If Men Were Angels – Part 4 (What Lurks Beneath)

“Conservatives are chastened by their principle of IMPERFECTABILITY.” Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles

Throughout this series we’ve explored the curious fact that—while there is much disagreement on the specifics—we all seem to have some notion that things ought to be different than what they actually are. No one needs convincing that this world, and the people who inhabit it, are imperfect.

In Part 1 we discussed how no human society lacked some notion of perfection or perfectibility. There seems to be something quite primal about our capacity to not only recognize that things aren’t as they ought to be, but to then go on pondering how things would look if they were as they ought to be; what we might call a vision.

And, as we further explored in Part 1, possessing a vision isn’t enough; there are certain “rules” we must follow if we are to make our vision a reality. Namely, that our vision must comport to reality and not fantasy. For instance, any vision that would only work if men were angels is doomed to failure because it doesn’t fit with reality.

In Part 2 we teased out how the imperfection of humanity is something that’s rooted in our nature and not simply something we can evolve out of at will. And in Part 3 we explored some of the dangers that accompany the belief that our human nature is just as prone to progress as the technological advances of the past century.

Playing by the Rules

Sometimes our musings of how things really ought to be rarely get past complaining how the line at the DMV moves far too slowly or how the rent is too damn high. And, at other times, these musings get written down into complex and lengthy belief systems that form cults or religions or philosophies or political ideologies. All of this is quite alright, so long as we play by the “rules”.

But when we don’t play by the “rules”—when we try to force our vision of perfection into some category it doesn’t belong—things often digress worse than if we’d simply left well enough alone. Resting our vision of perfection in a political ideology—any political ideology—is a perfect example of not playing by the “rules”. And, while this is more commonly a mistake of the Left, this tendency can crop up just about anywhere.

Libertarianism—depending on how it’s defined—is an example of a non-Leftist political ideology that borrows too heavily from a utopian myth of achieving perfection. I do not mean that libertarians teach or believe that putting their political ideology into practice will alleviate every conceivable problem humanity has ever suffered. Rather, their solution to nearly any societal problem is to lean more heavily into their political doctrine of pursuing liberty as the supreme political virtue.

“Liberty, like equality, is a word more used than understood. Perfect and absolute liberty is as incompatible with the existence of society, as equality of condition,” wrote James Fenimore Cooper. The truth of libertarianism is that liberty is a virtue. The untruth of libertarianism is that liberty is not the highest virtue, perfect liberty isn’t realizable in an imperfect world, and the pursuit of absolute liberty will invariably lead to worsening trade-offs. In much the same way, progressivism’s laudable desire for equality leads to contemptable schemes at enforcing equal outcomes.

Damning the Nature of Things

A political ideology doesn’t have to promise absolute perfection to be a utopian idea. A political ideology that takes into account the ills of this life and offers salvation from our present sufferings if only we fully embrace the ideology is, in effect, promising some form of perfectibility. Conservatism offers hope and restoration. But it does so by pointing our hearts and minds away from the political order to find our deepest purposes and meaning. And it further insists that we can expect things to never be perfect or nearing perfection in this life, no matter how well we construct our economy, military ventures, or political structure.

“There always must remain some individual deprivation or scarcity, which we are too prone to call ‘injustice,’ wrote Russell Kirk, “We are not perfect or perfectible creatures; and if we would be in harmony with Nature, we must not damn the nature of things.” And the nature of things is such that we will always experience imperfections in this life. If that strikes you as a dissatisfying or horrifying idea, that is precisely why the majority of conservatives look for hope in some place other than this life. Such places can be found in philosophies or religion. But it can never be found in political ideologies—for they are products of this life.

This does not mean a conservative believes there is nothing of value in a political ideology. Rather, the conservative believes political ideologies are helpful (to the extent they’re truthful) if, and only if, they play by the “rules”. And the primary “rule” for a political ideology is that it can never provide for perfection, or near perfection, or replace other associations—such as religion or philosophy—where humanity might seek out the deeper questions of perfectibility and ultimate meaning. Conservatism can get along quite nicely with those political ideologies that play by the “rules”—such as certain variants of classical liberalism and libertarianism—but finds nothing commendable with those who don’t—such as Communism or fascism.

Take classical liberalism, for instance. Here Russell Kirk explains how, as a political ideology, it is insufficient to hold humanity’s yearning for some transcendental pursuit:

“Liberalism…found its popular support in myth, but in myth distorted: the myth of individual free will, but a free will stripped of divine guidance and of grace; the myth of popular sovereignty, but a myth deprived of the saving phrase ‘under God’; the myth of natural rights, but a myth shorn of the Providential order which gives such rights their sanction…The liberal system attained popularity because it promised progress without the onerous duties exacted by tradition and religion. It is now in the process of dissolution because, founded on an imperfect and distorted myth, it has been unable to fulfill its promise, and because it no longer appeals in any degree to the higher imagination. It has been undone by social disillusion. Before long, no one will be able to take shelter under the ruinous fabric of liberalism. I see three alternatives to the liberal system: some iron discipline like that of Communism, founded upon a gross heresy from Christian principle; some Machiavellian scheme founded upon self-interest and creature-comforts; or a reinvigorated adherence to religious doctrine and traditional rights, which system we call, in politics, ‘conservatism’.”

What Lurks Beneath

We have lost the fine art of talking frankly and earnestly about the essential role of religion in a healthy society. It is very common—even among those who consider themselves to be religious, spiritual, or theists—to insist that what they really want is for social conservatism—with all its antiquated and overbearing ideas about how we should all be living our lives—to whither away and, instead, be replaced by the sort of “conservatism” that simply lets people do whatever they damn well please.

I don’t at all deny that there is a certain militant strand of what we might call theocratic conservatives who seem mostly interested in using the government to control our lives; but that does not mean religious institutions and traditions have no role to play in a healthy society. “Modern conservatism found it necessary to argue what had always been previously assumed by all reasonable men: that institutions which have existed over a long period of time have a reason and a purpose inherent in them, a collective wisdom incarnate in them, and the fact that we don’t perfectly understand or cannot perfectly explain why they ‘work’ is no defect in them but merely a limitation in us,” wrote Irving Kristol. It is the hubris of humanity that believes we are far too sophisticated and superior to our ancestors to be cumbered with tedious traditions and religious orthodoxies of the past.

As I argued here, conservatives view our civilized world as a fragile film over uninhibited human appetite. Once breached, what lurks beneath is the savage and violent reality of our pre-civilized nature. We do not get perfection when we tear down ancient institutions—even if they are antiquated. We do not get utopia if we abolish the traditions of our ancestors—even if they have been shown to be false. Yes, there are times when institutions need reforming or—in instances such as the institution of slavery—abolishing. Yes, there are times when our traditions need revising or scrapping altogether.

But we should take these steps with much fear and trepidation and, above all, not be lulled into the simpleminded and dangerous belief that we can achieve some sense of perfection once we uproot the moorings that held our society together. More likely than not, even when traditions or institutions are truly holding our culture back, their elimination will still result in widespread unintended and unforeseen consequences for generations to come.

What Conservatives Seek

Conservatives don’t look for perfectibility in a political system. But to look for it elsewhere requires vibrant communities, sound religious doctrine, and—perhaps most important of all—a mature and self-controlled people. What conservatives seek is the best possible life for imperfect humans. And most conservatives consider the self-governing experiment of the United States to be the closest we’ve come to a political model that both expands liberties and protects the rights of the individual.

But, while conservatives don’t expect men to be angels, they do insist that we call upon our better angels. This is not a call to mediocracy, but a call to greatness and nobility. In recognizing that we’re imperfect and imperfectible, we do not have to accept that we cannot strive for (and attain!) the powerful virtues of courage, self-control, temperance, and perseverance that lasting civilizations are built upon. As Irving Kristol put it, “to enjoy the fruits of self-government, you must first cease being ‘masses’ and become ‘a people,’ attached to a common way of life, sharing common values, and existing in a condition of mutual trust and sympathy as between individuals and even social classes.”

We often joke about the shallowness of our challenges by referring to them as first world problems. Indeed, there are many life-threatening problems those of us living in first-world countries will never encounter. But the struggle to live a life of virtue and decency—the struggle to rise to the occasion and strive for greatness and nobility—is a struggle that’s universal. It’s embedded in our human nature just as tightly as our imperfectability.

The conservative doesn’t have to look fondly to some distant era when men and women conquered seemingly insurmountable challenges, for the conservative knows that all people must wrestle with themselves to war against their imperfections. Men may not be angels; but the call to embrace our better angels comes to us all.

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

If Men Were Angels – Part 3 (Angelic Daydreams)

“Conservatives are chastened by their principle of IMPERFECTABILITY.” Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles

It was in college that I was first introduced to the writings of C. S. Lewis, who I have often thanked for what I can only describe as an awakening to what it means to love God with one’s mind. His uncanny and masterful way of communicating made otherwise dry theological and philosophical concepts come to life. I’d often paraphrase a line from his book The Abolition of Man—man’s final conquest over nature will be nature’s conquest over man. Here’s the original quote:

“At the moment, then, of Man’s victory over Nature, we find the whole human race subjected to some individual men, and those individuals subjected to that in themselves which is purely ‘natural’—to their irrational impulses. Nature, untrammeled by values, rules the Conditioners and, through them, all humanity. Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man.”

We’ll unpack Lewis’ audacious quote later. First, some background: Lewis was criticizing many of the ideas in vogue in his day and, to a certain degree, in ours. Namely, he was criticizing what we might call scientism and its insistence on positive evolution—the idea that, not only has evolution set mankind on a course of continual progression, but that humanity had evolved to the point it was now capable of taking charge of that progress. Lewis recognized this idea as a utopian fantasy that ignored some fundamental truths about human nature.

Blueprint for Armageddon

Lewis wrote The Abolition of Man during the darkest days of World War II—the year before the Allied forces stormed Normandy and reversed the Nazis’ foothold in Western Europe. Having fought in the trenches of World War I, Lewis was quite immune to the rosy predictions of utopia. His book serves as a warning to this day of the dangers imposed by such thinking.

Prior to the first World War, many utopian thinkers had gone on to suggest that perhaps war itself was a thing of the past. Author H. G. Wells recalls that, “in the decades before 1914 not only I but most of my generation—in the British Empire, America, France, and indeed throughout most of the civilized world—thought that war was dying out. So it seemed to us.” The documentary film, A Hobbit, A Wardrobe, and a Great War details the mindset of most intellectuals of the era:

“Perhaps the most widely held view in the years leading up to the Great War was that Western civilization was marching inexorably forward, that humanity itself was maturing, evolving, advancing—that new vistas of political, cultural, and spiritual achievement were within reach...Rational Europeans would no longer indulge in the kind of extended and brutal campaigns of previous years. The days of religious wars, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War—these were relics of a bygone era.”

And yet, juxtaposed to this faith in a utopian future came the most devastating war the world had ever seen. The scientific achievements of the Industrial Revolution put into the hands of armies weaponry of unthinkable terror. Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History six-part podcast series Blueprint for Armageddon includes over 24 hours of intense, first-hand accounts of trench warfare in World War I, in all its gory detail. I’d highly recommend it to anyone unfamiliar with just how mind-bendingly horrific The Great War was.

How was it that so many intelligent, well-educated people came to believe in the myth of the end of warfare when quite the opposite—the Great War–was just around the corner? Doubtless, it was because they looked around them and saw such progress in the sciences that it was only natural for some to assume there’d be equal progress in human civilization. “The belief in progress led others to argue that the West would soon dispense with war altogether as the remnant of a primitive, unenlightened epoch,” continued the documentary film. How soon we forget that science can progress while human nature remains constant.

Power Over Nature vs Power Over Human Nature

THIS is what Lewis was arguing against; for even after the Great War, and the following horrors of World War II, many still believed (as they do to this day) that utopia is realizable—that our advances in science and technology that give humanity power over nature must surely mean humanity is also advancing beyond bigotry and violence and greed. Lewis brilliantly demolishes this notion by pointing out that power over nature can be just as much a retreat for humanity as an advance:

“What we call Man’s power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which may, or may not, allow other men to profit by…as regards the powers manifested in the airplane or the wireless, Man is as much the patient or subject as the possessor, since he is the target of both for bombs and for propaganda. And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence…what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument…The power of Man to make himself what he pleases means…the power of some men to make other men what they please.”

Lewis was not arguing that the inventiveness of humanity was a bad thing, or that advancements in science and technology couldn’t bring actual benefits to the human race. Rather, Lewis was looking beyond our mere technological advancements and examining whether we were advancing as a species. Were we truly becoming something more than mere mortals, trapped in our imperfections? Were we somehow evolving beyond the ancient bickerings and maladies that had always plagued humanity because we seemed to be gaining so much power over nature?

“There neither is nor can be any simple increase of power on Man’s side,” Lewis professes, “Each new power won by man is a power over man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well as stronger. In every victory, besides being the general who triumphs, he is also the prisoner who follows the triumphal car.” That is because the more power we gain—or appear to gain—over nature, the more humans who are controlled by their natural impulses (that is, their own nature) can control other humans. The only true escape from this vicious cycle is to recognize our imperfectability and to embrace our better angels of rational intellect and moral consciousness—which propels us beyond our mere natural appetites. The solution isn’t more power over nature, but more power over our human nature.

Utopian Lunacies

But such teaching doesn’t tickle the ears or stoke the vanity of those looking for humanity to gain mastery over nature herself and go on to utopian perfection. We discussed in Part 1 how visions of perfection are quite healthy for individuals and societies to hold. The trouble comes when the vision is mistaken for a blueprint for one’s political ideology to be realized in the here and now. “There are also madmen who find it impossible to disentangle dreams from reality,” wrote the father of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, “which we familiarly call ‘utopianism.’”

“The inmates of any asylum, given pen and paper, will also produce their share of such ‘insights’—only it doesn’t ordinarily occur to us that this is a good way of going about the collecting of insights. It is only when people write about politics in a large way that we are so indulgent to their madness, so eager to discover inspired prophecy in their fulminations.” These political “insights” come in a variety of forms—Communism, fascism, nationalism, populism, socialism, progressivism…scientism. Each viewpoint, in its own way, promises to ultimately make humanity something beyond its limited nature. Each viewpoint ends in misery.

How is conservatism different? If perfection isn’t the goal, what is? Those are the questions we will untangle in the fourth and final post in this series.

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

Episode 19 - The Future of the GOP with Lt. Governor Matt Pinnell

What challenges does the GOP face in attracting Millennials and younger Americans to the party? Has Trump permanently changed things? Are political parties even relevant anymore?

Who better to answer such questions than Matt Pinnell, who’s held high profile positions with both the state and national party? Matt Pinnell was elected Oklahoma’s 17th Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma in the 2018 midterm elections. But prior to winning elected office for himself, he was busy helping others do the same. Matt met Saving Elephants host Josh when he was managing the campaign for a candidate for Oklahoma Lt. Governor—which is, serendipitously, the office he has just been elected to.

But prior to entering political office himself, Matt was instrumental in helping the Republican party recruit, train, and run successful candidates. Matt took over as the Chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party when Gary Jones left that position to run for State Auditor. At only 29 years old, Matt was the youngest leader of a state party in the country at the time. He continued the work Gary Jones had begun and oversaw the tremendous shift of power from Democrats to Republicans to the point where all 77 counties voted for the Republican candidate for president in 2008 and again in 2012—earning Oklahoma the title the “reddest state in the nation”.

Matt’s work received national attention and he was appointed by Reince Priebus with the RNC to oversee all Republican state parties. His title with the Republican National Committee was Director of State Parties, and he jokes he now has a doctorate in adult daycare.

With his relative youth, Matt has had a passion for involving young Americans in the political process and in sharing the values that conservatism can bring to the next generation of Republicans. Matt believes millennials are the most caring and purpose-driven generation to come along, and he’s excited about finding ways to tap into that positive energy to restore the republic.

LISTEN HERE

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

If Men Were Angels – Part 2 (Fallen Angels)

“Conservatives are chastened by their principle of IMPERFECTABILITY.” Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles

The title to this series—If Men Were Angels—comes from James Madison’s Federalist Paper #51:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Perhaps you may be thinking—thank you Captain Obvious. Yet Madison’s words are far more insightful than first meets the eye. For Madison recognized a blind spot in many a political theory: we might all intuitively understand the idea that humans are imperfect, but we also have the capacity to both yearn for and imagine perfection. As such, we’re constantly sneaking some perfectible political savior or saving event into our thinking. If we could just elect the right person, if we could just restructure society, if only our ideology were fully implemented, all would be well.

One moment we’re complaining about the incompetence or untrustworthiness or laziness or cowardice or wickedness of our fellow humans and the next moment we’re devising political schemes that envision society being run by humans, or one specific human, who’s perfectly competent, trustworthy, industrious, courageous, and righteous. Madison’s political scheme was less ambitious as it included an elaborate set of checks and balances to restrain the various factions within a nation. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Why must so much control be exerted over both the governors and the governed? Madison continues: “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” Herein lies the problem: men are not angels because, by our very nature, we are imperfect. In fact, we are imperfectible. Asking humans to run society in perfection is like asking chimpanzees to run NASA. Madison wasn’t designing a government for angels; he was designing a government for actual human beings.

British philosophy Roger Scruton observed how this practical approach isn’t necessarily the most alluring: “There is a temptation, felt most strongly by left-wing intellectuals, to replace the imperfect individual with the pure abstraction, to rewrite the human world as though it were composed of forces, movements, classes, and ideas, all moving in a stratosphere of historical necessity from which the messy realities have been excluded.” In other words, there is a grave temptation to pretend as if humans were perfect or perfectible and build a political worldview aiming at utopia.

Drawing Perfectly Straight Lines

What then are we to make of our capacity to envision utopias? The conservative has long held that this means utopia is only realizable outside of political ideologies and this present world, and that, within politics, they are only useful in developing political thought, not political means and ends. “Utopias existed to produce better political philosophers, not better politics,” wrote journalist Irving Kristol, “true, the existence of better political philosophers might, at some point, have a benevolent effect upon the society in which they lived. But the odds were overwhelmingly against it, and in his practical conduct of life the supreme virtue for the philosopher, as for everyone else, was prudence.” Prudence in politics means that we deal with reality and people as they are and not as we’d like them to be.

If you were asked to sketch a line freehand that was perfectly straight to the finest microscopic detail, you couldn’t do it. Through practice and effort you would get better and better, to the point where your line could hardly be distinguished from a perfectly straight line. And yet, even still, you couldn’t achieve a perfectly straight line. But how would we know that your line wasn’t perfectly straight, unless we had some concept—some ideal—to measure the straightness of lines against? We can’t have a concept of crooked without first understanding what it means for something to be straight.

When our political philosophies incorporate the ideal they give us some sense of what a perfect utopia might look like. But when our practical politics seeks after utopia as if it were the goal all along, the results are as futile as asking humans to draw perfectly straight lines—and far more destructive.

The Good Kind and Bad Kind of Optimism

Recognizing that perfection is not possible in this life is essentially admitting that imperfect—sometimes horrifyingly imperfect—things are bound to happen. Many of our ancestors recognized this universal truth and incorporated it into their belief systems. We, on the other hand, struggle with this concept. “In all premodern societies, a mood of stoicism permeated the public and private spheres,” continued Kristol, “Life is hard, fortune is fickle, bad luck is more likely than good luck and a better life is more probable after death than before. Such stoicism does not easily cohabit with the progressive spirit, which anticipates that things naturally will and ought to get better. When they don’t—when you are defeated in a war, or when you experience a major malfunctioning of your economic system—then you are completely disoriented. Bourgeois society is morally and intellectually unprepared for calamity.”

The point here isn’t that optimism is bad. But we must be able to distinguish between a positive outlook on life and a religiously-dogmatic belief that things ought to get better. When we believe things are naturally going to get better and they don’t, we’re left looking around for someone or something to blame.

We are far too likely to look about us for a villain or a scapegoat when societal problems emerge. We are far too likely to blame our leaders for the economic depressions or moral degradation. We expect perfection and are disappointed and angry when we get catastrophe instead. I don’t at all mean that there isn’t often some individual or group to hold responsible when things go wrong. But I do mean there isn’t some individual or group (or political system) that can ensure that things will always go perfectly right.

But “They” are to Blame!

And, while this idea might seem obvious, it is rarely observed when it comes time to elect our leaders. We naturally gravitate towards those promising the very utopian dreams we know in our gut aren’t achievable in this life. But perhaps some of us are so disillusioned as to have become convinced that perfectibility is within our grasps. In fact, many modern and postmodern political ideologies insist that perfection—or at least something darn close to it—is perfectly achievable, if not for “them.” Precisely who “they” are is hotly contested, but “they” hold all the cards, “they” pull all the strings, and “they” are the reason “we” can’t get on with things.

Ever since French Enlightenment thinker Rousseau taught that “man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” the political Left has divined scheme upon scheme for overthrowing “them” so that we could naturally go on to be perfectible. The thinking—I’m OK, you’re OK, it’s the system that’s the problem—has locked horns with conservatives, who see themselves as defenders of societal order. This utopian thinking is incompatible with the conservative idea of the imperfectability of human nature. And the utopian apologist is constantly looking for some structure or institution to destroy in their quest to put a stop to “them.”

Notice here that we have two competing ideas of the nature of reality: both ideas acknowledge that there’s something not quite right with the way things are—whether that’s inequality or oppression or crime or that the rent is too damn high. But the similarities end there. One view—the conservative view—says that while there might be complex structural explanations for much of life’s ills, the fact remains, humans are tragic beasts, people are imperfect and imperfectible, our human nature is fallen, original sin is real, and men are not angels.

The other view—shared by much of The Left—takes the stance that, while people may be flawed, the main problem isn’t with people but with “them.” It’s the structure that’s to blame, or the elite few who are pulling the strings. This view is powerfully alluring in that it ultimately says to the individual the reason you can’t get ahead in life is because of the people you don’t like who are holding you down. Whereas the conservative view places an uncomfortably heavy responsibility on the shoulders of the individual. How are we to determine which of these views is the right view? The blog Philosophical Conservatism offers some insight:

“Societies all across the world and all across time have all displayed the same sort of maladies. To argue that something which is this universal is the result of accidental factors that are unique to each case is not plausible. ‘To fix things we need only remove the wrong people from positions of influence’ is what this outlook asserts. How many times has this been attempted, and how many times has it resulted in an even worse state of affairs?”

If “they” are truly to blame for our problems—if the reason we don’t have an ideal world is because of powerful oppressors—then “they” must truly be powerful, even omnipotent, to hold all peoples and nations and civilizations and eras of history at bay. If we can’t realize our full potential because of “them” then surely humans since the dawn of time across every corner of the globe, who’ve experienced the same (or worse) cases of warfare and economic instability and famine and want were likewise held back by “them.” Or, maybe, the main problem isn’t with a mythical “they” but an actual “we” and our imperfect human nature.

“Man is not perfectible, but he may achieve a tolerable degree of order, justice, and freedom,” wrote Russell Kirk in his masterpiece The Conservative Mind. “Both the ‘human sciences’ and the humane studies are means for ascertaining the norms of the civil social order, and for informing the statesman and the reflecting public of the possibilities and the limits of social measures.” By working within the reality of our human frailty—as James Madison aimed to do in advocating a limited government—we truly can improve our condition. But it’s when we try to work outside of our limitations that we not only fail to achieve terrestrial heaven, we often end up with terrestrial hell.

Why terrestrial hell? Why wouldn’t things progress no worse than usual? If our aim is too high, wouldn’t we just end up doing no more harm that failing to reach our true potential? In Part 3 we’ll turn to why it is that setting your sights on utopia and ignoring the limitations of our nature shows us that when you expect men to behave as angels, they often become demons instead.

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

Bonus Episode – Midterm Examinations with Mickey Dodson

The 2018 midterm elections have come and gone, but there’s still plenty of analyzing and expounding to be done. And who better than an investigative auditor to get to the bottom of the good, the bad, and the ugly details of 2018? Joining Josh for this special bonus episode is Mickey Dodson, investigative auditor for the Oklahoma State Auditor’s Office.

Though a Millennial, Mickey has worn a number of hats that take many people a lifetime to achieve. He’s a former city councilor, former attorney for the Tulsa County DA’s office, and former agent for the FBI. These days he performs special and investigative audits of public officials and public entities in Oklahoma where he works with Saving Elephants’ host Josh Lewis in the State Auditor’s Office. In running for office himself and in working in many campaigns over the years, Mickey has gained invaluable insight into the Republican party at a state and national level.

The 2018 midterm election was a mixed bag for both the Republican and Democratic parties. The real losers in the midterm elections were those who don’t identify with the more radical elements of both parties. Those who don’t separate the world into warring tribes or factions of good guys vs bad guys are becoming fewer and fewer in election positions, and our nation is all the worse off for it.

What does this mean for the Republican party in the years ahead? Will the Democrats—emboldened with their new majority in the House—legislate or litigate? Will the next two years be non-stop investigations and calls for impeachment or will congress find ways to compromise and work out their differences? And where does this leave the Republican party? Have they forever solidified themselves as the party of Trump or is he a passing fad? Join us as we dissect these questions and more.

LISTEN HERE

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

Episode 18 - Politicide with Destry Edwards

Destry Edwards, co-host of the Politicide podcast, joins Josh on election day to reflect on the turbulent days that led up to the 2016 elections and how things have changed since then. Destry hails from South Carolina, which has produced more than its fair share of noteworthy politicians in recent years. And he offers some thoughts from his front-row-seat vantage point on fellow South Carolinians like Lindsey Graham, Mark Sanford, Jim DeMint, Tom Scott, and Nikki Haley.

Graduating from Bob Jones University with a degree in Cinema Production and a minor in Political Science, Destry has served in a number of political roles. He interned for Rand Paul's presidential campaign during the 2016 election and then for the Heritage Foundation the following year. He currently lives in Washington, DC where he works in video production with CRTV (Conservative Review Television). The views expressed by Destry are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CRTV.

LISTEN HERE

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

If Men Were Angels – Part 1

“Conservatives are chastened by their principle of IMPERFECTABILITY.” Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles

The Book of Proverbs tells us that “where there is no vision, the people perish.” Pick up nearly any self-help book from your local bookstore and there will doubtless be some call to cultivating your vision as a key ingredient on your journey to “success”. Self-help guru and motivational speaker John Graham is certainly no exception:

“A vision is a mental picture of the result you want to achieve—a picture so clear and strong it will help make that result real. A vision is not a vague wish or dream or hope. It’s a picture of the real results of real efforts. It comes from the future and informs and energizes the present. Visioning is the most powerful tool I’ve witnessed in over twenty years of helping organizations and individuals get the results they want.”

It should be duly noted that there is an enormous array of potential benefits promised to those who visualize their goals strongly enough, or in just the right way, or with adequate frequency. This can range from hard science studying the impact of visualizing a goal on actual outcomes to charlatans peddling the latest seductive “think positive” scheme for overcoming all of life’s challenges.

The (Underwhelming) Secret

The Secret has received much well-deserved ridicule for its audacious claims that we can attain what we want in life simply by tapping our thoughts into the great cosmological energies that surround us and The Universe will gladly oblige us any desire. There’s a bit of depressing fatalistic determinism to much of the ludicrously positive-minded philosophy. For those who suffer from a naturally non-optimistic disposition, it can be quite frustrating to be told The Universe itself has destined our deepest fears or joys to come to fruition if we—you know—just stop being so non-optimistic. As the parody site SatireWire observed, research showing that pessimists will die sooner than optimists rarely comes as a surprise to pessimists.

To a cynical realist such as myself, much of this sounds like a bunch of feelgoodery psychobabble. And yet, I recognize that once one gets past the snake oil elixir of just-believe-in-yourself-to-become-a-millionaire-while-you-shed-those-pounds, there is a healthy dose of research to back up the benefits of maintaining a positive vision.

When the goal is something you’re actively working towards that’s limited and specific, visualization can be powerful. Visualization has been shown to modify biochemistry, develop muscle, and improve psychomotor skill development. On an antidotal note, when I was training for marathons I found it very helpful to envision myself crossing the finish line—particularly when every muscle in my body was screaming for me to not take another step. Running—or for that matter, any physical exertion—is as much a mental game as it is physical, and keeping your thoughts on the goal, rather than the pain, can be the difference between success or failure.

Playing by the Rules

However, we should be careful to distinguish between the hopeful expectation of reasonable success and a mere outlandish fantasy of success. Positive thinking is great, so long as it’s anchored in reality, not delusion. I was able to run marathons by keeping a positive outlook on a challenging, yet achievable, goal. It is doubtful I would have been as successful had I convinced myself I would best Usain Bolt’s record. A healthy, positive vision combined with a strong work ethic is more likely to make you rich than simply declaring to The Universe that you’re a millionaire. The latter may be even more likely to ensure failure than doing nothing at all.

I’m hardly an expert in the discipline of positive thinking, so I shan’t dwell on the specifics. I only wish to point out what appears to be generally true—envisioning the ideal can increase the likelihood of a positive outcome—HOWEVER—one must be willing to play by the rules so to speak. And one of those “rules” is that a vision of success is only helpful if it corresponds to reality, no matter how badly you may hope for your wildest dreams to come true.

“Vision divorced from context can produce very erratic and unpredictable results.” Noted a Harvard Business Review article, “The irrationality of the 1920s and again in the Internet-crazed 1990s demonstrated vision that was not grounded in reality.” And yet, we often attribute the success of famous CEO’s and business leaders to their unique and powerful vision. Often, that is what we perceive sets them apart from the rest.

Many companies develop a vision statement: a statement intended express the company’s goals and inspire and motivate the employees to keep their eyes on the ball. By documenting the company’s vision, employees may gain a sense of the larger purpose their company serves and management may ensure their strategies align with the company’s ultimate aims.

A Vision of Perfection Makes us Human

There’s something hardwired in us to need a vision. Without it runners don’t finish their marathon and managers may fail to develop strategic objectives in accordance with the original mission of their company. We don’t do well as a species left in a bleak reality of mindlessly performing the work assigned to us with no concept of how our work or efforts are somehow contributing to some larger purpose. And what’s true for the vision of an individual or a company is even truer for a political vision on a grander scale.

“We know of no human community whose members do not have a vision of perfection—a vision in which the frustrations inherent in our human condition are annulled and transcended,” wrote journalist Irving Kristol, “The existence of such dreaming visions is not, in itself, a problem. They are, on the contrary, a testament to the creativity of man which flows from the fact that he is a creature uniquely endowed with imaginative powers as an essential aspect of his self-consciousness.” This imaginative envisioning of perfection is part of what makes us human. We don’t merely exist in this reality, we are self-aware of our existence and self-aware of there being something very imperfect with this reality.

There’s hardly any disagreement that there is something fundamentally wrong with things as they stand now. For some that may mean it’s a pity how far of a drive it is to the cleaners while for others it may be a desperate struggle for survival against disease or famine or genocide. Regardless, we all have some sense of the injustice or inconvenience or imperfection or—dare I say—evil present in our reality. And we all have the capacity—even the yearning—to envision a reality made right. A place, or a future, where all things are made new in perfection.

But what’s true of the visualization of individuals or companies is still true of our vision of a perfect reality: this vision must play by the rules. This vision of perfect reality must be anchored in actual reality or it will likely cause us more harm than good.

Where’s Our Vision Taking Us?

I opened this post by quoting the proverb “where there is no vision, the people perish”. But that’s only half of the proverb. The full verse reads: “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” In the context of the ancient Book of Proverbs—replete with admonitions about obeying God and humbling yourself before Him—not just any vision will do; the Law of God is what provides for a nourishing vision. This vision that provides us with happiness is rooted in a very specific religious tradition and not in the flimsy cult of believing in yourself.

A vision is necessary. But not just any vision. It’s not a simple matter of pointing our vision wherever it feels best, but a meticulous examination of where we’re pointed. Progress is important. But we must always be willing to ask the age-old question what are we progressing towards? The Book of Proverbs instructs us to keep the law of God. Science instructs us to keep the vision limited and specific. Examining human nature would appear to instruct us to tether our vision to reality. The human capacity to construct a vision of perfection is a powerful tool and a harmful weapon, depending on how it’s used and in whose hands it falls.

In this series we’ll explore the inherent limitations of our vision of perfection. Is perfection achievable in this life or in this reality? Should our political philosophy be based on our vision of perfection, or is our vision of perfection merely a tool we can use to examine where practical politics may improve? Those are the questions we’ll explore in the weeks ahead.

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