positive review of Peter’s Modern and American Dignity in the June/July issue of First Things.  He concludes the piece with this friendly criticism:

Ultimately, however, Lawler finds mere political goals–particularly “veneration” of the American founders–inadequate, implying that only “the perspective of genuine believers” can effectively secure human dignity. But these days it seems challenging enough to persuade 300 million of our fellow Americans to embrace the dignity of citizenship again without trying to convert them as well to Christianity. That we must leave to God’s grace.

Peter responds here.  Kienker’s comments reveals aspects of the Claremont approach which might be of interest to those revolving around the First Things orbit:  1) His concern is modern in the sense that he wants to lower the bar (from say supernatural virtue to civic virtue) in order to actualize the goal.  2) Instead of JPII’s priority of culture, he reserves a pride of place for politics. 3) His last line hints at a strict reason/revelation divide which denies Christianity’s persuasive power in the public square.

In regards to the last point, the notion that Americans should embrace a Christian account of human dignity is based upon observations of our nature which we can see with our own eyes e.g. openness to the Truth, social and relational beings, etc.  This is a flag our Claremont friends can rally around, even if it represents more than just Americans.