Friday, May 25, 2018

Donning Spandex – Part 1 (with great power comes great razzmatazz)


Original artwork by Marisa Draeger
“The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.” Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles
Ever since Hollywood discovered the money-making enterprise of cranking out super-hero movies, crime-fighting, spandex donning characters that were previously only known to the sort of people who attend Comic-Con International have become household names. As The Onion hilariously noted, “Green Lantern is a superhero with fans around the world who everyone certainly knew about before they saw the movie’s trailer.” Yeah. Right.
These capped crusaders are so ubiquitous that even in my profession—the unenchanting world of auditing and accounting—the Journal of Accountancy recently ran an article entitled Which Superheroes Would Make the Best CPAs?. I wish that were a joke.
While these films have ranged from cinematic masterpieces (The Dark Knight) to overhyped flops (Suicide Squad), the fact that some franchises have become billion-dollar box office hits practically guarantees Hollywood will continue to crank these films out for many years to come.
The reasons for the success of these films are doubtless numerous and complex. Though not a film critic, I believe I could take an educated guess at one of those reasons: to some degree we all want to be the heroes we see on the big screen. Who among us doesn’t find the idea of possessing superpowers appealing? In fact, our desire for power is as universal as the desire for nourishment, acceptance, and security.
While some people may have inordinate desires (such as the glutton has for food or the salacious has for sensual pleasures) I believe it can be quite difficult to know the true extent of your desires until you are made to do without. I’ve never had an uncontrollable desire for food—at least not in the sense that I’d be willing to risk my life for my next meal. But I’ve also never been in a position where I was starving and had no idea where my next meal would come from. The desire to eat is universal, but it is more apparent where people are starving.
I had never fancied myself to be the sort of person who desired power until I was put in a situation in which I was quite powerless. Not that long ago my girlfriend suffered a major health crisis that doctors were at a loss to explain or treat. A few weeks into the crisis—when it became apparent things weren’t just going to go back to “normal” and that they could easily get much worse—we grew more desperate. What I wanted in that moment, more than anything, was the power to make her better.
There were daily prayers for wisdom, strength, healing, or just some sign that God was in this somehow and everything was going to be “OK”—even if we had no concept of what “OK” actually meant. As time wore on the tone and tenor of my prayers went through the five stages as denial turned to anger which turned to bargaining which turned to depression which turned to some nominal form of acceptance which I still struggle to maintain. My faith was buoyed only by the realization that the question of suffering is one that theologians has wrestled with down through the ages.
I say this not to be macabre but to illustrate how this natural desire for power manifests itself in all of us under the right circumstances, even if we aren’t the sort of people who would otherwise desire it. What I wouldn’t have given for the power to control the situation! The yearning for power had indeed become an obsession. My girlfriend’s health ultimately stabilized enough for us to have confidence her life was not in danger. But what followed has been years of further recuperation as she continues to battle a debilitating illness and rapidly evolving symptoms.
Feeling powerless can be terrifying. And in those moments, unrestrained passions can lead a person to do things they’d otherwise think unthinkable. Even if you’ve never fantasized about possessing superhuman strength or speed or the ability to read minds, we all face challenges and misfortunes in life that we yearn to overcome and rise above. You don’t have to be a manically laughing, power-hungry supervillain for this to be true. We all desire power. And that is the single most destabilizing aspect of human nature to the other thing we all desire: peace and tranquility in our domestic affairs.
Like any other natural desire, the desire for power isn’t good or bad in and of itself. Ethics don’t enter in until we consider the extent or timing or spirit or purpose of the desire. It isn’t just superheroes who don caps and spandex costumes after all. A good superhero story needs a supervillain.
The idea that we shouldn’t entrust ultimate power to just anyone is hardly controversial. But agreeing upon prudent restraints on power certainly is. Not everyone deserves to don the spandex. And some powers should never be granted to anyone—no matter how good or wise we may judge them to be. Inventiveness and technology allows humans to conquer nature; but that power is fleeting, for human nature—which is a part of nature—means that the more powerful the invention, the more devastating its misuse when placed in the wrong hands.
The conservative believes prudent restraints are necessary for liberty to flourish in a just and ordered society in two broad areas: 1) the powers of the state and 2) the passions of the individual. In this series I’d like to explore both of these ideas, beginning with the prudent restraints upon the powers of the state in Part 2.


from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Friday, May 18, 2018

How Valuable are Your Values? – Part 4


Original artwork by Marisa Draeger
In my view, there were two—and only two—legitimate reasons for voting for Trump: 1) because you believed he’d make a good president, and/or 2) because you believed he would at least be a better president than Hillary. In the runup to the 2016 presidential election a cast of characters as eclectic as that Star Wars cantina scene emerged to quantify the unquantifiable and defend their decision to vote for Trump on purely moral or ideological grounds. Their defenses ranged from bizarre to uninformed to bizarrely uninformed.
Trump wasn’t making their task any easier with his duplicitous personal background, race-baiting stump speeches, and refusal to offer coherent, consistent policies. Nevertheless, they persisted. Wayne Grudem’s “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” springs to mind. Grudem, a highly respected theologian, offered up arguments so uninformed I found them challenging to refute without coming across as dismissive. Other defenders went so far as to insist that criticizing Trump was on par with murdering Christ.
Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson coined the phrase “baby Christian” in reference to Trump’s conveniently timed conversion to the Christianity under the proselytizing of prosperity preacher Paula White—which is kind of like claiming Trump became a Christian after watching Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.
It would have been one thing for Dr. Dobson to have said something to the effect of, “Look, I know I’ve made a big deal about electing Christians and people of integrity to higher office in the past, but I don’t really believe that any more. I think what’s important is that we elect someone pledging to work with us on prolife matters regardless of their morality or personal beliefs.” But he didn’t. What he did was radically water-down what it meant to be a Christian to allow for a “repentance” in which the converted can’t recall if he ever asked God for forgiveness.
My point isn’t that these individuals were morally in the wrong for voting for and supporting Trump. Rather, they were morally in the wrong to reframe the core convictions of a conservative worldview in general and of the Christian faith in particular to justify their decision to vote for Trump. Trump may have been the best candidate in 2016—why was it necessary to make allowances for the things he did and said as if they’re tantamount to what conservative Christians had believed all along?
Those of us who still profess an understanding that repentance is a necessary condition of the Christian faith must have missed the memo this antiquated notion had to be scrapped to allow for political expediency. Those of us who understood conservatism to have originated from a Burkean distain for radical revolution and suspicion of idealistic authoritarianism have woken up in a world where the “conservative” thing to do is pledge unquestioning fealty to the only man who can Make America Great Again!
Black is the new white and white is the new black and heaven help you if you dare to voice your concern that things have been turned upside down. There was an era—back in the dark ages circa 2015—when conservatives supported ideas, not individuals. And even further back in ancient times circa 1997 evangelicals popularized the phrase “character counts” and called for president Bill Clinton’s impeachment when news broke of his affair with a White House intern.
The Public Religion Research Institute conducted a series of polls over five years asking if “an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.” The results are startling:
A 42% quantum leap in the number of evangelicals willing to “forgive” indiscretions when the political perpetrator in question claims to be on their side is an indication that “winning” is of greater value than actual values. The values that they care about are policies, not character traits or decency.
In all fairness, it’s possible evangelicals had historically placed too high of a premium on their politicians’ moral fiber and not enough on their abilities, and now recent political trends have made it advantageous to realign their thinking. Politicians, after all, exist somewhere in that middle-world between a pastor and a plumber in terms of how much their personal lives matter in whether we would select them to get the job done right.
This begs the question of exactly what aspects and how much of a politician’s personal life “counts” in discerning their ability to fulfill their duties in their public and professional life. And while that is a very important question, exploring it would involve a significant digression that I won’t be taking today.
The bigger issue, I believe, isn’t what aspects or how much, but whether we’re guilty of creating a double standard for those on “our side.” Those who do so are betraying the fact that the values they claim to uphold aren’t really their values after all. They are a means to an end—an effective tool for “winning” some political tug-o-war.
If an act is virtuous, it does not matter who is performing the act. Judge Roy Moore’s sexual exploitations of underaged girls don’t somehow because “innocent” because he ran as a Republican. If a murder is committed the weight we assign that evil shouldn’t depend on whether the murderer’s name is John or Hosea or Mohammad, or whether the defendant happens to belong to our political “tribe.”
As we explored in Part 3, when your values are based on nothing more than how they can benefit you, the only value you truly possess is the value of pragmatism. To some, pragmatism may be a value. But when the Apostle Paul was listing out the Fruits of the Spirit, “pragmatism” didn’t make the list.
I have been berating those political, civic, and religious leaders who found it necessary to “adjust” their values to defend their support of Trump. I recall another “defense” piece that—while written anonymously—was at the very least refreshingly sincere in its approach. The Flight 93 Electionarticle, posted on Claremont.org, gained notoriety when talk radio host Rush Limbaugh made a great to do over it in a September 2016 radio address. Limbaugh, who generally steers clear of intelligentsia conversations and writings, referred to the piece as a “home run” with “every paragraph.”
While the piece began with the tireless argument—“We know exactly what we’re getting with Hillary, at least with Trump there’s a chance he’ll behave”—it quickly turned to a rather lengthy, scathing diatribe of the failure of the Republican party or conservatism to win big at the ballot box and hold to suicidal tendencies, offering Trump as the last best hope for saving the Republic.
While the post was well written, I do not believe it accomplished the impossible task of advocating Trumpism as a friend to the conservative movement. The title of the piece came from the harrowing flight that crashed on September 11 when the passengers realized their hijackers were intent on crashing the plane into some building and decided to rush the cockpit in a courageous attempt at survival. The author portrayed our current political climate in the same light, advocating the cultural war calls for a do or die approach.
But this is the central error of the Trumplican: That the conservative impulse and civil society and liberties and vanquishing everything that’s “wrong with the world” is something that can be achieved by amassing enough power in political leaders dedicated to the cause. This explains, in part, why so many in the Republican party today demand unwavering loyalty and unquestioning support to Trump. Jonah Goldberg, host of The Remnant podcast, lashed out in a recent episode to those who demand he capitulate to the cause:
“I don’t see why someone who’s chosen the profession I have, which is to be a writer and to explain my views and make my arguments in as much good faith as I can and to try to persuade people by using facts, logic, reason, and maybe a little humor, that somehow I need to do more. And I’m not sure what that more is supposed to be…I don’t freak’n work for the Republican party. And it’s not my job to pretend to be a hack for the party. If they believe that if the last conservative—if me or Bill Kristol or David French, whoever it is—if we finally bend the knee too and join hands for this one final sort of Ragnarök confrontation with the libs that all will be right in the world. If your movement needs me to start acting like a hack to win, then your movement’s not going to win anyway, even if I did.”
My purpose in focusing on Trumplicans is not to hold them up as the archetype of hypocrisy. Rather, I believe 2016 and beyond has given us a rare opportunity to see out in the open what ordinarily exists hidden away in our hearts: that many of us—myself included—struggle to uphold the values we claim we believe in when push comes to shove. And while that’s not good, it is better when we recognize that for what it is and repent, rather than adjust our supposed “values” when circumstances make them no longer advantageous. Two wrongs don’t make a right, to borrow a familiar cliché.
We’ve chosen convenience over convictions, tribalism over patriotism, schadenfreude over charity, winning over dignity, and pragmatism over prudence. Desperation, impulsivity, duplicity—these are the maladies that plague those who only know how to treat “values” as a tool to score a “win.” How valuable are our values? We may soon find out.


from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Episode 6 - Deep Thoughts with Bob - Education


President Bush once said, "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" Actually, the question gets asked all the time with the resounding response NO! So what's the matter with kids today? What's wrong with education? Why is our children not learning? Is the problem not enough funding? Not enough parental involvement? No prayer in school? Too many guns? Not enough teachers with guns? Was John Dewey full of it and are waterfalls truly sublime?
Josh is joined by Bob Burch to discuss the conservative approach to education and to explore what's actually at the heart of our educational woes.
For further reading on some of the books discussed in the show I'd highly recommend checking out The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis and John Dewey and the Decline of American Education by Henry Edmondson.


from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Friday, May 11, 2018

Please Stand By...


Greetings dear readers...
Yours truly is taking a brief hiatus from our regular weekly Friday blog posts to spend some time completing the next podcast episode that will be available this coming Tuesday. Look for the blog to resume next week.
In the meanwhile, if you came here to satisfy a craving for quality conservatism, you might enjoy this recent article by Ben Shapiro on the gap that exists between young and old conservatives and how to potentially "win back" America's youth to the cause. While I find Shapiro's argument mostly compelling, I am far less optimistic about conservatism (or civil society, for that matter) existing and thriving in the West if we are witnessing the demise of our moral framework through our Judeo-Christian heritage. But that's a digression for another day.
If you don't have time for much reading, Fox News' Neil Cavuto has a video about how Trump is undermining his own efforts to drain the swamps that's worth a watch.
Lastly, here are some quotes that inspire me:
“Life does not ask what we want. It presents us with options.”
Thomas Sowell
“There is a line of obligation that connects us to those who gave us what we have; and our concern for the future is an extension of that line.”
Sir Roger Scruton
“Moderation is a virtue, not only amiable but powerful. It is a disposing, arranging, conciliating, cementing virtue…to dare to be fearful when all about you are full of presumption and confidence.”
Edmund Burke
“I am aware what ability is requisite to persuade the proud how great is the virtue of humility.”
Saint Augustine
“He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.”
G. K. Chesterton
“Broken promises are not the major causes of our trouble. Kept promises are. All too often we have put men in office who have suggested spending a little more on this, a little more on that, who have proposed a new welfare program, who have thought of another variety of ‘securities.’”
Barry Goldwater
“Men do not make laws; they merely ratify or distort the laws of God…men have no rights to what they please: their natural rights are only what may be directly deduced from their human nature.”
Russell Kirk


from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Episode 4 - Russell Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles Part 2


In the 1950s, Russell Kirk almost single-handedly rescued conservative thought from oblivion and made it a force to be reckoned with again by writing The Conservative Mind. Since his intended audience was academia, much of his tome is a rather dense and difficult read. But that's what we're here for--to make highbrow conservative thought easily accessible and applicable for you. Kirk later summarized his basic arguments in the book into a list of Ten Conservative Principles. In Part 1 we discussed the first five of those principles. Today we cover the last five:


from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog