The Quiet Power of Our Sacred Honor
Nov 2, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
A friend who teaches high school Social Studies recently lamented to me that her students come up from middle school with such a vague idea of what has made America unique among nations since its founding—and what its character has meant to the rest of the world—that she is forced almost to play Devil’s Advocate against the nation’s own history, in order to entice them to its defense.
It is a backwards way of teaching, she admits. Over the past several decades the social and historical curriculum has reduced the time spent on civics and founding documents in order to amplify the broadly social aspects of American history. As a result, students have a solid grasp of the fact that the nation is imperfect and that the citizenry has worked to address those imperfections. Less clear to them, however, is how honorable-in-intention America has been, from the writing of the Declaration of Independence until today, and why that intention has mattered in history.
Her students have no sense of American “identity” as a national and united force not just against certain ideas, but for others. They don’t understand why they should think any better of America than any other nation, “but get them to justify the Berlin Airlift,” she says, “and then you see the lightbulbs go on, and suddenly they become excited. Wow, America sacrificed her own blood, her own resources, in order to save the people they defeated! That’s cool!
At that point “our sacred honor” has become something meaningful to the students; it is the thing that has made manifest the “exceptional and indispensable nation.”
After too much delay, America is finally beginning to scrutinize its complacent and under-achieving public schools system. Reforms are needed to the curriculum, attendance, and testing for the students, and tenure and and performance-reviews for the teachers. But we do not have to wait while politicians, assemblies and unions debate and delay. We can begin—today, with this very election—to teach our children about the spirit of honor, innovation, and independence that formed the nation and, even divided as we are, still sustains it.
While we may criticize a politician or argue against a policy, we must get back to stressing the importance of a loyal opposition and respectful debate as a means of movement over monopoly. We must demonstrate that honor, freedom and truth are not theories but actual, strengthening virtues; they are not just real, they are Eternal.
We must remind our students that as imperfect as America may be, this is still the land to which—in ways large or small—every free nation owes its current liberty. This is the nation that has routinely sent its idealistic young off to foreign lands—to die there—not for empire, not for real-estate, but for the protection and advancement of that unseen thing that is freedom, the strengthener of the human spirit, the burnisher of human potential. Irony-slaves and cynics aside, aside, this is still the nation toward which millions of creative or industrious people will swim; it is the nation to which the oppressed call out for rescue and relief.
Our children must learn that the American presidency is, like a papacy or a monarchy, larger than the person who occupies the office, and that it is noble. The American president emancipated a much-sinned against part of humanity, when too many would not. The American president has used the big stick to overthrow tyrants; the American president has put his airmen to use to keep his vanquished enemies from starving in a brutal winter, he has used his navy to bring aid after tsunami.
The American president has dreamed great space voyages into reality, has opened closed markets, has encouraged a people to tear down walls. The American president has envisioned millions of people raising purple fingertips to the sky, and made it so.
The American president says, “not on my watch,” and the world exhales in relief. Our children need to know that.
We must repeat, over and over, that liberty is the means by which we created creatures are meant to live and to grow and be; that liberty lives in truth spoken forthrightly, and not in circuitous spin; that liberty thrives where people can speak without fear of injury or reprisals; that liberty is sustained only when the press is free and unencumbered; that liberty flourishes when people refuse to be intimidated into silence or acquiescence, but becomes a fragile thing, easily diminished, when we refuse to acclaim it for ourselves.
Perhaps it was easier to tap into the quietly honorable intentions of America at its founding, when oppressed people understood what the opposite of freedom was and resolved to reject it as they rejected empire, or subjugation. Succeeding American generations pursued liberty for others - agreeing always to lead, but never to rule, and ready to return to their own quite ordinary lives when their role was played out.
Today’s balloting seems poised to deliver a hard pull-back from the perceived “mandates” of only two years ago, and a stinging rebuke to public servants who began to believe they were meant to rule, rather than represent - who moved too far against our understandings of consent, and of ourselves and our sacred honor.
Our children and young adults have watched adult America veer incautiously leftward, like a driver slipping lanes because he’s been distracted by a text message; and we will not emerge from that mistake unscathed. But we can make this a teachable moment for our students and ourselves; if we move forward with quiet resolve and honorable intentions we may yet manage to rescue our representative republic from the collision force of a generation that has been bearing down and driving hard for years, against everything that came before itself.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer of First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress. Her previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
Comments:
11.2.2010 | 8:22am
Black Detroit says:
**Succeeding American generations pursued liberty for others - agreeing always to lead, but never to rule, and ready to return to their own quite ordinary lives when their role was played out.**
Ordinary is one way of putting it
Ordinary is one way of putting it
11.2.2010 | 8:24am
Joe the barman says:
**Our children and young adults have watched adult America veer incautiously leftward, like a driver slipping lanes because he’s been distracted by a text message; and we will not emerge from that mistake unscathed.**
You've had enough dear
You've had enough dear
11.2.2010 | 10:40am
Bangwell Putt says:
The good that our beloved nation has done far, far outweighs the dark side that is inevitably part of ALL human action. No, we Americans, past and present, have not been perfect, nor, until today, thought that we could be. But we have been willing to fight and even die for causes that were more good than bad. When we have erred, our error has been analyzed publicly because we are still a free people. We do understand the significance of office, above and beyond any particular officeholder. We know what the word "respect" means including that it is due to each and every person. Thank you, Elizabeth Scalia, for your courage.
11.2.2010 | 12:31pm
Joe the Human says:
Liberty, freedom, even revolution, are a major part of the foundation of America. But what conservatives and Tea Partiers need to remember, is that the 20th century historically showed that against our freedom and liberty, is not just 1) Communism, or creeping Socialism. But also the 2) Pro-Military/Police, "Law and Order" state.
Today nearly all conservatives think that only creeping, "New Deal" Democratic Socialism/Communism, is the form of Big Government that threatens us and freedom. But the twentieth century saw not one but TWO major threats to democratic freedom; not one but TWO major forms of BIG GOVERNMENT, and totalitarianism. One of them to be sure, was 1) Communism, socialism. But the other one?
What Tea Party conservatives have fatally forgotten, is that one of TWO major forms of Big Government, the really major threat to freedom, historically occurred in Italy and Germany, c. 1934-45. When 2) patriotic/nationalistic, pro-troops pro-military, religious conservatives, joined love of the military, and nation, and religion, and big business, and support for the police - and created the regimes of ... Mussolini and Hitler. The classic model for Fascism.
Today American conservatives support the military; police. Never realizing that Agnew's conservative dictum, "Law and Order," was literally borrowed from Mussolini. Never realizing that the major disaster of the 20th century, WWII, was caused by ... a) patriotic and b) conservative religious persons (in this case, in Germany). Patriotic persons c) supporting military action by the "troops," as a "solution" to social and international problems. Never realizing that conservative religion (in this case, the Vatican) was actually part of d) Mussolini's support base.
Today Conservatives support the troops, the police. Never realizing that the fact that America's stress on the military, reflects the classic formula for disaster. Never realizing that its enforcement of "law" now jails a higher percentage of people than any other population in the world; and that as it increasingly encourages wire-tapping, this encourages ... the development of the classic Militaristic Police State. In America.
Conservatives seem alert to the danger in America, of ONE form of Big Government; COmmunism. But they systematically turn a fatally blind eys to the OTHER form of Big Government: the Patriotic, Religious, Law and Order State. The other form of BIG GOVERNMENT.
The form of Big Government that Tea Partiers are unknowingly headed toward. Without knowing it. Hook, line, and sinker.
Today nearly all conservatives think that only creeping, "New Deal" Democratic Socialism/Communism, is the form of Big Government that threatens us and freedom. But the twentieth century saw not one but TWO major threats to democratic freedom; not one but TWO major forms of BIG GOVERNMENT, and totalitarianism. One of them to be sure, was 1) Communism, socialism. But the other one?
What Tea Party conservatives have fatally forgotten, is that one of TWO major forms of Big Government, the really major threat to freedom, historically occurred in Italy and Germany, c. 1934-45. When 2) patriotic/nationalistic, pro-troops pro-military, religious conservatives, joined love of the military, and nation, and religion, and big business, and support for the police - and created the regimes of ... Mussolini and Hitler. The classic model for Fascism.
Today American conservatives support the military; police. Never realizing that Agnew's conservative dictum, "Law and Order," was literally borrowed from Mussolini. Never realizing that the major disaster of the 20th century, WWII, was caused by ... a) patriotic and b) conservative religious persons (in this case, in Germany). Patriotic persons c) supporting military action by the "troops," as a "solution" to social and international problems. Never realizing that conservative religion (in this case, the Vatican) was actually part of d) Mussolini's support base.
Today Conservatives support the troops, the police. Never realizing that the fact that America's stress on the military, reflects the classic formula for disaster. Never realizing that its enforcement of "law" now jails a higher percentage of people than any other population in the world; and that as it increasingly encourages wire-tapping, this encourages ... the development of the classic Militaristic Police State. In America.
Conservatives seem alert to the danger in America, of ONE form of Big Government; COmmunism. But they systematically turn a fatally blind eys to the OTHER form of Big Government: the Patriotic, Religious, Law and Order State. The other form of BIG GOVERNMENT.
The form of Big Government that Tea Partiers are unknowingly headed toward. Without knowing it. Hook, line, and sinker.
11.2.2010 | 12:39pm
Toby says:
I'm from the UK and a huge fan of the US, particularly for some of the debate that goes on in the public sphere on issues that really matter, eg abortion, education, that seems to be a fringe discussion in the UK. There is much the rest of the world can learn from you.
However, whilst I agree with much of the sentiment in the article and the noble role that the US has often played in world affairs, put yourself in the shoes of somebody from another country and read it, and see if it doesn't sound a little arrogant. Yes, the Presidency is an incredibly important office of state and can be compared to be a monarchy, but like a monarchy is a creation of man and must therefore be distinguished from Papacy, insituted by Christ. Therefore the Presidency, much like the Monarchy in the UK, does not carry a nobility indepedent of the exercise of its powers and priviledges and when these are abused, citation of a noble tradition is not sufficient.
So yes, be justifiably proud of your achievements, but do it with humility and a recognition of the failures too, which will then undoubtedly spur your country on to further great deeds. Remember that you share some of your good values with others, they are not yours alone, refugees come to other countries too. If you estol intervention in other countries for selfless reasons, be prepared to answer why interventions have not occurred in others.
However, whilst I agree with much of the sentiment in the article and the noble role that the US has often played in world affairs, put yourself in the shoes of somebody from another country and read it, and see if it doesn't sound a little arrogant. Yes, the Presidency is an incredibly important office of state and can be compared to be a monarchy, but like a monarchy is a creation of man and must therefore be distinguished from Papacy, insituted by Christ. Therefore the Presidency, much like the Monarchy in the UK, does not carry a nobility indepedent of the exercise of its powers and priviledges and when these are abused, citation of a noble tradition is not sufficient.
So yes, be justifiably proud of your achievements, but do it with humility and a recognition of the failures too, which will then undoubtedly spur your country on to further great deeds. Remember that you share some of your good values with others, they are not yours alone, refugees come to other countries too. If you estol intervention in other countries for selfless reasons, be prepared to answer why interventions have not occurred in others.
11.2.2010 | 12:42pm
Don says:
As someone who is not a resident of the United States, I wonder if those who live in the United States and write that the US is "unique among nations since its founding" ever step back and wonder what that sounds like to the rest of humanity, to members of the Church worldwide. It sounds extremely pompous and arrogant. Everything is written in a context, and I believe I understand the context Ms. Scala is writing within, and therefore know that her statement is not meant as arrogant, pompous, nor as pretending that the USA has some divine grant from God.
In some respects all nations are unique - many nations have things to offer the world and many have resorted to bloodshed to achieve independence. Many nations sent their sons to die to free other nations from tyranny (they were just smaller and thus could not have the same impact as the USA - although were their sacrifices therefore less meaningful?).
All individuals should be proud of their nation, to the extent of course that their nation "gives" them something to be proud of. However, humans must be careful not to exalt their country too much. Countries are human constructs and come and go over the centuries. The USA, and every other western country may well not exist within their current geographic boundaries 200-300 years from now. The Church however was founded by God, and it is God whom we should exalt above all else.
In some respects all nations are unique - many nations have things to offer the world and many have resorted to bloodshed to achieve independence. Many nations sent their sons to die to free other nations from tyranny (they were just smaller and thus could not have the same impact as the USA - although were their sacrifices therefore less meaningful?).
All individuals should be proud of their nation, to the extent of course that their nation "gives" them something to be proud of. However, humans must be careful not to exalt their country too much. Countries are human constructs and come and go over the centuries. The USA, and every other western country may well not exist within their current geographic boundaries 200-300 years from now. The Church however was founded by God, and it is God whom we should exalt above all else.
11.2.2010 | 12:47pm
Bangwell Putt says:
American people of good will, conservative and progressive, understand that patriotism requires constant vigilance lest it slip over into idolatry. People of good will, conservative and progressive, understand that a strong military presence is a deterrent not an incitement to violence. People of good will, conservative and progressive, understand that law and order are essential to human flourishing but only when they are enacted and supported by representatives of a free and moral people. A country devoid of true patriotism, of an honorable military, of law and order, of freedom of religion would bear no resemblance to the United State of America.
11.2.2010 | 12:48pm
Liam says:
Actually, the circumstances of our Founding were such that it's pretty clear that the Founding generation was in a deep crisis over the meaning and scope of liberty. One need only consider the Virginia Dynasty to illustrate the point: they were glorious but opportunistic on the topic of liberty, achieved much and were also deeply stained. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe had opportunities later in their lives to lead Virginia out of the direction it was heading, and had a tragic failure of nerve, ultimately leading Virginia into decline. What honor was there in that (and I write this as a loving son of Mr Jefferson's University....)?
One cannot seriously consider only the bright side of the nation's Founding; the dark side is as foundational as the bright. To honor this truth it to honor the reality that human nature is tragic. Christians do not follow their Lord in having a selective appreciation of their nation's history.
One cannot seriously consider only the bright side of the nation's Founding; the dark side is as foundational as the bright. To honor this truth it to honor the reality that human nature is tragic. Christians do not follow their Lord in having a selective appreciation of their nation's history.
11.2.2010 | 12:48pm
Pat Gohn says:
A beautiful and thoughtful tribute as we registered voters take up the mandate of our civic duties! Thank you, Elizabeth!
11.2.2010 | 1:08pm
Fred says:
Congratulations, BG (aka Joe the Human) you've learned a new logical fallacy, Affirming the Consequent: the Nazis and fascists were nationalistic, religious (actually they weren't at all, but we'll just assume it arguendo), and supported the military and police. Today's conservatives are patriotic (not the same really as nationalistic, but we'll let that pass too), religious, and support the military and police. Ergo, today's conservatives are Nazis (or crypto-fascists or potential fascists or fascists-in-waiting, you're not real clear). Is that what passes for logic at the University of Bizarro World, Dr. BG, PhD?
11.2.2010 | 1:22pm
Michael says:
Congratulations both to Scalia’s friend who teaches students to be proud of America and to the middle school teachers who teaches students to be cautious and critical in their pride. We need students to take to heart both messages if we are to continue to be a great nation.
Multiculturalists and women’s and labor historians have worked hard to incorporate both critical and heroic portraits into our understanding of our history. They deserve special congratulation as well as some just criticism of their efforts.
For every Berlin airlift, there is a secret overthrow of an Allende, complete with some honorable and some corrupt intentions.
Although Scalia is certainly right that, a century ago, the United States rejected the idea of a formal empire, it has embraced to an unhealthy extent an informal empire, maintaining hundreds of military bases and enforcing trade agreements to the benefit of our corporations and the politicians that serve them.
And while she is right that America is “still the nation toward which millions of creative or industrious people will swim” and “to which the oppressed call out for rescue and relief,” it is also true that some countries accept more immigrants perspective capita than we and that other countries give more of their GDP away in charity. While some Americans are guilty of thinking the United States is some kind of evil empire, others are prone to make too much of our virtues.
But Scalia’s most profound mistake comes from her deep conviction that Democrats are not patriotic, is not a “loyal opposition.” She is eloquent and absolutely right when she says that “While we may criticize a politician or argue against a policy, we must get back to stressing the importance of a loyal opposition and respectful debate.”
But then she concludes her article by implying that her opposition is not “loyal.” She characterizes Obama’s Democrats as people “who began to believe they were meant to rule, rather than represent.” The implication is that Obama’s Democrats are tyrants, un-American, which is why Roger Garner responds to her article by describing it as a “Glenn Beck libretto.” Beck loves to fantasize that Washington, both coasts, the universities, the media, etc. are occupied by un-American Americans. He hasn’t met a liberal he couldn’t vilify.
A truly “loyal opposition” believes that the other side is being loyal, is being American. I don’t think that Scalia actually believes that Obama’s Democrats are as patriotic as she is, are as committed to continuing America’s heritage as an exemplary nation. For all her calls to civility, Scalia doesn’t actually respect her opposition. She offers poison with a smile.
Multiculturalists and women’s and labor historians have worked hard to incorporate both critical and heroic portraits into our understanding of our history. They deserve special congratulation as well as some just criticism of their efforts.
For every Berlin airlift, there is a secret overthrow of an Allende, complete with some honorable and some corrupt intentions.
Although Scalia is certainly right that, a century ago, the United States rejected the idea of a formal empire, it has embraced to an unhealthy extent an informal empire, maintaining hundreds of military bases and enforcing trade agreements to the benefit of our corporations and the politicians that serve them.
And while she is right that America is “still the nation toward which millions of creative or industrious people will swim” and “to which the oppressed call out for rescue and relief,” it is also true that some countries accept more immigrants perspective capita than we and that other countries give more of their GDP away in charity. While some Americans are guilty of thinking the United States is some kind of evil empire, others are prone to make too much of our virtues.
But Scalia’s most profound mistake comes from her deep conviction that Democrats are not patriotic, is not a “loyal opposition.” She is eloquent and absolutely right when she says that “While we may criticize a politician or argue against a policy, we must get back to stressing the importance of a loyal opposition and respectful debate.”
But then she concludes her article by implying that her opposition is not “loyal.” She characterizes Obama’s Democrats as people “who began to believe they were meant to rule, rather than represent.” The implication is that Obama’s Democrats are tyrants, un-American, which is why Roger Garner responds to her article by describing it as a “Glenn Beck libretto.” Beck loves to fantasize that Washington, both coasts, the universities, the media, etc. are occupied by un-American Americans. He hasn’t met a liberal he couldn’t vilify.
A truly “loyal opposition” believes that the other side is being loyal, is being American. I don’t think that Scalia actually believes that Obama’s Democrats are as patriotic as she is, are as committed to continuing America’s heritage as an exemplary nation. For all her calls to civility, Scalia doesn’t actually respect her opposition. She offers poison with a smile.
11.2.2010 | 1:44pm
A Lyttle says:
This lays it on a bit thick, don't you think? The presidency is like the papacy, for goodness' sake?
As a British expatriate, I'm very fond of many things about America--fond enough to have applied for citizenship. But I can't really say I'm much impressed by rhetoric of this sort. Many of the early 'oppressed' peoples of whom Scalia spoke were fairly prosperous colonists who didn't like paying such high taxes to a government that gave them no parliamentary legislation. A good principle, but hardly the cry of the slave in chains. And many of them didn't seem to think twice about oppressing others (Native peoples, persons of African extraction). Do we need to romanticize a tax revolt quite so lavishly?
Yes, Americans have fought and bled for the liberty of others; but that is not to say there was no geopolitical self-interest or pragmatism concerned. The Berlin Air-lift was very much a part of the Cold War struggle, as indeed was the reconstruction of Western Europe. Magnanimous, yes; heroic, yes; but also pragmatic and strategic.
As for presidents, they are politicians, and I certainly am not becoming a citizen so I can idolise or defer to some damned politician. That's even worse than groveling to a monarch.
As a British expatriate, I'm very fond of many things about America--fond enough to have applied for citizenship. But I can't really say I'm much impressed by rhetoric of this sort. Many of the early 'oppressed' peoples of whom Scalia spoke were fairly prosperous colonists who didn't like paying such high taxes to a government that gave them no parliamentary legislation. A good principle, but hardly the cry of the slave in chains. And many of them didn't seem to think twice about oppressing others (Native peoples, persons of African extraction). Do we need to romanticize a tax revolt quite so lavishly?
Yes, Americans have fought and bled for the liberty of others; but that is not to say there was no geopolitical self-interest or pragmatism concerned. The Berlin Air-lift was very much a part of the Cold War struggle, as indeed was the reconstruction of Western Europe. Magnanimous, yes; heroic, yes; but also pragmatic and strategic.
As for presidents, they are politicians, and I certainly am not becoming a citizen so I can idolise or defer to some damned politician. That's even worse than groveling to a monarch.
11.2.2010 | 2:09pm
michael Currie says:
Kudos Fred.Talk about non sequiters Joe must have majored in them. I think that most people recognize the limits of blog comments and if they could engage in extended disertations about the nature of America they would get around to mentioning our limitations and sins. If they were somewhat cognizant of the nature of the world they would point out that their admiration for America is a relative thing as in compared to what. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the meanies that Joe mentions were gussied up facist states. Facism is not an exclusive provence of the right. Much of the fear in the "tea party" is in fact a reponse to a perceived and in my opinion real fear of a controlling and intrusive federal government, a Facism by an expanding bueracracy whose power ultimately comes at the end of a gun. So while there is much to worry about in the land of the free there is in spite its flaws much to be admired, it is still the bulwark of freedom in the world for it is peopled by a decent, generous, fiercely independent and freedom loving citizenry.
11.2.2010 | 2:14pm
Margaret says:
>>his is the nation that has routinely sent its idealistic young off to foreign lands—to die there—not for empire, not for real-estate, but for the protection and advancement of that unseen thing that is freedom, the strengthener of the human spirit, the burnisher of human potential.
11.2.2010 | 3:28pm
Richard says:
When I was a boy America was, for many of its citizens at least, a set of unifying ideals. The melting pot, e pluribus unum, the American dream, the work ethic, liberty and justice for all, and so on. We knew that these were ideals, not perfectly realized facts, but they were worth striving for. The sense was that we should become one while remaining ourselves--for the immigrant this meant assimilation, for the native it meant patriotism. Now I know all about the sordid realities that existed in tension and even contradiction with this unity, but the general sense was that we hang together and form some sort of community or fall apart. Animated by this ideal, I was taught to love my country and I did.
This sense of the need for unity has been subject to various kinds of centrifugal forces and critical solvents for decades. Assimilation is cultural hegemony and ethnocentrism. Feminism rejects the patriarchy of the founding and its unfolding. America is an imperialist power with dirty hands hidden in white marine gloves. Our success was built on genocide, slavery, and the back of the underclasses. Communism and liberalism joined hands to lead the jeers. Anyone can add to the indictment ad infinitum.
I have come to accept that a country whose citizens cannot forgive its sins through love and gratitude probably does not deserve to persist. The drumbeat of criticism, just and unjust, at home and abroad, and the ever increasing demands of people whose rights expand in inverse proportion to their duties, the snobbery, the vulgarity, the shamelessness, the jeremiads, the demonstrations, the multiculturalism and diversity, the plutocrats, the phony tv evangelists, the labeling of the patriotic as fascist, all this and more have finally overcome my boyhood love of Uncle Sam (there I go again!). If my fellow citizens don't love this country (which is, after all, their collective selves), why should I? My citizenship in the city of man is now just an economic and regulatory relationship that will soon be terminated by my passing. If I have a home, it's not here.
If it's not worth dying for it's not what I thought it was. In God I trust. America, memento mori.
I just don't give a damn anymore.
Sincerely,
Richard
P.S. A beautiful essay, Elizabeth. But for me it's just a moving eulogy.
This sense of the need for unity has been subject to various kinds of centrifugal forces and critical solvents for decades. Assimilation is cultural hegemony and ethnocentrism. Feminism rejects the patriarchy of the founding and its unfolding. America is an imperialist power with dirty hands hidden in white marine gloves. Our success was built on genocide, slavery, and the back of the underclasses. Communism and liberalism joined hands to lead the jeers. Anyone can add to the indictment ad infinitum.
I have come to accept that a country whose citizens cannot forgive its sins through love and gratitude probably does not deserve to persist. The drumbeat of criticism, just and unjust, at home and abroad, and the ever increasing demands of people whose rights expand in inverse proportion to their duties, the snobbery, the vulgarity, the shamelessness, the jeremiads, the demonstrations, the multiculturalism and diversity, the plutocrats, the phony tv evangelists, the labeling of the patriotic as fascist, all this and more have finally overcome my boyhood love of Uncle Sam (there I go again!). If my fellow citizens don't love this country (which is, after all, their collective selves), why should I? My citizenship in the city of man is now just an economic and regulatory relationship that will soon be terminated by my passing. If I have a home, it's not here.
If it's not worth dying for it's not what I thought it was. In God I trust. America, memento mori.
I just don't give a damn anymore.
Sincerely,
Richard
P.S. A beautiful essay, Elizabeth. But for me it's just a moving eulogy.
11.2.2010 | 4:38pm
Mike Linton says:
Hi Elizabeth, thanks for the reminder to vote. Haven't yet, will do. But I think a little modesty is due here. We're not in a position to see the full cup of human grief to judge just how much, or how little, our country has added to it--none of us sit so high up can we can peer down into its depths. But it seems that for every ringing speech by Martin Luther King or Patrick Henry and the establishment of places like the Milton Hershey School and Oberlin College there's a corresponding Sand Creek or Gnaddenhuetten and Kinsey Institute. As we were hanging some Nazis in Germany for war crimes we were sneaking other Nazi's into America via Operation Paper Clip all the while conducting lethal medical experiments on Guatemalans. Now, as I write, and you read, Americans are in Afghanistan, killing and being killed in order to support a puppet a government in which conversion to Christianity is punishable by death and where we provide armed patrols for poppy fields; that doesn't look to me much like "the protection and advancement of that unseen thing that is freedom," but of course, the war Mexico didn't look much like that either (actually, at least as far as geography is concerned, our wars have been no more "noble" than the Romans'; if there was something we wanted we pretty much took it and threatened to kill you if you got in the way--Mississippi and Alabama (from the Creeks) California (from the Mexicans), the Philippines (from the Spanish)--we tried to take Canada from the Canadians but they beat of us off but we made up for that by bullying the Hawaiians out of their islands--and we got the better end of that stick, who would want Saskatchewan when you could have Maui?).
And no, America is not "still the land to which—in ways large or small—every free nation owes its current liberty;" at least in regards to the Nazi's, that laurel really has to go the British. They resisted Hitler alone; Boston did not experience the Blitz.
And after the war our economy boomed while the poor British--literally poor--even had their Christmas canceled. Like I said, we need to be a bit more modest.
Modesty I think would help us to remember things like the over three thousand abortions that will be performed today in our country, the thirteen trillion dollar debt that, one way or another, is being supported by bonds denominated in a currency that is daily worth less and less, and the culture of lasciviousness with which we are poisoning the world (Sayyid Qutb was at least right on that point).
On the liberty business, our history is painfully mottled and our present, well I don't think it's much to crow about and a whole lot to repent over.
Oh, and the business about "offices" being "noble"? Nope. They're not. At least I have a hard time seeing that one. As far as I can tell, Jesus didn’t' die for an "office." He died for people. Just people. People are important and eternal and blessed which is why Jesus came to save them--save us. Offices are just offices, jobs, tasks. But fearing that folks will figure-out that they're just people, people who think that their particular office is specially significant feel required to play dress-up, putting on costumes or staging themselves behind desks, strutting across balconies, anointing themselves with titles, it's a long list of theatrical devices. Popes, provosts, presidents, judges, it's all theater, which is but another word for make-believe.
Make believe. With special lights. And sound effects. And curtains. On this election day, know what great American I think we should be telling our children about, who models eternal virtues with fortitude and courage and a love for the truth? Toto. Yep, that Toto. The one with the bit of green curtain between his teeth. The dog.
Oh, and speaking of a bit of green curtain, I'm off to vote.
PS. Richard. Don't give up. And you haven't. You wrote a response. America is a work in process. Like you. Like Elizabeth. Like me. America isn't our home, that's eternal life with Jesus, but America is where we've been placed (purposeful use of the passive voice), we're here renting and it's our job, until we are taken to that other home with the many mansions, to work to fix the place up, make it better for the next tenants. That's what First Things is about. Home Repair--or at least rental repair. Think about First Things as a kinda spiritual/cultural/political Home Depot or Loews'. That's why Elizabeth blogs. And I gripe. And you do give a damn.
Okay. Now I'm really off to vote. And I'm voting the straight Home Depot line.
And no, America is not "still the land to which—in ways large or small—every free nation owes its current liberty;" at least in regards to the Nazi's, that laurel really has to go the British. They resisted Hitler alone; Boston did not experience the Blitz.
And after the war our economy boomed while the poor British--literally poor--even had their Christmas canceled. Like I said, we need to be a bit more modest.
Modesty I think would help us to remember things like the over three thousand abortions that will be performed today in our country, the thirteen trillion dollar debt that, one way or another, is being supported by bonds denominated in a currency that is daily worth less and less, and the culture of lasciviousness with which we are poisoning the world (Sayyid Qutb was at least right on that point).
On the liberty business, our history is painfully mottled and our present, well I don't think it's much to crow about and a whole lot to repent over.
Oh, and the business about "offices" being "noble"? Nope. They're not. At least I have a hard time seeing that one. As far as I can tell, Jesus didn’t' die for an "office." He died for people. Just people. People are important and eternal and blessed which is why Jesus came to save them--save us. Offices are just offices, jobs, tasks. But fearing that folks will figure-out that they're just people, people who think that their particular office is specially significant feel required to play dress-up, putting on costumes or staging themselves behind desks, strutting across balconies, anointing themselves with titles, it's a long list of theatrical devices. Popes, provosts, presidents, judges, it's all theater, which is but another word for make-believe.
Make believe. With special lights. And sound effects. And curtains. On this election day, know what great American I think we should be telling our children about, who models eternal virtues with fortitude and courage and a love for the truth? Toto. Yep, that Toto. The one with the bit of green curtain between his teeth. The dog.
Oh, and speaking of a bit of green curtain, I'm off to vote.
PS. Richard. Don't give up. And you haven't. You wrote a response. America is a work in process. Like you. Like Elizabeth. Like me. America isn't our home, that's eternal life with Jesus, but America is where we've been placed (purposeful use of the passive voice), we're here renting and it's our job, until we are taken to that other home with the many mansions, to work to fix the place up, make it better for the next tenants. That's what First Things is about. Home Repair--or at least rental repair. Think about First Things as a kinda spiritual/cultural/political Home Depot or Loews'. That's why Elizabeth blogs. And I gripe. And you do give a damn.
Okay. Now I'm really off to vote. And I'm voting the straight Home Depot line.
11.2.2010 | 4:45pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Gee, it sounds arrogant. That's an argument? That we should try to not hurt the feelings of other nations? I have two sons from Romania - they're pretty convinced America is exceptional, thanks. When the director of the orphanage and medical clinic went all over Europe to get people to please come and volunteer, give money, send clothes and medicine, he got dribs and drabs from Europe. Over and again they would ask in puzzlement whether there wasn't some agency in charge of this, or some UN program, and should they really get involved with some possibly shady outfit that wasn't answering to any official source? Only when he came to America did he get volunteers and enough funds to run the place. One child was adopted out to France. The rest all went to America.
Western Europe at some times and places will display the devotion to freedom, equality, and generosity of Americans. The Canadians are roughly on par with us, and Australia and NZ deserve mention in the conversation as well. The rest of the world, not so much. If people are offended by our claim, they should prove us wrong by doing better.
Children are less aware of America's honorableness because the sense of comparison is not there. That the world lived in tyranny and poverty for its entire existence until about 1700, only slowly emerging from that in a few places, and that the American experiment has been the primary (though not only) driver of our escape from that, is unfamiliar news. Their impression is that everyone lives like this, so there's not much special here. We get along very imperfectly in a multi-racial society here. But in Europe, even closely related tribes of the same race can't get along - and their history with Jews and Roma has been deplorable. This is news to American children. We can hardly blame them for it - who has told them?
Joe the Human - your information about what conservatives are and are not aware of in history has clearly been told to you by others, and then aided by confirmation bias. If that seems abrupt of me, I at least thought you worth answering.
Western Europe at some times and places will display the devotion to freedom, equality, and generosity of Americans. The Canadians are roughly on par with us, and Australia and NZ deserve mention in the conversation as well. The rest of the world, not so much. If people are offended by our claim, they should prove us wrong by doing better.
Children are less aware of America's honorableness because the sense of comparison is not there. That the world lived in tyranny and poverty for its entire existence until about 1700, only slowly emerging from that in a few places, and that the American experiment has been the primary (though not only) driver of our escape from that, is unfamiliar news. Their impression is that everyone lives like this, so there's not much special here. We get along very imperfectly in a multi-racial society here. But in Europe, even closely related tribes of the same race can't get along - and their history with Jews and Roma has been deplorable. This is news to American children. We can hardly blame them for it - who has told them?
Joe the Human - your information about what conservatives are and are not aware of in history has clearly been told to you by others, and then aided by confirmation bias. If that seems abrupt of me, I at least thought you worth answering.
11.2.2010 | 5:42pm
Michael says:
Richard,
I think you’re being too glum. Most of the young people I know love this country and love its ideals. They don’t push assimilation in quite the same way that previous generations did, but there are different routes toward unity. Yes, young liberals today reject the melting pot you held dear, but they are fiercely defensive of their view of America as a cultural salad bowl. I don’t see that the approach much matters if the result remains unity. Every generation of immigrants looks inassimilable and then they assimilate. American culture is a powerful force that consumerism has only accelerated.
And feminism has done a lot of good along with the bad. I don’t mourn the passing of a society that kept date rape and marital rape, domestic abuse and child abuse, under wraps. Laws against sexual harassment and for fair pay are boons, and the attention to women’s health, especially childbirth, has been fantastic. I see a lot of young women who are strong and assertive as well as tender toward the older women and men in their lives. Some of these young women are also terribly confused, but they tend to sort it out as they grow older. Patriarchy is, after all, a crude and silly term for a complex society.
You accuse communism and liberalism of “jeering” the United States, but communism was never a strong force in this nation. The CPUSA did some wonderful work on civil rights in the twenties and thirties, but Americans have always been too practical to buy into communism’s utopian fantasies. And as far as liberals go, yes, there are some jeers on the fringe but not in the center. Max Cleland and John Kerry are liberals, have been critical of America, but are clearly patriotic. And the last two Democratic presidents have had only-in-America life stories. Clinton came from backwoods poverty and a single mom, and Obama came from a single mom and an interracial marriage. When liberals talk about these leaders, they typically fill with pride for what this nation can do.
The idea that liberals, immigrants, people of color, and the young aren’t patriotic is a bill of goods you’ve been sold. There are folks on the fringe on both the left and the right that hate America, but it’s a mistake to confuse the fringes with the center of either. I don’t think George Bush read the same civics textbook I did, and I’m ashamed of how he dishonored our country, but I also believe he was a patriot.
I think you’re being too glum. Most of the young people I know love this country and love its ideals. They don’t push assimilation in quite the same way that previous generations did, but there are different routes toward unity. Yes, young liberals today reject the melting pot you held dear, but they are fiercely defensive of their view of America as a cultural salad bowl. I don’t see that the approach much matters if the result remains unity. Every generation of immigrants looks inassimilable and then they assimilate. American culture is a powerful force that consumerism has only accelerated.
And feminism has done a lot of good along with the bad. I don’t mourn the passing of a society that kept date rape and marital rape, domestic abuse and child abuse, under wraps. Laws against sexual harassment and for fair pay are boons, and the attention to women’s health, especially childbirth, has been fantastic. I see a lot of young women who are strong and assertive as well as tender toward the older women and men in their lives. Some of these young women are also terribly confused, but they tend to sort it out as they grow older. Patriarchy is, after all, a crude and silly term for a complex society.
You accuse communism and liberalism of “jeering” the United States, but communism was never a strong force in this nation. The CPUSA did some wonderful work on civil rights in the twenties and thirties, but Americans have always been too practical to buy into communism’s utopian fantasies. And as far as liberals go, yes, there are some jeers on the fringe but not in the center. Max Cleland and John Kerry are liberals, have been critical of America, but are clearly patriotic. And the last two Democratic presidents have had only-in-America life stories. Clinton came from backwoods poverty and a single mom, and Obama came from a single mom and an interracial marriage. When liberals talk about these leaders, they typically fill with pride for what this nation can do.
The idea that liberals, immigrants, people of color, and the young aren’t patriotic is a bill of goods you’ve been sold. There are folks on the fringe on both the left and the right that hate America, but it’s a mistake to confuse the fringes with the center of either. I don’t think George Bush read the same civics textbook I did, and I’m ashamed of how he dishonored our country, but I also believe he was a patriot.
11.2.2010 | 6:34pm
Bangwell Putt says:
Mike Linton explains one point of view about the concept of office: "Offices are just offices, jobs, tasks. ... Popes, provosts, presidents, judges, its all theater, which is but another word for make-believe."
Another point of view was offered by C. S. Lewis, who spoke of "ceremony," a concept closely related to "office": "The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather, it proves the offender's inability to forget himself in the rite." The ceremony stood for more than its theatrical aspects; it gave form to an important idea. So also does "office."
An understanding of "office" similar to that of Mr. Linton has been expressed in some Catholic circles; i.e., that priests are only "officeholders" having no particular existential status. That train of thought is in opposition to that of Pope Benedict, who explains "... Jesus is the Life. What can this mean for the priest, except that he must not merely teach; he must also live, act, behave in such a way that he can say, with the Apostle Paul, "It is now no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Catholic belief hold that spouses are changed at the level of being, in the way they are changed at baptism. So also a priest, so also a pope.
The President of the United States is certainly not sacramentally ordained. But he does, I believe, have more than a "job," a "task." He stands for American ideals - the ones that have not been perfectly observed, the ones that have been sinned against, but still the ideals that the composer had in mind when she asked God to "mend our every flaw." The President must be able to "forget himself".
I recently read a meticulously documented account of the formation of the Bible. If this analysis were the final word, Christian belief in Biblical truth would be impossible. Irrefutable evidence can be found to question the integrity of Scripture. Yet, we believe. We know that the Bible is more than the sum of its parts; more than its various sources. The United States is more than the sum of its parts and more than the sometimes horrific errors committed by those entrusted with its "sacred honor."
Another point of view was offered by C. S. Lewis, who spoke of "ceremony," a concept closely related to "office": "The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather, it proves the offender's inability to forget himself in the rite." The ceremony stood for more than its theatrical aspects; it gave form to an important idea. So also does "office."
An understanding of "office" similar to that of Mr. Linton has been expressed in some Catholic circles; i.e., that priests are only "officeholders" having no particular existential status. That train of thought is in opposition to that of Pope Benedict, who explains "... Jesus is the Life. What can this mean for the priest, except that he must not merely teach; he must also live, act, behave in such a way that he can say, with the Apostle Paul, "It is now no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Catholic belief hold that spouses are changed at the level of being, in the way they are changed at baptism. So also a priest, so also a pope.
The President of the United States is certainly not sacramentally ordained. But he does, I believe, have more than a "job," a "task." He stands for American ideals - the ones that have not been perfectly observed, the ones that have been sinned against, but still the ideals that the composer had in mind when she asked God to "mend our every flaw." The President must be able to "forget himself".
I recently read a meticulously documented account of the formation of the Bible. If this analysis were the final word, Christian belief in Biblical truth would be impossible. Irrefutable evidence can be found to question the integrity of Scripture. Yet, we believe. We know that the Bible is more than the sum of its parts; more than its various sources. The United States is more than the sum of its parts and more than the sometimes horrific errors committed by those entrusted with its "sacred honor."
11.2.2010 | 7:19pm
Richard says:
Michael,
Well well, I've stirred a liberal into saying some constructive things about this country. That, I suppose, is progress. But not enough. The country will do without my allegiance. My soul has moved on the other concerns.
Let us agree that we disagree. Time will sort out the truth.
Sincerely,
Richard
Well well, I've stirred a liberal into saying some constructive things about this country. That, I suppose, is progress. But not enough. The country will do without my allegiance. My soul has moved on the other concerns.
Let us agree that we disagree. Time will sort out the truth.
Sincerely,
Richard
11.2.2010 | 7:38pm
the moz says:
My mother and I escaped Communist Poland in 1986 - I can't understand for the life of me why American and Canadian Young People think America isn't the single greatest country the earth has ever seen? It boggles the mind. Without America, forget it all and start learing German or Japanese or worse Russian. This isn't fear mongering but basic history. It was only 19 years ago that the Soviet Union collapsed and now people act like it never existed and could never exist. And I have voted most of my life for the Left. Wonderful piece and education has to get back to teaching the basics.
11.2.2010 | 11:36pm
Black Detroit says:
@Assistant Village Idiot
Yes, but are your sons black Romanians? Or did they simply have to be white?
Yes, but are your sons black Romanians? Or did they simply have to be white?
11.3.2010 | 12:03am
Michael says:
Richard,
If you want to hear liberals say postive things about America, all you need to do is hang around some liberals.
But if you want to hear liberals say negative things about America, then you need to seek out those conservative pundits who've made an art out of turning anything a liberal says into something anti-American. Beck might be our best practitioner of this alchemy, but in the two articles I've read by Scalia, she does something similar.
If you want to hear liberals say postive things about America, all you need to do is hang around some liberals.
But if you want to hear liberals say negative things about America, then you need to seek out those conservative pundits who've made an art out of turning anything a liberal says into something anti-American. Beck might be our best practitioner of this alchemy, but in the two articles I've read by Scalia, she does something similar.
11.3.2010 | 2:50am
Don Roberto says:
Ms. Scalia is on target: America has a lot to be proud of, and before we teach our children to look more deeply at how we can do better in the future than we have at all times in the past we need to make sure they know it is a country worth their loyalty and best efforts. Perhaps many of those who have commented above are simply forgetting basic principles of teaching. (And others seem to revel in their knowledge of their county's mistakes.)
Many "conservatives" reject logic, certainly, and behave immorally, but liberals (and libertines) seem more blind to the terrible consequences of the rejection of traditional values and the withering of the West's cultural roots. One value, crucial to national cohesiveness and success, which liberals seem to reject as part of their creed, is patriotism. (Mr. Obama—our president, amazingly enough—has struggled to become a patriot, rising slowly, as the lessons of bitter experience make their mark, from the morass of left-wing memes spewed by folks like his father, the "Reverend" Wright and Bill Ayers. Most intelligent people, when faced with reality (e.g., running a business) experience the same education.) Our public schools, funded with tax dollars, need to teach patriotism. The kids get enough treasonous ideas from the press, Hollywood, left-wing politicians, and university professors to provide more than a healthy counter-balance of skepticism.
As things stand, we might as well disarm, because we're not united enough to effectively fight evil in the world. We don't have the moral strength to do what needs to be done. We teach the kids that we stink, worry more about whether to allow degenerate behavior in the armed forces than whether training is optimal, invent lawyerly rationale for destroying villians who would destroy us in a heartbeat, pathetically ask our citizens not to reveal classified information to our enemies, and let the out-of-power parties churn out propoganda for our foes, without any apparent sense of the cost in treasure and lives. Rather than wasting our resources on weapons, we should transition to a strategy of bribing our enemies ("please don't hurt us"). It would be cheaper.
Many "conservatives" reject logic, certainly, and behave immorally, but liberals (and libertines) seem more blind to the terrible consequences of the rejection of traditional values and the withering of the West's cultural roots. One value, crucial to national cohesiveness and success, which liberals seem to reject as part of their creed, is patriotism. (Mr. Obama—our president, amazingly enough—has struggled to become a patriot, rising slowly, as the lessons of bitter experience make their mark, from the morass of left-wing memes spewed by folks like his father, the "Reverend" Wright and Bill Ayers. Most intelligent people, when faced with reality (e.g., running a business) experience the same education.) Our public schools, funded with tax dollars, need to teach patriotism. The kids get enough treasonous ideas from the press, Hollywood, left-wing politicians, and university professors to provide more than a healthy counter-balance of skepticism.
As things stand, we might as well disarm, because we're not united enough to effectively fight evil in the world. We don't have the moral strength to do what needs to be done. We teach the kids that we stink, worry more about whether to allow degenerate behavior in the armed forces than whether training is optimal, invent lawyerly rationale for destroying villians who would destroy us in a heartbeat, pathetically ask our citizens not to reveal classified information to our enemies, and let the out-of-power parties churn out propoganda for our foes, without any apparent sense of the cost in treasure and lives. Rather than wasting our resources on weapons, we should transition to a strategy of bribing our enemies ("please don't hurt us"). It would be cheaper.
11.3.2010 | 5:58am
Richard says:
Michael,
You don't know me very well. And it shows. I teach in a college in which virtually all of my colleagues are liberal. I hear them talk about politics and America all the time. The vitriol is simply overwhelming. You should read our college catalogue. Virtually none of my colleagues are conservatives. The moderates run from shrub to shrub. I may know more liberals than most liberals.
I retire in two years and look forward very much to not hanging around liberals. And I NEVER listen to the so called radio conservative pundits. The only thing I know about Beck is what I read in the headlines. Limbaugh is a loudmouth and Colter is a malicious idiot. I do read Richard Fernandez but he is one of the most judicious voices on the net. I also think well of Thomas Sowell.
As the holder of minority opinions in a world of the liberal intelligentsia I have had to think through every position I hold. In my situation, at my age, I find your tone of condescending instruction amusing. Not enlightening, or fresh. Just amusing.
Some of the people who disagree with you think. Get used to it.
Richard
You don't know me very well. And it shows. I teach in a college in which virtually all of my colleagues are liberal. I hear them talk about politics and America all the time. The vitriol is simply overwhelming. You should read our college catalogue. Virtually none of my colleagues are conservatives. The moderates run from shrub to shrub. I may know more liberals than most liberals.
I retire in two years and look forward very much to not hanging around liberals. And I NEVER listen to the so called radio conservative pundits. The only thing I know about Beck is what I read in the headlines. Limbaugh is a loudmouth and Colter is a malicious idiot. I do read Richard Fernandez but he is one of the most judicious voices on the net. I also think well of Thomas Sowell.
As the holder of minority opinions in a world of the liberal intelligentsia I have had to think through every position I hold. In my situation, at my age, I find your tone of condescending instruction amusing. Not enlightening, or fresh. Just amusing.
Some of the people who disagree with you think. Get used to it.
Richard
11.3.2010 | 2:01pm
Michael says:
Well, obviously, I don’t know you well. You don’t know me well, either. I’m sorry I made the wrong assumptions. I didn’t intend to condescend, though I see it now. Thanks for pointing it out. You were condescending, too, when you initially replied by saying that you had “stirred a liberal into saying some constructive things.” And, of course, your last message is dripping with it. I don’t take it too seriously because it’s the nature of first conversations that we’re testing the limits of our assumptions.
Maybe the liberals I know are more thoughtful, but I also wonder whether you take more offense from the things your colleagues say than are warranted. Perhaps you’re looking for a greater proportion of positive, patriotic comments than they are interested in giving. Vitriol, after all, is often strongest in a lovers’ quarrel. They might love America more than they let on. I assume that they celebrated Obama’s inauguration as a new beginning and a fresh start as many liberals that I know did, and I suspect that they said plenty of patriotic things that night. What do your colleagues say when you ask them outright about their patriotism?
Maybe the liberals I know are more thoughtful, but I also wonder whether you take more offense from the things your colleagues say than are warranted. Perhaps you’re looking for a greater proportion of positive, patriotic comments than they are interested in giving. Vitriol, after all, is often strongest in a lovers’ quarrel. They might love America more than they let on. I assume that they celebrated Obama’s inauguration as a new beginning and a fresh start as many liberals that I know did, and I suspect that they said plenty of patriotic things that night. What do your colleagues say when you ask them outright about their patriotism?
11.3.2010 | 5:54pm
Richard says:
Michael,
At last we're clearing the air. Let me begin by remarking that your exactly correct remark that patriarchy was a very simple idea for a complex society could bear with considerable expansion. I have hesitated to do that because volumes could be written untangling the issues and I have a life besides posting, and I am sure that you do too. One way to start is to point out what I take to be at least an arguable position: conservatives and liberals are both inheritors and beneficiaries of the liberal (and the conservative) tradition in the West and their quarrels are intra family feuds. I never realized exactly how liberal my marrow was until those planes hit American landmarks on 9/11 and killed thousands of innocents just for political theater. When I found out who had attacked us and why, my allegiance to Western values that I hope we all cherish hit me like a ton of bricks. I think most of us, liberal and conservative and in between, felt this way.
It may be that there are still people in the United States who want to keep women pregnant, barefoot, and on the edge of town, blacks in the fields picking cotten, and some varient of fundamentalist Christianity (or you name it) as the master of our destiny, but they'd have to fight me and millions like me tooth and nail to do it. They are not serious Conservatives. They are atavistic simpletons.
Secondly,while I love First Things because it has at the heart of its enterprise the love of God, the center of my own life, I also value, no insist on, principles like freedom and equality (within the paramaters of justice), the coeval dignity and worth of men and women, civil rights for all citizens, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the bill of rights, separation of church and state (as constitutionally mandated--here we might quarrel), and so on. I think that the wealth gap in America is obscene, and that the dignity of all human beings is sacred. I also do not believe "My country, right or wrong." These are only a few examples.
But I am also in some ways very conservative. My religion is foundational, my ethics deontological AND consequential, and my deepest moral principles based on my love of the living God. I think all human life is precious if any is, and I am intransigently pro-life. And I think that the founding of this country, however flawed, constituted a light to the nations.
In short, I don't fit in definitional categories. Mary Ann Glendon, the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard, put it best: there is no political organization in the United States in which a Catholic can find a home. If I have an intellectual home, it is at First Things.
The matter of my colleagues and their political sensibilities is a very sensitive one and I don't wish to be too specific. I don't give my full name because I don't wish to be identified and geographically located and hence compromise the privacy of the people I work with. No single description will fit them all, and I am abreacting to what I find to be the most destructivbe tendiencies among them, tendencies all too wide-spread. It is simply not possible to explain at length my reasons for saying what I say about them.
What is particularly painful is that, on a human level, many of them are delightful people and I would like to be their friends (and often, they mine). But we all feel so deeply about our usually clashing first principles that this is just not possible. I hate politics. It has cost me some fine established friendships and at least one dear, old friendship with one of the finest persons on the planet. This is one of the great beauties of Heaven: the Good will be so evident that all will be united in its affirmation.
You deserve an accounting of the reasons for my statements so far because you are one of the keenest, most thoughtful people on the forum. In spite of my eristic posts, I never doubted it.
Best,
Richard
At last we're clearing the air. Let me begin by remarking that your exactly correct remark that patriarchy was a very simple idea for a complex society could bear with considerable expansion. I have hesitated to do that because volumes could be written untangling the issues and I have a life besides posting, and I am sure that you do too. One way to start is to point out what I take to be at least an arguable position: conservatives and liberals are both inheritors and beneficiaries of the liberal (and the conservative) tradition in the West and their quarrels are intra family feuds. I never realized exactly how liberal my marrow was until those planes hit American landmarks on 9/11 and killed thousands of innocents just for political theater. When I found out who had attacked us and why, my allegiance to Western values that I hope we all cherish hit me like a ton of bricks. I think most of us, liberal and conservative and in between, felt this way.
It may be that there are still people in the United States who want to keep women pregnant, barefoot, and on the edge of town, blacks in the fields picking cotten, and some varient of fundamentalist Christianity (or you name it) as the master of our destiny, but they'd have to fight me and millions like me tooth and nail to do it. They are not serious Conservatives. They are atavistic simpletons.
Secondly,while I love First Things because it has at the heart of its enterprise the love of God, the center of my own life, I also value, no insist on, principles like freedom and equality (within the paramaters of justice), the coeval dignity and worth of men and women, civil rights for all citizens, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the bill of rights, separation of church and state (as constitutionally mandated--here we might quarrel), and so on. I think that the wealth gap in America is obscene, and that the dignity of all human beings is sacred. I also do not believe "My country, right or wrong." These are only a few examples.
But I am also in some ways very conservative. My religion is foundational, my ethics deontological AND consequential, and my deepest moral principles based on my love of the living God. I think all human life is precious if any is, and I am intransigently pro-life. And I think that the founding of this country, however flawed, constituted a light to the nations.
In short, I don't fit in definitional categories. Mary Ann Glendon, the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard, put it best: there is no political organization in the United States in which a Catholic can find a home. If I have an intellectual home, it is at First Things.
The matter of my colleagues and their political sensibilities is a very sensitive one and I don't wish to be too specific. I don't give my full name because I don't wish to be identified and geographically located and hence compromise the privacy of the people I work with. No single description will fit them all, and I am abreacting to what I find to be the most destructivbe tendiencies among them, tendencies all too wide-spread. It is simply not possible to explain at length my reasons for saying what I say about them.
What is particularly painful is that, on a human level, many of them are delightful people and I would like to be their friends (and often, they mine). But we all feel so deeply about our usually clashing first principles that this is just not possible. I hate politics. It has cost me some fine established friendships and at least one dear, old friendship with one of the finest persons on the planet. This is one of the great beauties of Heaven: the Good will be so evident that all will be united in its affirmation.
You deserve an accounting of the reasons for my statements so far because you are one of the keenest, most thoughtful people on the forum. In spite of my eristic posts, I never doubted it.
Best,
Richard
11.10.2010 | 5:25pm
Michael says:
Richard,
I apologize for not responding sooner. I was out of town.
But thank you for your kind words. I’m always happy when these types of exchanges actually produce some kind of real exchange. The experience is all too rare.
I think we’re on the same page about almost all the things you list. I especially agree that 9/11 united many liberals and conservatives around our Western heritage; that most Americans share principles from freedom to the separation of church and state; and that, like you, I’m horrified by the wealthy gap, by the erosion of the sanctity of life, and by the decidedly non-Christian principle of “my country, right or wrong.” With you, and with most Americans, I believe the US has frequently been “a light to the nations.”
I would also agree that there is no political organization in which any Catholic or Christian can call home. Christ, after all, founded no political movement.
I am deeply touched by what you say about your colleagues because I am still seeking an answer to this question of how best to discuss politics and the clash of principles. I appreciate your trust.
A quick story. One day a few years ago, one of my nieces said, “Michael, you’re a liberal. I haven’t met one before. What do you believe?” It was a humbling question because I loved her open-mindedness, and I realized that we rarely approach each other with curiosity. We more often approach each other as adversaries.
So when you say that you don’t fit into any “definitional categories,” I’m inclined to say that few of us do. With friends and colleagues, I’m trying to be more like my niece and ask more genuine questions stemming from curiosity, but it’s much harder in these online forums.
One of my pet peeves is the idea that any of these difficult issues is simple. Christianity is very clear about “what” we should value, but it provides no guidance on “how” we should achieve these values. For example, Christians know that we should make a preferential option for the poor, but conservative Christians will offer different solutions than liberal ones. Neither group is more Christian than the other, though they often claim to be. And in order to act politically, conservative Christians need to work with conservative non-Christians who often don’t share their values. The same is true for liberal Christians. But one result is that some liberal Christians will smear conservative Christians with the reputation of their allies, while some conservative Christians will do the same to liberal Christians.
Another example would be the separation of church and state, which you mentioned might be a sore point between us. I think some liberals abuse the term, believing that religion must somehow be stripped from everything, which is not what the disestablishment clause is about. But many of the issues that crop up around religion and the state are complex. Why should churches be tax-exempt? Can churches urge specific votes? Should I get a tax-rebate if I send my kid to a religious school? Can an atheist be a conscientious objector? Can an agnostic? Can a Christian Scientist be charged with murder for denying medicine to a child? Is female circumcision a religious practice? How exactly do we navigate in our communities among the sensibilities of Christians who want to celebrate Christmas and those of non-Christians who don’t? Is Scientology a religion?
All of these questions demand a Solomon, but I mostly hear people act like these questions are no brainers and accuse the other side (as if there is only ever two sides to any issue) of being extremists of some kind or another. Some friends directed me to First Things, and I like some of what I find here. I really liked Reno’s Nov. 4th column, which had some intelligent commentary as well, but much more common are columns like Scalia’s Nov. 9th one, that are accompanied by ridiculous comments. I wish I had been in town on those dates!
I can’t say that First Things is my intellectual home. I like the way that First Things collects conservatives from many faith traditions, but the result is that readers don’t see what is shared across politics. There’s an implication that liberal Christians aren’t really Christian after all. I would like to see more conversation among these writers and those who write for Sojourners, NCR, or America.
Anyway, as you put it so beautifully, in Heaven, “the Good will be so evident that all will be united in its affirmation.” I imagine that there will be some sheepish looks between, say, Father Richard Neuhaus and Reverend Jim Wallis as they realize just how much they got wrong and how little they got right.
I apologize for not responding sooner. I was out of town.
But thank you for your kind words. I’m always happy when these types of exchanges actually produce some kind of real exchange. The experience is all too rare.
I think we’re on the same page about almost all the things you list. I especially agree that 9/11 united many liberals and conservatives around our Western heritage; that most Americans share principles from freedom to the separation of church and state; and that, like you, I’m horrified by the wealthy gap, by the erosion of the sanctity of life, and by the decidedly non-Christian principle of “my country, right or wrong.” With you, and with most Americans, I believe the US has frequently been “a light to the nations.”
I would also agree that there is no political organization in which any Catholic or Christian can call home. Christ, after all, founded no political movement.
I am deeply touched by what you say about your colleagues because I am still seeking an answer to this question of how best to discuss politics and the clash of principles. I appreciate your trust.
A quick story. One day a few years ago, one of my nieces said, “Michael, you’re a liberal. I haven’t met one before. What do you believe?” It was a humbling question because I loved her open-mindedness, and I realized that we rarely approach each other with curiosity. We more often approach each other as adversaries.
So when you say that you don’t fit into any “definitional categories,” I’m inclined to say that few of us do. With friends and colleagues, I’m trying to be more like my niece and ask more genuine questions stemming from curiosity, but it’s much harder in these online forums.
One of my pet peeves is the idea that any of these difficult issues is simple. Christianity is very clear about “what” we should value, but it provides no guidance on “how” we should achieve these values. For example, Christians know that we should make a preferential option for the poor, but conservative Christians will offer different solutions than liberal ones. Neither group is more Christian than the other, though they often claim to be. And in order to act politically, conservative Christians need to work with conservative non-Christians who often don’t share their values. The same is true for liberal Christians. But one result is that some liberal Christians will smear conservative Christians with the reputation of their allies, while some conservative Christians will do the same to liberal Christians.
Another example would be the separation of church and state, which you mentioned might be a sore point between us. I think some liberals abuse the term, believing that religion must somehow be stripped from everything, which is not what the disestablishment clause is about. But many of the issues that crop up around religion and the state are complex. Why should churches be tax-exempt? Can churches urge specific votes? Should I get a tax-rebate if I send my kid to a religious school? Can an atheist be a conscientious objector? Can an agnostic? Can a Christian Scientist be charged with murder for denying medicine to a child? Is female circumcision a religious practice? How exactly do we navigate in our communities among the sensibilities of Christians who want to celebrate Christmas and those of non-Christians who don’t? Is Scientology a religion?
All of these questions demand a Solomon, but I mostly hear people act like these questions are no brainers and accuse the other side (as if there is only ever two sides to any issue) of being extremists of some kind or another. Some friends directed me to First Things, and I like some of what I find here. I really liked Reno’s Nov. 4th column, which had some intelligent commentary as well, but much more common are columns like Scalia’s Nov. 9th one, that are accompanied by ridiculous comments. I wish I had been in town on those dates!
I can’t say that First Things is my intellectual home. I like the way that First Things collects conservatives from many faith traditions, but the result is that readers don’t see what is shared across politics. There’s an implication that liberal Christians aren’t really Christian after all. I would like to see more conversation among these writers and those who write for Sojourners, NCR, or America.
Anyway, as you put it so beautifully, in Heaven, “the Good will be so evident that all will be united in its affirmation.” I imagine that there will be some sheepish looks between, say, Father Richard Neuhaus and Reverend Jim Wallis as they realize just how much they got wrong and how little they got right.
Exactly