Recently in Politics Category

It is one of those headlines or emails that comes across your screen and feels like a punch in the gut.  I was aware that his health was failing but you just don't think about losing someone like this until it happens.  And then it hits you that the world is somehow different.  It feels like the end of an era.

WFB, as he was often known, changed the face of American conservatism and politics like few others.  And like millions of others it was his writing, persona, and magazine that lead me to conservatism.  I own all of his books and have read them all excepting his last (Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription)

His range was remarkable.  He wrote political polemics; syndicated columns; unique memoirs; books on sailing, language, and faith; and novels.  He singlehandedly changed the perception of what conservatism could be.  And in the process changed America.

RIP.

In reading various accounts and response to the contretemps surrounding Alan Wolfe's essay on Russell Kirk, I recently came across an intelligent and thought provoking response by R.R. Reno at First Things. I found Reno's discussion of ordered liberty and his comparing and contrasting the views of Hobbes and Kirk insightful:

Leaving aside the snide tone, Wolfe is correct to note that “everything Kirk says about religion and the social order is breathtakingly unoriginal.” Like so many before him, Kirk thought religion a crucial pillar of a healthy society. But Wolfe is quite wrong when his ends his observation by saying that Kirk is conventional, “except for the remark that without religion we would be in a constant state of war. Given the fact that so many wars have been fought over religion, there is no disputing the creativity of that observation.” Wolfe needs to be careful with his clever, superior lines. Was Hobbes an obvious idiot for saying that without the absolute power of the sovereign we would experience the war of all against all? But wait—don’t sovereigns launch most wars?

I don’t think you need to be a terribly subtle thinker to see that neither Hobbes nor Kirk is a fool. In fact, there is an important similarity between the two that Wolfe’s dismissive review fails to recognize and explore. Both Hobbes and Kirk view the power that imposes order as necessary to control base human impulses and to minimize their destructiveness. But there is also a very important difference. Hobbes saw human beings as pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding machines; as a consequence, order could only be imposed externally and harshly by the Leviathan. In contrast, Kirk viewed us as complicated spiritual, social, and physical beings. We can fear God and develop self-disciplining inhibitions that allow us to bring order to our lives, and, as a consequence, we can become free, cooperative agents in a democratic process that shapes society into a moral order capable of perpetuating self-disciplined, free social actors. This is the deep anthropological insight of the conservative ideal of ordered liberty.

A couple of days ago I wrote about how "popular environmentalism is based more on emotional manipulation and social pressure than it is on science or logic."

Not to toot my own horn, but I think this letter is a shining example.

UPDATE: BTW, be sure to read the original article that sparked such a pathetic letter. It is full of facts and arguments. The response? Threats and accusations.

Pointing out the ironies of Al Gore’s latest cry for attention, formally know as Live Earth, is like shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel. And in the aftermath of the global concert’s apparent failure (more people watched reruns of “COPS”!) there has been a great deal of mocking of the former Vice President. But besides an always-welcome chance to mock aging hipsters and hectoring politicians, the event illustrated how emotions and social pressure, rather than science and logic, play such a central role in the environmental movement.

Those usually shouting the loudest about global warming often portray themselves as people of science and reality as opposed to those “skeptics” living in denial. Merely raising questions about the degree to which the earth is warming will get you attacked as an anti-science ignoramus or a corporate stooge. Dare express doubt about its existence or anthropomorphic nature and you will be promptly dismissed as a kook unworthy of rational discussion. Al Gore’s latest book nicely captures this perspective: “The Assault on Reason.”

But at its root popular environmentalism is based more on emotional manipulation and social pressure than it is on science or logic. Live Earth is just the latest example.

The current issue of The New Republic contains a trio of hit pieces on conservatives and conservatism. I have already dealt with Sam Tanenhaus's shabby attempt to use Whitaker Chambers to attack George W. Bush. But Tanenhaus can't hold a candle next to Alan Wolfe's "review" of The Essential Russell Kirk. The scare quotes are necessary because the essay isn't really a review but rather a rambling practically incoherent attack on a man who dared to think, and live differently, than Wolfe.

Wolfe often poses as an objective academic but the tone of his piece is not one of respect and honest engagement but one of sneering contempt (ironic given Wolfe's title). Wolfe is actually a preening moralist judging everyone by his idiosyncratic views. His sloppy essay is ignorant of the history of conservatism and the wider scope of Kirk's work.

After Wolfe's piece was published National Review Online posted some responses and a lengthier essay by Jeffrey O. Nelson. This prompted a response from Wolfe.

There is good news and bad news in this whole affair. The good news is that perhaps this will spark more reading of Kirk who, even among conservatives, is more often gestured at then actually studied. The bad news is that there is a chance that some will be influenced by Wolfe's poisonous prose and it forces those of us seeking to defend Kirk to wade through his ignorant bile. The admittedly verbose post (or a shorter version see Ross Douthat) that follows is an attempt to answer Wolfe's charges and perhaps inspire you to read Russell Kirk.

I hope all of you have a wonderful 4th of July. Spend some time with friends and family maybe watch some fireworks and enjoy a beverage of your choice.

I thought it appropriate to think a little about what America means on this holiday. And one of the best books I have read that gets to the essence of this is The American Cause by Russell Kirk. In the spirit of the holiday I have reproduced my review from 2003 below.

If you were looking for a succinct and well-written primer on traditional American conservatism and the enduring values of the American Founders, you would be hard pressed to do better than
The American Cause by Russell Kirk. Henry Regnery originally published this short work in 1957 during the early days of the Cold War. It was later republished in 1966 in the heart of the revolutionary 1960's. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has recently decided to again publish this short but timely work. Kirk scholar, and speech writer for former Michigan Governor John Engler, Gleaves Whitney has edited the volume and provided an introduction and afterword. The original work had a heavy emphasis on communism and the communist threat that was appropriate to its time. Whitney has seen to abbreviate or generalize some of the focus on communism as such. This helps to preserve the meat of the book and to limit the distraction of dated political issues. Much discussion remains about communism as an ideology but Whitney's editing prevents the work from being seen as merely an anti-communist polemic. The result is a book that is still very pertinent to today's conflicts. In fact, Kirk's succinct description of American exceptionalism remains one of the most clearly written and eloquently argued synopses of traditional conservatism around.

Reading Sam Tanenhaus can be an infuriating experience. He is a talented writer and at times a sensible commentator. But he is also a quintessential example of a liberal posing as an objective observer - of the writer who professes to admire conservatives but who insists on attacking them if they take their beliefs too seriously.

This stance is once again brought to life in an article in The New Republic in which he uses Whitaker Chambers of all people to attack President Bush. Tanenhaus poses as a neutral observer of history, and someone not blind to the failures of the left, but in the end he does little but repeat the tired clichés and accusations of the far left.

The problem with Tanenhaus's argument is not that it criticizes Bush - there are plenty of areas where intelligent criticism is valid and indeed needed - but that he constructs a fictitious Whitaker Chambers to attack Bush with the same old canards of the radical left.

Heather MacDonald is sick and tired of it. She has decided to speak out and be proud. No longer willing to tolerate the snide remarks and the arrogant condescension, she wants the world to know: she is conservative and atheist and she isn't afraid to talk about it.

There is only one little problem with this purportedly brave stand, it is based on little more than ignorance, arrogance, and a complete lack of historical perspective. I submit that if Ms. MacDonald would like to be taken seriously that perhaps she should study the issue a bit more before she sounds off in public and continues to damage her reputation as an intelligent and thoughtful writer.

If this little dust up on the right interests you, read on.

It has been a tough year for the University of Michigan and the figures of my childhood. First Bo, and now Gerald R. Ford has passed away. You may think of President Ford only in terms of politics, but he was a great athlete as well:

Ford was an All-American center for the Wolverines, playing on the undefeated 1932 and '33 national championship teams. The team selected him as its most valuable player in his senior year, and he played in the College All Star and East-West Shrine games after his senior season.

Having been born and raised in Grand Rapids, President Ford's loss to Jimmy Carter was one of my earliest political memories. I didn't know much about politics yet, but I knew that Ford was on my team; was one of us. That instinctual sense, and the loyalty it represented, was tragically accurate. Jimmy Carter went on to be a miserable President and, despite some initial promise, a horrible ex-President as well. Ford was the opposite: a kind, graceful gentleman who chose to play golf rather than undermine the policies of his successors. He was a loyal Republican, and campaigned for Reagan, but did so with tact rather than the bitterness and bile of Carter.

Ford's role in allowing the nation to get past Watergate was critical despite the adverse effect it had on his re-election chances. He served his country with class and distinction from his time in the Navy, in the House of Representatives, to his time in the White House and beyond. Ford might not have been the conservative hero, Reagan would claim that mantle, but he was a man of principle and integrity. The words of his inaugural speech are worth thinking about today:

Our Constitution works; our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.

As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more painful and more poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process and let brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and hate.

May he rest in peace.

In case you haven't been paying attention, things did not go well for the GOP in Ohio last night. I won't go over the gory details again, but in my district Republicans lost at every level from governor on down to county commissioner. Dark days.

There are, however, a few bright spots. Click below for the details.