No Left Turns | Posts by Julie Ponzitag:nlt.ashbrook.org,2012-06-29://12012-06-29T18:43:47ZMovable Type Pro 4.25Hayward's Heresies?tag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.172092011-12-14T18:58:49Z2012-06-29T18:43:47ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
wildly controversial essay entitled "Modernizing Conservatism" in the latest issue of Breakthrough Journal. The thrust of his argument is that "starve the beast" appears to have failed and so conservatives now might be better served if they move on to a strategy of sending the voters the bill for all of the social and entitlement programs they appear to want.
After reading the essay, do yourself another favor and check out the podcast with Steve at Infinite Monkeys--appropriately titled, "Inquisition Edition." I will leave it to your own individual conscience to decide whether Steve acquits himself here or stokes the kindling for his own stake. ]]>
Thomas Marks Twenty Years on the Courttag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.170992011-10-08T02:47:10Z2012-06-29T18:42:46ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23 Ken Masugi, who worked for Thomas during the time that he was Chairman of the EEOC, writes a thoughtful and thought provoking tribute to Justice Thomas as this October marks the twentieth anniversary of his appointment to the Court. In it, Masugi notes the ways in which even Thomas' greatest critics must now concede his massive import and influence on the Court. May it continue for many, many years to come. ]]>
Christietag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.170802011-09-29T19:45:54Z2012-06-29T18:42:26ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
transcript and the video of the Chris Christie speech at the Reagan Library two nights ago.
Most of the commentary about it can be characterized as one of two things: speculation or begging. Although I am not inclined to think there is a lot of need for the former, I cannot avoid it if I am to say anything intelligible about the substance of Christie's fine and effective remarks. I absolutely will not engage in the latter. But more about that later.
Here's what I think: It is entirely possible that Chris Christie misread his moment. I think he was sincere when he said that he did not mean to run for President and I think his reason for not running--at least, initially--had partly to do with his own personal concern with being "ready," but it had mainly to do with a suspicion that no Republican was likely to beat Obama in 2012. He thought he could and should wait. He was wrong on both counts.
Consider his long (and, yes, very good) reflections on Obama's 2004 Democrat Convention speech. Everybody who knew anything about politics in 2004 knew that watching Obama warming up for Kerry brought on feelings reminiscent of those you get when the previews at the movies look better than the movie you came to see. That was as close as Obama ever got to a Reagan moment. And Christie was at the Reagan Library, so he can be forgiven if visions of "A Time for Choosing" were dancing in his head. I think Christie meant to do something like that at the Reagan Library or, perhaps, to give us a taste of what he must mean to do at our coming convention whether or not he is the candidate. I think that explains why this 2004 speech of Obama's was so close to the forefront of Christie's mind; that, and it is a good hook for explaining to people, who once trusted in Obama, the ways in which their original opinion is wrong. Without question, Christie did that well.
But this brings me to the second part of my thoughts about Christie's speech. If he's not running, why is he waxing eloquent on Presidential politics in this way? Well, it must fry him to watch these debates, right? He's sitting there watching these guys do it in ways that seem, to him, wrong. It's killing him. Maybe he thought he could at least offer a tutorial to the GOP candidates. "Watch me. This is how it's done." And his substance was good. What he said about compromise (contra Rush and others who, though they mean well, seem to be suffering post traumatic stress disorder whenever they hear that word) was good.
But the thing about this speech is that, as with most pros who step in to demonstrate skills to talent that is already playing at the top of its game, Christie is only succeeding in showing the rest of them up. It's not going to do anyone any good for him to continue in this mode.
"Maybe showing them up is all part of his plan?" suggest some prognosticators who, like me, don't see much point in all of this talk if the man doesn't mean to run. So, therefore, he must mean to do it. Well, if that is the case, here's what the rest of me is saying: I have loved Chris Christie for a long time. And I long, just as much as the next citizen, to hear someone come and speak simple truths to power with good effect and without cringing. But if he is planning like that, to hell with him. No, really. This is becoming unseemly. He may be the best guy (though I don't think that is, by any means, a settled matter) but he ain't the only guy. Please.
And here's something else. What is this with the begging of this guy to run? This suggestion that he must do it? I don't like it. I thought his answer to the (sincere, but sad) woman who was begging him to run was good, respectful and, even, sweet. But it bothers me to see Americans so desperate for one man to run for the Presidency. There is something weak and pathetic about it, I am sorry to say. Have some pride. Americans don't beg anyone to be their boss. It reminds me, in a way, of the scheming that went on to get George Washington to declare himself emperor . . . maybe without the Washington.
Perhaps it is unfortunate that Chris Christie's moment has passed and that he seems to have made the wrong call. But if he is a man of integrity, and I think he is, he can use this opportunity to remind Americans that this is their country. No one man is so essential, so wise, or so wonderful that he must be deign to be their king as if he were part of some Platonic dialogue writ large. Of course his consent in the thing matters. This is a regime built on the principle! Enough, already. There is serious work to do and Chris Christie will best contribute to that effort when he makes it clear that he means to support someone else for the Presidency this go around. If, on the other hand, he means to jump in, he had better do it quick. And, if he does that, there's no getting around the fact that he is going to have a lot of explaining to do and he should not be surprised if a lot of voters, instead of thinking that he has finally lived up to his duty, consider that he's not really as much a man of his word as they once thought he was. ]]>
The Clutchtag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.170742011-09-27T17:30:27Z2012-06-29T18:42:23ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23 Elizabeth Scalia waxes poetic on some of the reasons for this over at the First Things blog, On the Square. At the heart of her musings is her recollection of the dread and then heartbreak she witnessed in a fan of one of her rival teams as her team rode the wind to glory. The capacity of baseball to "break your heart," she reflects, is what makes baseball great. And the reason baseball can do this is because of the way it can put you "in the clutch"--that is, in a state of suspension between certainty and uncertainty; the place where you have offered up your best, but can only hope for an agreeable outcome. As the potential for tragedy spins on this roulette wheel of fate, love prevents us from calling in our chips. We double down and are drawn in, yet again, for another spin. We are caught in the clutch and the love that drives us compels us to surrender to it. The pitcher may have perfected balance and form and strength and speed but, at some point, he must release the ball.
It is a grand read. Enjoy. ]]>
Waking Up at Tentag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.170412011-09-08T19:11:06Z2012-06-29T18:42:12ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23 No sooner had I recognized the building and recalled the terrible luck of that place (thinking, of course, of the 1993 bombing) than the second plane struck the second tower. This was a new order of things. I thought it was impossible for me to swell any more than I already had in the 8th month of my pregnancy, but this was not true. Anger filled every pore of my being and I thought I might explode. And then, as I watched the horror unfold--the tumbling of the buildings, the ash covering those who were able to flee, the realization that innumerable brave souls must have sacrificed themselves in order to save others as they ran into instead of running out of those buildings--the anger receded a bit and gave way to bitter heartache. Yet the anger found a permanent little refuge ever to dwell in my soul and I accepted it--though not without some regret. I would never, could never forget this. Nothing would make it right. Nothing could ever fully avenge it. It altered everyone who witnessed it as it would alter everyone who remembered it.
I remember sobbing much of the day and desperately clutching my curly-headed daughter, then only a toddler. She had no way of understanding what was going on or why her parents were so gut-stricken that day. But even she sensed that the world--which just the day before had included a carefree trip to the county fair--was now different and that joy, should it come, would come along with caution. The confidence that assures the vulnerable and makes them forget their condition was shaken. We were all vulnerable now. In truth, however, this was not a new state of things. It was just that a generation of Americans unaccustomed to acknowledging it except in abstractions, was rudely awakened to a fundamental truth of human existence: the good things in life are fragile. We had taken our security and prosperity for granted and, even more, we had assumed that our liberty was a given and a permanent fact. Coming to know what to do with this realization would be the hard (and often thankless) work of the next decade (or more). Remembering that realization--though it then seemed impossible that we could forget--will be the work of the decades to follow this anniversary.
On October 10, 2001 I woke up in the pre-dawn hours to realize that I was in labor. Since my daughter had been born in less than six hours and second babies generally come faster, I had been advised to get to the hospital at the first sign of contractions. When I arrived, however, the nurses examined me and I could hear them murmuring to each other about possibly sending me home. "She'll probably just be back later tonight or tomorrow," said one. "Tomorrow?" I thought, "No!" In addition to wishing to avoid anti-climax and continue with the dragging discomfort of heavy pregnancy, I could not bear the thought of birthing a son on the one-month anniversary of the attacks. A television, tuned to CNN, blared in the delivery room with pictures from the mammoth efforts to clean-up at Ground Zero. "Tomorrow will mark the one-month anniversary of the September 11 attacks," the anchors dutifully announced, as if anyone could forget. I pulled aside one of the nurses. Her son had just been mobilized to head over to Afghanistan and she read the look on my face. "He will be born today, not tomorrow. I understand," she assured me, and then she got my doctor to order a pitocin drip. It turned out, actually, to be barely necessary. My son was born about an hour and half after this conversation with the nurse.
As she brought him to me, I looked upon his little face and remembered my fears about raising a boy (as I come from a family accustomed only to girls). Even then, in that summer of calm before the storm, I knew that we would have to raise him to be strong in ways I did not fully comprehend. Yet I did not understand just how strong he would need to be until after 9/11. Ten years on, however, I understand that 9/11 did not alter the truth of this necessity. It only underlined it for me and, I hope, for a generation of mothers like me. And, yet, I wonder . . .
I understand the reluctance to remember and the wish to avoid unpleasant associations. But my children--both of them--have grown up in a post 9/11 world that, in the main, is marked by nothing but fear or solemn silence as it recalls those events.
We remember it when we line up like sheep to take off our shoes and have our persons probed at the airport. I remember one awful incident when my son (then 3) was traveling with a cast on his broken arm. He was whisked away from me to a separate room and swabbed for traces of explosives. Try explaining that to a toddler.
During most of the years of their schooling, 9/11 came and went without any formal acknowledgment or remark. Earth Day, on the other hand, has taken up to a week of acknowledgment and instruction. We don't fear teaching children to fear man's folly as it applies to pollution and the raping of the Earth's resources. But we still cannot look outright evil in the face. I expect that this year, being the 10th anniversary of the event, will mark some change. It will be necessary to say something. Yet I am betting that what gets said will be something like solemn regret for the so-called "tragedy" . . . as if this really were just another terrible plane crash. This is the beginning of forgetting--this choosing not to remember or to pass on what our parents' parents (though probably with better personal reasons) must also have chosen to forget to pass on: that every good thing we have is vulnerable when we do not understand how we got it or what it takes to keep it.
In the wake of 9/11 it appeared that a generation many had discounted was ready, quietly, to step up and do the job of securing liberty to themselves and their posterity. As we pass the 10 year mark, it is time for that same generation to consider whether their inclination to labor in reflexive silence and, often, without self-reflection is the best they can do for posterity.
]]>
Mama Bears and Feminists Unite?tag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.170402011-09-01T19:16:33Z2012-06-29T18:42:12ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
this story of a supremely stupid t-shirt offered by JCPenny to your attention merely to note how interesting are the kinds of things that arouse the permitted indignation of the mama-bears of today. Of course, there is always a similar outcry from conservative and religious mothers when a Miley Cyrus poses for seductive pictures called "art" or a clothing company mass produces push-up bras for girls as young as 7 or 8 . . . but those who express outrage on those occasions are roundly sneered by the knowing laughter of the more "sophisticated" and told to get with it. I would venture a guess that every sensible mother who condemned those two things I mentioned happily joins the brigade of feminists now irritated by this t-shirt. We would not buy it, cheer it, or allow our daughters to be caught dead in it. We would support all efforts to keep our daughters focused on more elevated and worthy occupations and decry efforts of the popular culture to distract them from those purposes. So why don't many feminists join us in this good faith effort when the rot being peddled is not academic but moral decay? Fill in your own blank. You are probably right.]]>
Mama Bears and Feminists Unite?tag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.170172011-09-01T19:16:33Z2012-06-29T18:42:07ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
this story of a supremely stupid t-shirt offered by JCPenny to your attention merely to note how interesting are the kinds of things that arouse the permitted indignation of the mama-bears of today. Of course, there is always a similar outcry from conservative and religious mothers when a Miley Cyrus poses for seductive pictures called "art" or a clothing company mass produces push-up bras for girls as young as 7 or 8 . . . but those who express outrage on those occasions are roundly sneered by the knowing laughter of the more "sophisticated" and told to get with it.
I would venture a guess that every sensible mother who condemned those two things I mentioned happily joins the brigade of feminists now irritated by this t-shirt. We would not buy it, cheer it, or allow our daughters to be caught dead in it. We would support all efforts to keep our daughters focused on more elevated and worthy occupations and decry efforts of the popular culture to distract them from those purposes. So why don't many feminists join us in this good faith effort when the rot being peddled is not academic but moral decay? Fill in your own blank. You are probably right.]]>
Exonerating Beautytag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.170162011-09-01T18:17:06Z2012-06-29T18:42:07ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
Justin's post below, I bring your attention to this recent post on the Economist's blog. It is an uncommonly good and interesting reflection on why it is that an enterprising and ambitious capitalist, Steve Jobs, has been able to escape the snares of the prevailing brand of class warfare animating our popular culture--especially given that so much of Apple's core customer base is comprised of people inclined to be active on the other side of these battles. Bill Gates of Microsoft was able to purchase his indulgences with his Bill Gates Foundation. Mr. Jobs, on the other hand, has inspired a kind of prayerful and silent indulgence with the beauty of his products.
You see, under the direction of Mr. Jobs, Apple has brought to market products that, "add a dash of elegance to the lives of consumers by selling them gorgeously refined devices at a premium." (Not to mention that cute little Apple sticker you can put on your car and, thereby, telegraph to the world that you are part of the "cool" club . . .) Not everyone can or chooses to make the financial sacrifice in order to be part of that club. But everyone is enticed by it and, on some level, they admire it. All have a sense that there must be some superior mind at work behind these products--a mind that is, in some sense, in better tune with the eternal order of things
So no matter the lack of what our culture considers ordinary philanthropic commitment on the part of Apple. Their gift to mankind is the fulfillment of their artistic mission and their continued success in the marketplace. People cheer true excellence even when they are otherwise inclined to scorn the merely "successful." Whatever the political or economic inclinations of a person,
his experience with an Apple product is generally one of those few times in this world where a thing just works precisely as it was
intended to do. It is a symphony of order in the universe. And he is
grateful for it. It is--perhaps on a less breathtaking scale--akin to what Pope Benedict described feeling when he heard Bernstein conducting Bach in Munich. It is something like what I feel when watching an effortless and graceful double play or an over the fence, bases loaded, home-run in the bottom of the final inning with the score tied and a little boy catching the ball in the stands. It is an experience of the "is" and the "ought" coming together for one, all too brief, interlude. And maybe it is a promise of something better, deeper, and eternal.
If, as a people, we were more thoughtful, less petty, and less inclined toward envy, we would reflect that we honor
true philanthropy when we admire the accomplishments of a company like
Apple. And, as fine as the work of the Bill Gates Foundation is, Bill Gates would be more celebrated for his humanitarian accomplishments in building a successful business like Microsoft than he is for killing mosquitoes in Africa. But, then, it is sometimes very difficult to see beauty that does not announce itself in arias. ]]>
What Price Reset?tag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.167202011-06-09T18:19:40Z2012-06-29T18:40:02ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
Rebeccah Heinrichs give a fascinating accounting of the efforts of leaders in Congress to do what they can to "reset" Obama's naive attempts at a Russian "reset." It seems that the Obama administration is willing to veto the defense budget over a section in that bill which would prevent the President from sharing sensitive missile defense technology with the Russians.
Russian President Dimitry Medvedev has been successful in negotiations with the Obama administration at getting the preamble to the new START treaty to include language that equates offensive missile technology with defensive capabilities. As controversy swirled over that dubious equation, it was discovered that the Russians have also requested a great deal of information regarding U.S. missile defense
technology and operational authority as part of a separate missile defense agreement they have been working on with the Obama administration. And the Obama administration gives no indication that they will not happily share it as part of an effort to smooth relations with the former Soviets. Congress is attempting to prevent the administration from willy-nilly divulging that sensitive information and, of course, from allowing it to get into the hands of Russian allies like the Iranians. Whatever may be said about the "resetting" of relations with Russia, it remain cozy with nations--like Iran--that pose an unquestionable threat to U.S. security. ]]>
California Conservative Confusiontag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.167112011-06-09T17:31:00Z2012-06-29T18:40:00ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
City Journal: California, Steven Greenhut offers an important essay in support of Governor Jerry Brown's plan to eliminate California's redevelopment agencies (RDAs). In that essay, Greenhut recounts the patterns of abuse that have characterized the activities of these agencies and also offers numerous examples of corruption typified by cronyism and sweetheart deals. In other words, RDAs offer all the things liberty loving Americans have come to know and loathe about government programs.
It should not be imagined, however, that California Democrats are suddenly stumbling upon a revelation combined with a conscience on this front. When it comes to the many ways that government programs and funds can often foster abuse, Brown and his friends remain deaf to arguments for eliminating them. Brown's desire to eliminate the RDAs is merely a part of his (otherwise farcical) plans to take charge of California's budgetary woes (woes he and his party have, of course, largely created).
While no political ally of Brown's, Greenhut shows that he may be even more annoyed with a particular kind of Republican--at least when it comes to the question of the RDAs. Republicans, you see, are leading the charge at blocking Brown's efforts to eliminate the RDAs. While happy to decry property rights abuses and aggressive exercises of
eminent domain when those outrages loom large in the popular imagination (viz the Kelo decision), these Republicans have
also been happy to overlook the potential for those abuses in their own
communities. This is particularly true when standing upon the principle of property rights
means a decrease or an end to the RDA dollars upon which many local
governments have become dependent. And, as local governments struggle, there is even greater temptation to lust after the power of eminent domain for the purpose of bringing into a community businesses perceived as having more potential to generate sales tax revenue for a particular city. You've got to make payroll somehow. So there is principle and there is interest. When government intervenes to make interest look even more attractive than it already is, some Republicans too readily turn their heads.
The arguments of these Republicans
on behalf of RDAs begin to resemble the most frustrating elements of
efforts to improve public schools: "Our schools are great!" or "Our RDA
is not abusive." It's always somebody else's community that is the
problem . . . until it isn't.
Republicans who are now engaged in this unseemly whining about cutting RDAs are not simply wrong to be concerned, however. There is the very real problem that local governments in California--now virtually dependent upon RDA money for balancing their books--are going to take a large hit. They certainly will. But this fact alone does not mean that the RDAs should be preserved. This fact, instead of causing folks to moan and grasp at the state coffers with even more animation, should cause them to demand a complete re-evaluation of the purposes and powers of local government entities and for more carefully defining the limits of the state's. That means hard work at persuading voters and standing upon principle; something Republicans cannot do effectively if they engage in this kind of rhetorical hypocrisy. Perhaps too many California Republicans are so beat down and tired from a half century of near total Democratic domination in the statehouse, that they can't summon the will to fight on principle anymore. If that is the case, it is time for them to pack it in. This is work that must be done if California is to remain the Golden State. They cannot expect ever to win the larger argument if they too readily give in on specific aspects of it in the name of petty interests now.
It may very well be true that this effort is a cynical ploy on the part of Gov. Brown to make the public feel the pain of necessary cuts; to damage municipal government entities just enough to spread the misery and make people more pliable on the question of tax hikes. Hit them where they live, and such. Whatever the motive, however, the substance deserves applause. And instead of hiding in a foxhole, Republicans should be leading this charge and taking the issue right back at Jerry.
]]>
Toward a More Just Social Justicetag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.166212011-05-12T21:19:36Z2012-06-29T18:39:09ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
under fire from a group of "Catholic academics" because he is invited to be the commencement speaker at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.. These academics (whom Fr. Robert Sirico has pointed out draw their expertise "from multiple disciplines outside moral theology and include
academics from architecture, media, social work, theatre, and dance
departments") felt at liberty to insult the Speaker and to publicly question his religious commitment with lines like this:
"It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the thoughts of
powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to
recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important
aspects of Catholic teaching."
Yet, as Father Sirico points out, their single objection to Speaker Boehner's understanding of Catholic social justice teaching clearly reveals their own failure to understand it. The writers of this embarrassing letter counsel that: "From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor." This, of course, is true. But Sirico insists that any real understanding of Catholic social teaching would also include a recognition that one cannot jump "seamlessly" between a principle and its application. As he puts it:
To jump so seamlessly from the Magisterium's insistence on the
fundamental and non-negotiable moral obligation to the poor to the
specifics of contingent, prudential, and political legislation is wholly
unjustified in Catholic social teaching.
This sums it up nicely, but there is much more to it, so read the whole exchange. I think Father Sirico's response, moreover, is a masterful and devastatingly polite answer to people who barely deserve such graciousness but get it, anyway, because Father Sirico is a true Christian. This is a real demonstration, not only of his faith, but of the very real and persuasive power behind it.
Catholic social thought is about the empowerment of the poor.
It is not about failed policies of social assistance that treat poor
people as problems to be solved rather than as people with potential to
be unleashed.
Abraham Lincoln was no Catholic, but I don't think he could have said it better. ]]>
A Moral Victory Greeted with Honortag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.165962011-05-06T19:31:10Z2012-06-29T18:38:53ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
Daniel Krauthammer writing today at NRO is not to be missed. He writes the most adept piece I have seen, to date, that comes to grips with all the strange sniping (coming from otherwise rational sources) directed at those who celebrated bin Laden's death with jubilation.
Because it happened on a Sunday, I was out with my family and away from all the usual sources of news when the story broke. In a sign of the times (and in keeping with the youthful developments of the last decade) I first heard of it via Facebook. There I read reports from young friends in Washington, New York and other places who noted that they would be heading out to celebrate, have drinks and otherwise make merry at the news of the death of Osama bin Laden.
It must be a sign that I am getting old because my first reaction was to smile at them and think of them as blessedly young. I was glad we got him, of course. But it was not my instinct to make merry. I was so accustomed to our NOT getting him, that I began to believe the non-nonsensical mantra that it didn't matter if we did. He is just a symbol, yadda, yadda, yadda. But, darn it! Symbols matter. I know that, but I had chosen to forget. Then I turned on the TV and watched the burgeoning crowds. My husband and I both remarked, "My God! They are so young! Look at them! They are so happy! Are we missing something, here?" And, as Krauthammer describes, though jubilant, they were respectful. They chanted, "USA! USA! USA!" They did not worship death. They celebrated life--a life they could now live knowing that evil does not always go unanswered. For if you consider the timetable of their lives, you must forgive them for only now coming to this conclusion!
As I watched, I grew envious of them and of their youth and I yearned to join them. For I was young like that once, too. I had forgotten what it felt like. On the other hand, I realized, I absolutely do not envy them. Because I don't think that today's young people have ever felt their youth so vividly as they did last Sunday--whereas I have a number of such memories. I think it was a new and a fresh experience for them, and more's the pity. For those beyond, even, my advanced (ha!) years . . . you must strain not to do the math (which is easy here as even I can do it), but you must strain to remember to do it. That's the biggest thing I see missing from all the sanctimonious commentary about the celebrations on the right. Consider the American experience as it exists for those now under 30. If they are 20 now, they were 10 in 2001.
The last time I was young like they are now--that is, the last time I really believed that evil could and would be punished without flinching--was in September 2001. I was in the beginning of my third decade, had one baby in tow and had another one very much on the way. I woke up on that fateful morning--8 months pregnant--to the cries of my husband watching the news as he was getting ready to go to work. I spent the rest of that day draining myself of all that youth and filling myself up with worry and the cares of a burden-laden adulthood. Determination, to be sure. But not an ounce of certainty in the result. How would we avenge this great injustice? Could we? It seemed impossible. And, indeed, it is impossible in many ways. But it could not go unanswered.
And yet every answer has been met with a counter-answer and self-flagellation. Those now in their early twenties have grown up in this constant beating down of hope; this constant berating of the possibilities of their country serving justice. This beast of man unleashed this madness that has turned us, not only onto an almost impossible task of beating back terror, but also in on and against each other. To the young people of today, the country that could competently take on evil and defeat it must have seemed like an echo of a lost world belonging--possibly--to their grandparents but beyond us today. And yet . . . in the end, who was it taking out that evil man? Navy Seals who, no doubt, were young Americans watching those towers collapse while they were in school.
While flaccid, flabby, calcified and unoriginal commentators like to tell us that our best days are behind us . . . that America's power, greatness, and capacity to serve justice are a thing of (false) memory, this generation of young Americans is rising up to prove them wrong. They are proving that they mean to show themselves equal to the task. And they are right to celebrate it.
As I watched their joy, I washed away the last ten years of worry. I reflected that I have raised children who have known nothing but the kind of terror this bastard unleashed on the world but who, I am now certain, have no good reason to be afraid. There is nothing that we Americans cannot accomplish when we mean to do it and stick to it. I didn't begin to chant, "USA! USA! USA!" but I did shed some tears of joy and sheepishly ask my husband if we couldn't dig out some sparklers for the kids so they could share in it. But we are no longer young and they are, in fact, too young to fully understand. So we skipped the exercise, put them to bed, and I slept a sleep I haven't really slept since September 10, 2001 (though now without the discomfort of heavy pregnancy!). It is not that I am deluded into thinking that the task ahead of us is that much easier. It isn't. But because of those beautiful young people, I remembered, again, who we are. We are Americans. God bless them for standing up. ]]>
Nullification is Not a Principle for the Serious Tea Partiertag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.165512011-04-20T17:23:20Z2012-06-29T18:37:57ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
Michael Sabo, writes one of the most clear and concise explanations I have seen of why the doctrine of nullification has no part to play in any clear-eyed understanding of the principles that animate America. Moreover, Sabo argues, it ought to be rejected by those who, in supporting the work of the Tea Party, understand themselves to be arguing for a restoration of America's founding principles.
Nullification, far from being fundamental to the American Founding, is a principle at war with our Declaration of Independence and with the natural rights of individuals. It holds individual states, rather than individual citizens, to be sovereign and it thereby diminishes the principle of consent that--in so many instances--has been violated by the workings of the modern administrative state and is the basis of Tea Party dissatisfaction with the administrative state. If the Tea Party wants to hold the separate states to be sovereign, the problem is that they will be sovereign over (and, often, against) individuals. This principle does not protect individual rights but it does empower factions. In combating the evil of the modern administrative state, this seems a thin and uninspiring argument. To suggest that the states are more sovereign than THE state begs the question: Why? Upon what principle of justice? What makes the various states and their interests more important than the general welfare? In addition to simply being wrong, this argument is unpersuasive in the modern context. The problem of centralized power in "the state" is not that it violates the rights of the various states so much as that, in pulling away authority and the management of local affairs from smaller communities, the temptation to violate individual rights is much less effectively countered. ]]>
Playing Chesstag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.165382011-04-15T21:27:47Z2012-06-29T18:37:52ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
thoughts on the budget deal and the overall political implications of that deal are now posted over at NRO's The Corner. Though not at all discounting legitimate disappointment in some conservative quarters, he rightly argues that conservatives will make a huge mistake if they over-react and lose sight of the big picture.
In my own view, I think that in forcing Obama's move, the leadership of Boehner and Ryan has made itself evident. For an ordinary citizen--not an already engaged conservative or a Tea Partier--the contrast between the sides has never been more clear. Indeed, in the wake of that pathetic speech from two days ago, his approval ratings have now tied his previous lows. No more do conservatives have to sit around and assert the many ways in which Obama's leadership has failed the country . . . Obama now gets up to the podium and does the job for us. We should continue to press him to do this.
Far from being a "first strike" against Boehner and the Republican leadership, I think this was a first step. First steps are always wobbly and sloppy . . . and there will be falls. But now is not the time to write off the attempt as wasted effort. As Hayward notes, bigger battles lie ahead--most notably the debt-ceiling fight and, in that fight, the Dems won't have Planned Parenthood to throw in the faces of Republicans. "Let's hang together for the next round." Indeed. ]]>
More Examples of Contemporary Progressive Hostility to Politicstag:dgfan.com,2011:/sd/nlt-blog//1.165292011-04-13T19:25:02Z2012-06-29T18:37:49ZJulie Ponzihttp://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=23
Steve . . . we really do have to stop meeting like this) on Pelosi's recent suggestion that what's wrong in contemporary politics is all the "politics." That is, she doesn't think it ought to matter (very much) who wins elections because there should not be these vast and, seemingly, insurmountable disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over the ends of government. As Steve puts it:
Of course, if you determine that a function of government, like traffic
enforcement or tax collecting, should be beyond the reach of partisan
political argument, then you have essentially ruled the other party out
of order when it objects. Pelosi and confreres believe that once any
welfare state measure is in place, it cannot be questioned. The tacit premise of Pelosi's remark is that today's Republican Party is
an illegitimate party, akin to Nazis or Communists or other subversives
who reject the principles of the Constitution. At best, elections to
the Progressive mind would increasingly become ceremonial exercises,
like Fourth of July picnics. At worst, it is an argument for tyranny.
But do read his whole post. It's very thoughtful and thought provoking.
I offer another example of the ways in which progressive hostility to politics has infiltrated even the most ordinary of conversations, this time from my local web-paper. The author cannot understand the people she terms "thinkers on the political right" who will not march in lock step with Michelle Obama and others who, to this authors way of thinking, only want to draw common sense attention to the problem of childhood obesity and draw from it policy prescriptions to combat the problem. She takes it as a given that the problem is one that must be combated by government and cannot fathom dissension. If people disagree they must be either peevish or stupid or hostile to the well-being of children. The question of the limits of government reach and capacities does not even enter her realm of possibilities.
But with the news, just yesterday, of one public school in Chicago banning all home-packed lunches for "health" reasons and of other schools on similar grounds now banning chocolate milk--is it really so strange that parents might begin to suspect that there is something more nefarious at work here than a well-meaning and wholesome concern for children's health? The question is not as simple as this author and many other good people who want the best for children would have it. It is not merely a question of,"What would make children more healthy?" It is also a question of determining who has the authority to make determinations like this on behalf of children. In other words, it is a question of liberty. In a system where health (as determined by an administrative expert) is more important than individual liberty, this author would have some grounding for telling the opposition to shut up. But in our system of government--a system that progressives have not, I repeat, had the courage actually to change--neither she nor Nancy Pelosi have any reason to think that they are within their rights in telling us to shut up. ]]>