Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
Democrats and religion
This article focuses on Obama’s efforts to organize through churches, where he clearly goes beyond just showing up on Sunday and being introduced by the pastor. He’s also been talking about "creat[ing] a Kingdom [of God] right here on Earth," which doesn’t sit well with C. Welton Gaddy, a liberal Baptist separationist who heads the Interfaith Alliance. Obama’s efforts to organize through churches also come up for some mild criticism
here. Might Barack Obama be the most "theocratic" candidate in this field in either party?
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [9] | 10/17/2007 9:30 PM
|
|
The separation of church and union?
Steven Malanga describes a little-noticed field of cooperation between liberal congregations and denominations and labor unions. you can read the longer version here.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments | 10/17/2007 5:47 PM
|
|
Scalia the Catholic (?) judge
This story offers an account of a speech Justice Antonin Scalia gave at this event. Here are some snippets: "The bottom line is that the Catholic faith seems to me to have little effect on my work as a judge," he declared.*** "Just as there is no ’Catholic’ way to cook a hamburger," he said to a murmur of laughter, "I am hard-pressed to tell you of a single opinion of mine that would have come out differently if I were not Catholic."
Nonetheless, he continued, his Catholic faith obliges him to abide by two "commands" in his life and his work as a judge.
" ’Be thou perfect as thy heavenly Father is perfect.’ And ’Thou shalt not lie,’ " he said.
Those principles, he said, call him to be a strict constructionist of the law, one who does not "distort prior cases" or the Constitution in order to assert that certain rights are guaranteed under law. Our friend Jim Stoner was also on the conference program. If he has a take, I’d love to hear it. Update: MOJ’s Rob Vischer wonders about this, and calls our attention to this paper on prudence and judging for a more extended treatment of Justice Scalia’s similar remarks in the past. Might this be an example of Scalia’s adherence to a kind of natural law that informs his judging--not, I hasten to add, the attribution of a natural law background to the Constitution (a la Justice Thomas), but rather an assertion that judges have universal obligations? Update #2 Rick Garnett parses Scalia: To be a Catholic judge -- and Justice Scalia is, whether he likes it or not, a "Catholic judge" in this sense -- is to be a judge in the way a Catholic, like everyone else, should be a judge: To take seriously one’s obligation to decide impartially, to submit to the rule of law, rather than one’s own preferences, and to have an appropriate humility about the task one is charged to perform. Obviously, this is not a distinctively Catholic way of judging....
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [253] | 10/17/2007 4:56 PM
|
|
Forget the Pink Ribbons and the Fluffy Pink Slippers . . .
This is the kind of information people need to help them combat breast cancer. But Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D. points out that there is a strong reluctance to report it. I knew that having babies and nursing them was one good way to reduce your risk of getting breast cancer (and, if you think about it, it’s very logical or even teleological) but I did not realize the extent to which it was true. According to Dr. Grossman: Numerous large studies have shown that each birth will reduce your risk by ten percent and each year of nursing by at least four percent. So if you start your family early, have three kids and nurse them each for two years, you’ve decreased your risk by about 54 percent. Now that’s really something! That should be front page news in October--the so-called "Breast Cancer Awareness Month." But apparently, we’re not supposed to be that aware. Grossman points to a thwarted campaign among doctors to try and respond to the dismay of patients who discovered that they were infertile in their 30s. A group of them tried to sponsor PSAs that showed a baby bottle shaped like an hourglass. The text announced that fertility starts to decline after 30. This is nothing but a fact--and a fact about which a great number of disappointed patients had reported ignorance. Still, malls and theaters refused to post their announcement. This deliberate ignorance of female biology is really astonishing. It has become perfectly acceptable to discuss (in the most public and even obscene ways) the anatomy and function of the female clitoris, but to suggest that fertility declines after 30 and that early childbirth helps prevent breast-cancer is--well, taboo. Up is down and black is white. I should point out to those of you who have followed my postings on these topics that I have just discovered that Dr. Grossman is, in fact, the "Anonymous, M.D." responsible for this book which I reviewed here). The paperback is now out and includes a new introduction and her real name on the cover. I’m glad she isn’t anonymous anymore. This kind of thing needs to be combated and it needs people willing to take the heat.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [245] | 10/17/2007 11:37 AM
|
|
Chinese Commies Make KELO Look Benevolent
Terence Jeffrey writes a clear summary of recent government takings in China. Citizens of Beijing, apparently, are hardest hit because of a spade of takings anticipating the coming Olympics. People’s homes are taken and destroyed (with little or no compensation) in order to clear the way for the development of these facilities. Although these actions make our Kelo decision and the takings in New London, CT look like child’s play, Jeffrey rightly points to the affinity between the Chi-com’s and our own hard left.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments | 10/17/2007 11:23 AM
|
|
Evangelicals politically irrelevant?
Our friend the Friar notes this post, written by someone who is apparently no friend of religious conservatives. Here’s the conclusion: At present, let me float two theories about the relevance of the Evangelical constituency in Republican party elections. When they are united, Conservative Protestants are very necessary, but not sufficient, for a victory. And when they are not united, as Rudy Giuliani is wagering, they are far less necessary. Fair enough, but the question remains for the general election: without this necessary but insufficient bloc, there’s no Republican road to the White House. And by the by, the fact that evangelicals are all over the Republican map (with a portion even on the Democratic map) surely gives the lie to any caricatures about lockstep voting, intolerance of difference, and so on. Could it be that conservative evangelicals look at a complicated electoral scene and don’t rush to a simplifying categorical judgment? How, how, how nuanced and bicoastal of them!
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [251] | 10/16/2007 8:08 PM
|
|
Jonah Explains WHY He’s Pro-Life
It seems to me that more of this kind of article from Jonah Goldberg is what is needed from those of us who are pro-life. Jonah does not get on a high horse and give us a lecture. He explains his thinking on the matter, admits (and in the end, even embraces) his doubts, and--in general--gives us a very clear and very human accounting of his position. Without working at being persuasive, he persuades. What I like most about it is that his points are fresh and down-to-earth. It is time for a fresh and down-to-earth discussion about abortion. The reason so many people shut their ears when the subject of abortion comes up is because the rhetoric is so over-heated on both sides. There are so many who claim to know more than they know and they are so venomous about it. Regular folks rightly cringe (and if it’s talk radio, they change the dial) when the subject comes up. But I suspect they might have a different reaction to Jonah’s piece. Another thing to keep in mind is that--with the exception of the partial birth debate--the leading arguments were formulated and crystallized in the 70s and 80s (and perhaps on into the early 90s). Of course, that doesn’t make the salient points any less correct--but it does mean that they are unfamiliar to a large segment of the voting public. Now is a good time to re-cast them and Jonah sets what I think is exactly the right tone.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [252] | 10/16/2007 4:56 PM
|
|
Another new and interesting blog
Those who have too much time on their hands might take a look at Principalities and Powers, the outpost of David Innes, a Toronto and Boston College-trained political theorist who also happens to be an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the OPC, this book is a helpful account of its origins in the modernist takeover of Princeton Seminary. Full disclosure: I remember David as a too-smart-by-half undergrad when I was in my final years at Toronto. Canada’s loss is America’s gain. By the way, the post at the top of the page is a little gem,
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 10/16/2007 4:11 PM
|
|
Nothing Silly About this "Silly String"
A soldier’s mom had the gumption and the perseverance to help out our troops by arranging to send them 80,000 cans of "silly string." It’s not because these guys want to goof off. The string is used to detect trip wires on bombs. This is a great story about American ingenuity and a mother’s devotion. Good for her.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [269] | 10/16/2007 3:08 PM
|
|
Cleveland Rocks!
The fast pace of life and the crowds in Southern California have a way of wearing a mid-Westerner down and, if one is not careful, it is hard to see much good in it. But my son, with his devotion to the Cleveland Indians, reminds me of at least one good thing: the time difference. We got to watch every minute of those last two wonderful games. Last night’s performance was not as exciting as Saturday’s 11th inning drubbing . . . but it was great fun to see my home state displayed to the rest of the country and to such good effect. Special kudos should be accorded to The Cleveland Plain Dealer for the hilarious "bug faces" they printed in the paper for people to cut out and wear in the stadium (in memory of the great gnat plague God wrought on the Yankees)! What kind of wonderfully twisted mind comes up with a genius idea like that? That and the ladies dressed in bug costumes handing out bug repellent to the fans (!) . . . that’s the good-natured Ohio humor (and resignation to the fates beyond our control) I miss so much. I noticed, by the way, that Hugh Hewitt had John Kasich and Michael Barone on in the last hour of his show to discuss Ohio politics yesterday. Of course, he taped this hour because he had to be at Jacobs Field. Yes. There’s plenty of time to straighten out Ohio’s politics before Nov. of ’08. But Hewitt was right to suggest that whoever gets the Republican nod in February better plan on camping out there at least every other week until the election.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments | 10/16/2007 12:04 PM
|
|
Social conservatives yet again
Our friends at Power Line note this Novak column which looks at a Gallup analysis I can’t find on the web. (Here’s an earlier version of the same sort of analysis, showing that, as of this summer, RG beat HRC among frequent church attenders--including, most importantly, those who are politically independent.) Novak suggests that the Anybody-But-Rudy social conservative leaders are out of touch with their rank-and-file. Perhaps; for the latter, Anybody-But-Hillary might be the more important consideration. But let me add another bit of polling analysis to the mix, this one from the invaluable Pew Forum. It stresses the gap between self-described Republican social issue voters and the rest of the party identifiers. It’s a big gap, with the social issue voters comprising a substantial portion of the solidly Republican voters, but a candidate who’s going to be successful in the primary and general elections is going to have to reach out to those who are less reliable as Republican voters. And if the social issue folks are serious about Anybody-But-Hillary, they’re going to have to countenance that kind of outreach.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [560] | 10/16/2007 10:05 AM
|
|
Philosopher-Fred?
Well, I liked Joe’s comment below, because it gets to the nerve of the Thompson issue. The comments in the REPUBLIC are really about the PHILOSOPHER-KING, who is an unrealistic abstraction or perfection of qualities found in real-life people with philosophic temperaments. For the latter, motives are always mixed, and "public service" or "politics as a vocation" remain possible. Not only that, for those without the wisdom of the philosopher-king (without knowledge of what gives being its beingness etc.), ruling can be a source of knowledge (self-knowledge, knowledge of human nature etc.). In the case of Fred, his relatively contemplative nature might produce prudent policies, or it might produce impotent self-indulgence. Socrates never DID much of anything, because he couldn’t quite figure out what virtue is. Fred hasn’t lived a life of ACTION, much less DANGER. Still, there’s something to be said for a ruler who doesn’t have self-esteem issues (unlike, say, Nixon).
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [261] | 10/16/2007 8:02 AM
|
|
Authenticity in politics
As I was teaching Plato’s Republic yesterday, we came to the passage in Book I where Socrates tells Glaucon that good men only rule so as to avoid being ruled by someone worse. In a city full of good men, he says, there would be an argument over who had to rule, as everyone would prefer to be benefitted rather than to benefit others.
There are (at least) two implications here. First, we should be suspicious of political ambition: people who actually want political power probably don’t have admirable motives. Second, Plato’s Socrates apparently can’t conceive of a "selfless" or "altruistic" motive. What merely appears to be such is really a manifestation of a sense that one has something better to do for oneself. Philosophy emerges in the Republic as the great competitor for, and antidote to, tawdry and self-seeking political ambition. Of course, that doesn’t leave room for "politics as a vocation" or calling, something that politicians (of whom we’re rightly suspicious) evoke when they speak about a life devoted to public service. All of this is a long way of introducing David Brooks’s column about retiring Ohio Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, who clearly didn’t like what she had to do to scrape by with a narrow victory in 2006. Brooks admires her, and others like her, for avoiding the principal occupational hazard of political life: Politics, as you know, is a tainted profession. Professional politicians cannot serve their country if they do not win their races, and to do that they must grapple with a vast array of forces that try to remold and destroy who they are.
There are consultants who try to turn them into prepackaged clones. There are party whips demanding total loyalty. There is a culture of workaholism that strangles private life and private thinking. There are journalists who define them based on a few ideological labels.
And then there is the soul-destroying act of campaigning itself. Active campaigners are compelled to embrace the ideology of Meism.
They spend their days talking endlessly about Me. When they meet donors, they want to know if they are giving to Me or against Me. When they meet advisers and fellow pols, they want to know, do they support Me or not Me. When they think about strategy, it’s about better ways to present Me. When they craft positions, they want to know, what does this say about Me?>
No normal person can withstand the onslaught of egotism and come out unscathed.
And so there are two kinds of politicians: those who become creatures of the process, and those who, like Pryce, resist and retain the capacity to be appalled by what they must do.
An amazing number gladly surrender. “Public people almost eagerly dehumanize themselves,” Meg Greenfield wrote in “Washington,” her memoir. “They allow the markings of region, family, class, individual character and, generally, personhood that they once possessed to be leached away. At the same time, they construct a new public self that often does terrible damage to what remains of the genuine person.”
These politicians become denatured pantomimes. They have no thoughts in private that are different from the bromides they utter in public. They confuse public image with real self. They talk to you as an individual the same way they would address a large crowd. Why would any decent, self-respecting person want to do this? There’s the Socratic motive--not wanting to be ruled by someone worse--however rarely the self-esteem implicit in that view is truly justified. And there’s the calling of public service, which I think is genuine, but of which (as I said) we’re rightly suspicious when politicians talk too much about it. I have some stake in sorting this out in the particular cases before me as I decide who I’m going to support in ’08 (as if it will matter by the time the Georgia primary rolls around). And it’s why this article, to which Peter L. called our attention, makes Fred Thompson continue to seem appealing.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [193] | 10/16/2007 6:02 AM
|
|
Treat Him As a Man
Good for James Kirchick of The New Republic for his op-ed in today’s LA Times about Clarence Thomas. Titled "Clarence Thomas is not the Hypocrite," Kirchick takes Thomas at his word when he describes the pain that came to him from realizing that a Yale degree "meant one thing for whites and another thing for blacks." In other words, Kirchick acknowledges that Thomas’ dislike for affirmative action is sincere and heartfelt. He even sympathizes with it--as a gay man--and argues that he would be mortified himself to realize he had been advanced academically or professionally mainly because of his sexual preference. The hypocrites are those liberals who, in order to defend affirmative action, point to Thomas as a "less than qualified" justice because of the affirmative action that they argue served to advance him. They are saying that Thomas could not have achieved without it. Their little program is the reason for Thomas’ success, so he should be grateful and toe the line?! It is preposterous and insulting. A real liberal in the classical and original sense of the term would understand that. Kirchick does.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [245] | 10/15/2007 7:05 PM
|
|
"The New Girl Order?"
The always interesting and compelling Kay Hymowitz writes about the globalization of the Single Young Female (SYF) phenomenon. Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw is alive and well and living in Eastern Europe, Japan and--increasingly--even in China. Of course, this has all kinds of demographic, social and political implications. How this transformation will be greeted and felt in each country or region will vary--depending upon what preceded it. Hymowitz has some interesting takes on how it all may play out. She also has a very interesting discussion about why it may be that the "Rome of SYFs"--the United States--has felt the impact of this transformation less vividly or violently than it is being felt in the countries she discusses here. American women, even SYFs of the Carrie Bradshaw sort, still report a strong interest in getting married. It has much less to do with these women, she argues, than it has to do with the quality of the men. American men, apparently, are more worthy of marriage in these new circumstances. In the United States (and Northern Europe), Hymowitz explains, there is a long tradition of companionate marriage which is more open to the interests of both parties. This translates into more flexibility to accommodate these shifting roles within marriage. Much more could be said about all of this but Hymowitz offers much to stimulate that discussion.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [251] | 10/15/2007 12:17 PM
|
|
Remi Brague on the Law of God
Here’s a good review of a great book. Does "modernity" depend on a faith it has only apparently rejected? The reviewer criticizes Brague, with some justice, for not giving appropriate attention to Locke and the American "regime." So does Locke depend on a faith he has only apparently rejected? Or, as Ratzinger/Benedict says, is the modern world movements toward de-Christianization and de-Hellenization working at cross-purposes? Any adequate response to "what is modernity?" can’t be reduced to a single overarching answer or narrative. (Thanks to Mark Henrie and the Brague fan club.)
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 10/15/2007 10:28 AM
|
|
A New Book by Pierre Manent
...experted translated and introduced by our friend Paul Seaton. Don’t be fooled by the amazon page; DEMOCRACY WITHOUT NATIONS? is in print.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [228] | 10/14/2007 9:31 PM
|
|
Tomorrow’s Birthdays
...include John Kenneth Galbraith and Nietzsche. OK, they’re both overrated. Galbraith wasn’t much of an economist, although he has a nice prose style and looked good playing an economist on TV. And our society really and truly is affluent. Nietzsche tried to be the first wholly post-Christian postmodern, but he only succeeded in being really, really modern. (We learn both from his penetrating criticism and personal example that everything we proudly call postmodern is really hypermodern.) It is true enough, though, that if I have a "why," then I can get by with just about any "how," and so any conception of freedom that’s all about "the how" and reduces "the why" to a mere preference is worthless, is nihilism. Nietzsche certainly was a brilliant critic of the herd morality lurking at the heart of liberalism. And he saw clearly what liberalism would do to key social institutions, such as marriage. But his observation that "God is dead" was plain wrong, and so the desperation that fueled his extremist rhetoric was, to be gentle, misguided. Read Tocqueville instead.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [250] | 10/14/2007 8:48 PM
|
|
Thompson the social conservative choice?
Gary Bauer thinks that religious conservatives ought to keep an open mind about Fred Thompson, who is apparently a work in progress. This earned Bauer a rebuke from Randy Brinson, who, by the way, has been playing footsie with "progressive" Democrats (see also this item, where Brinson appears is lots of good "progressive" company). Hat tip: Power Line. Update: The more I look at the Third Way report on a common ground between evangelicals and progressives and at co-sponsor Faith in Public Life (see the staff bios here), the more suspicious I am of Brinson’s new friends. The only evangelicals these folks are intrested in are those who can be persuaded to sign onto a "progressive" agenda. For example, the language about abortion--"reducing the need" for it--presumes that there’s an imperative leading to abortion, that some people can legitimately regard abortion as a "need." I’ll concede that there are certain limited conditions where that may indeed be the case (e.g., to save the life of the mother), but I wouldn’t speak generally of a need for abortion.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [240] | 10/14/2007 5:56 PM
|
|
