Monday, June 7, 2010
"The Deformations of Sympathy"
This post's title is taken from a phrase in a short piece for the City Journal by Theodore Dalrymple. The article is a cautionary tale about the law of unintended consequences when socialists, full-blooded or Fabian, are moved mightily to abolish "poverty" in their respective countries, if not the world. If you have any common sense at all, you already know this. But, as you also know, "the poor you have with you always", common sense, not so much. Take up and read.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Who is "Bo Snerdley"?
I just finished An Army of One, the new Zev Chafets' biography of Rush Limbaugh. It was a very welcome birthday present from a very good friend (Thanks again Blue State Patriot!) and while it's no Life of Marlborough, it's a good, and quick, read for any of you who want to get to know "America's Anchorman" a little more intimately. I recommend it. I do, however, worry a bit about Mr. Chafets. He couldn't help but paint what is, overall, a quite favorable picture of Rush Limbaugh and I suspect his card-carrying liberal bona fides are in some jeapardy as a result. Oh well, the money he stands to make from the considerable sales will no doubt help ease the pain.
But this post is not about the new biography as such. Rather, it's about "Bo Snerdley", Limbaugh's long-time call screener. The man whose voice we rarely hear, but whose name we routinely do, mostly to play the role of silent straight man to whatever it is Rush is about to serve up to his listeners. If you didn't know it already, you will learn from the biography that "Bo Snerdley" is actually one James Golden. You will also learn, again, if you didn't already know it because Rush hardly ever mentions it, that James Golden is a black man.
In the course of the biography, Chafets tells his readers that at one point he challenged Rush with the fact that with respect to the issue of race in America, he might a have a blind spot. Apparently Rush gave the matter some thought, because the day after the challenge, he walked in on Chafets and Golden who were chatting and interrupted them with a direct question for his black call screener.
Don't misunderstand, as you gather from other parts of the biography, James Golden loves Rush Limbaugh and takes great personal exception to the charge of racism that is often leveled against him. But here a proud, unapologetic black conservative, who has doubtlessly suffered more than his fair share of "Uncle Tom" taunts for being such, not to mention for being so closely associated with Rush Limbaugh, still does not completley and comfortably identify with this country and its history. This saddened me.
But while I think I understand the sentiment (no blind spot here), I still can't agree with it. And not just because there is in this country no living memory of chattel slavery, nor will there be in the not too distant future any living memory of Jim Crow either.
Each year on the fourth of July, we celebrate the birth of this admittedly flawed, but still uniquely great and good country, this exceptional country. Our founding neither established the heinous practice of slavery, nor did it carry with it its future institution. Slavery was an already well-established, widely-practised, and broadly-tolerated institution at the time.
Rather, our founding brought with it the seeds of the end of this terrible trade in human flesh, the end of this noxious notion that one race is superior to another. To be sure, the seeds were slow to germinate, too slow, and the field took far too many years of cultivation in blood, toil, tears, and sweat to bear fruit. But bear fruit it did. And the fruit was sweet, sweet indeed. God be praised!
The fruit was so sweet, in fact, that when finally afforded both the liberty and the means to express their profound disappointment with this undeniably imperfect country, very few African-Americans chose to do so by leaving it. When they finally could, they did not return to the motherland of Africa. Perhaps it was too poor and too far. But neither did they leave for wealthy and neighboring Canada, a country which had to recommend itself no stain of slavery in its history. Not only did they not leave when they finally could, instead they proudly donned the country's uniforms and fought and died for it both here and overseas. Why?
They did not leave because they were not fools and because the fruit of America was sweet. They knew that inspite of its sins, sins against them directly, that this country was still exceptional. And what's more, they knew that it was by birthright their country too.
So, Bo Snerdley, this Fourth of July, join us, your fellow countrymen, "red and yellow, black and white", as we used to sing in Sunday School, and light a firecracker, will you? I know you want to. And when Old Glory passes and they play the Star Spangled Banner, shed a tear with us too. But then I suspect you already do.
But this post is not about the new biography as such. Rather, it's about "Bo Snerdley", Limbaugh's long-time call screener. The man whose voice we rarely hear, but whose name we routinely do, mostly to play the role of silent straight man to whatever it is Rush is about to serve up to his listeners. If you didn't know it already, you will learn from the biography that "Bo Snerdley" is actually one James Golden. You will also learn, again, if you didn't already know it because Rush hardly ever mentions it, that James Golden is a black man.
In the course of the biography, Chafets tells his readers that at one point he challenged Rush with the fact that with respect to the issue of race in America, he might a have a blind spot. Apparently Rush gave the matter some thought, because the day after the challenge, he walked in on Chafets and Golden who were chatting and interrupted them with a direct question for his black call screener.
"James,...would it ever bother you to go to a school named George Washington or Thomas Jefferson because they were slave owners?"This little anecdote stopped me in my tracks.
Golden laughed, "Well, I can tell you that when I was in school, I was the one who stood up in English class and gave a speech about why the Black Panthers are needed."
Limbaugh looked befuddled. "But James, you're a conservative," he said.
"That's right, I am."
"You're an American patriot."
Golden nodded. "I am. Absolutely. But I don't celebrate the Fourth of July--that's not my Independence Day. That's white people's Independence Day."
Don't misunderstand, as you gather from other parts of the biography, James Golden loves Rush Limbaugh and takes great personal exception to the charge of racism that is often leveled against him. But here a proud, unapologetic black conservative, who has doubtlessly suffered more than his fair share of "Uncle Tom" taunts for being such, not to mention for being so closely associated with Rush Limbaugh, still does not completley and comfortably identify with this country and its history. This saddened me.
But while I think I understand the sentiment (no blind spot here), I still can't agree with it. And not just because there is in this country no living memory of chattel slavery, nor will there be in the not too distant future any living memory of Jim Crow either.
Each year on the fourth of July, we celebrate the birth of this admittedly flawed, but still uniquely great and good country, this exceptional country. Our founding neither established the heinous practice of slavery, nor did it carry with it its future institution. Slavery was an already well-established, widely-practised, and broadly-tolerated institution at the time.
Rather, our founding brought with it the seeds of the end of this terrible trade in human flesh, the end of this noxious notion that one race is superior to another. To be sure, the seeds were slow to germinate, too slow, and the field took far too many years of cultivation in blood, toil, tears, and sweat to bear fruit. But bear fruit it did. And the fruit was sweet, sweet indeed. God be praised!
The fruit was so sweet, in fact, that when finally afforded both the liberty and the means to express their profound disappointment with this undeniably imperfect country, very few African-Americans chose to do so by leaving it. When they finally could, they did not return to the motherland of Africa. Perhaps it was too poor and too far. But neither did they leave for wealthy and neighboring Canada, a country which had to recommend itself no stain of slavery in its history. Not only did they not leave when they finally could, instead they proudly donned the country's uniforms and fought and died for it both here and overseas. Why?
They did not leave because they were not fools and because the fruit of America was sweet. They knew that inspite of its sins, sins against them directly, that this country was still exceptional. And what's more, they knew that it was by birthright their country too.
So, Bo Snerdley, this Fourth of July, join us, your fellow countrymen, "red and yellow, black and white", as we used to sing in Sunday School, and light a firecracker, will you? I know you want to. And when Old Glory passes and they play the Star Spangled Banner, shed a tear with us too. But then I suspect you already do.
Friday, June 4, 2010
It is Written
The Washington Post columnist, E.J. Dionne, Jr., apparently thinks he has unloaded some coup de grace with his enthusiastic report of retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter's recent Harvard commencement address, a speech in which Souter directly challenges the "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. But by doing so, Dionne reveals that he is out of his intellectual league and needs to restrict himself to commenting on who's up and down, who's in and out, in Washington.
Dionne, through Souter, imagines that "originalism", which Souter calls "the fair reading model", suffers a "fatal flaw". While the misplaced enthusiasm for the challenge is Dionne's, the argument is Souter's and I'm afraid it suffers a fatal flaw or two itself. Souter summarizes his argument thus:
First, Souter is guilty of constructing a straw man. No originalist interpreter ever imagined that the Constitution was free of conflicting principles. Even a cursory reading of the debates at the Constitutional Convention, not to mention the arguments presented in The Federalist, shows that the Framers were acutely aware of the fact that they were struggling mightily to strike an acceptable balance between, prominently, the competing values of liberty and order. A balance that would be a fair expression of, among other things, the American mind. It was, after all, the American people through their representatives who would ultimately ratify the document. When conflicts between differing principles arise in the law, it is perhaps the chief role of a Justice sitting on the High Court to adjudicate between them. And what's more, no originalist ever argued that the process of deciding would be always easy. In fact, as often as not it's likely to be difficult, even extremely difficult.
Second, and most importantly, when there is a tension, when a judge must decide, how, then, will he go about it? This is actually the crux of the matter. In the last sentence of Souter's quoted above, he employs the word "meaning" and although he doesn't say as much, he invests it with all the post-modern epistemological doubt that is the bane of our age. According to Souter, and far t0o many like-minded others such as Dionne, a judge must search for the meaning of the words of the Consitution because the meaning has changed, or the way we understand them has changed, or, get this, they really have no meaning at all, and never did.
Can he not see that if this is so, then it it is the end of constitutional government altogether? The very purpose, and genius, of a written constitution is to fix the nature of the originating social compact. If it's not fixed, then the society will inevitably be governed by caprice and the arbitrary will of the strongest. If indeed the words of our Consitution are that malleable or that meaningless, then whence Souter's authority as a judge? Why is his conclusion as to the meaning of the words any more authoritative than any other judge, than any other branch, than any other resident power, in or out of government? His argument is worse than fatuous, it's dangerous.
That which is "living and breathing" is the society itself, not the Constitution. To say that "times change" is to state the obvious. It is because they change that an originalist returns to the written document. To remark that even an originalist brings to his interpretation of that document his own limitations and prejudices is to state the obvious again. Two-hundred and more years since its ratification makes ascertaining the meaning and intentions of the Framers sometimes difficult. (Although not nearly so much as people like Souter would have us think.) But if a judge's understanding of his proper role is that he is constrained by those words, then no matter how strong his personal preferences and prejudices in a case, he is at least armed with a substantial reason to set those biases aside. By contrast, a judge of Souter's sort has absolutely no reason to do so. By his own argument, he has denied himself those reasons and that reasoning. Hence, his recourse, his only recourse is always to conclude that it is so "because I say it is so."
Good riddance! Now, if we can only get E.J. Dionne, Jr. to retire as well.
Dionne, through Souter, imagines that "originalism", which Souter calls "the fair reading model", suffers a "fatal flaw". While the misplaced enthusiasm for the challenge is Dionne's, the argument is Souter's and I'm afraid it suffers a fatal flaw or two itself. Souter summarizes his argument thus:
The fair reading model fails to account for what the Constitution actually says, and it fails just as badly to understand what judges have no choice but to do. The Constitution is a pantheon of values, and a lot of hard cases are hard because the Constitution gives no simple rule of decision for the cases in which one of the values is truly at odds with another. Not even its most uncompromising and unconditional language can resolve every potential tension of one provision with another, tension the Constitution’s Framers left to be resolved another day; and another day after that, for our cases can give no answers that fit all conflicts, and no resolutions immune to rethinking when the significance of old facts may have changed in the changing world. These are reasons enough to show how egregiously it misses the point to think of judges in constitutional cases as just sitting there reading constitutional phrases fairly and looking at reported facts objectively to produce their judgments. Judges have to choose between the good things that the Constitution approves, and when they do, they have to choose, not on the basis of measurement, but of meaning.Where to begin?
First, Souter is guilty of constructing a straw man. No originalist interpreter ever imagined that the Constitution was free of conflicting principles. Even a cursory reading of the debates at the Constitutional Convention, not to mention the arguments presented in The Federalist, shows that the Framers were acutely aware of the fact that they were struggling mightily to strike an acceptable balance between, prominently, the competing values of liberty and order. A balance that would be a fair expression of, among other things, the American mind. It was, after all, the American people through their representatives who would ultimately ratify the document. When conflicts between differing principles arise in the law, it is perhaps the chief role of a Justice sitting on the High Court to adjudicate between them. And what's more, no originalist ever argued that the process of deciding would be always easy. In fact, as often as not it's likely to be difficult, even extremely difficult.
Second, and most importantly, when there is a tension, when a judge must decide, how, then, will he go about it? This is actually the crux of the matter. In the last sentence of Souter's quoted above, he employs the word "meaning" and although he doesn't say as much, he invests it with all the post-modern epistemological doubt that is the bane of our age. According to Souter, and far t0o many like-minded others such as Dionne, a judge must search for the meaning of the words of the Consitution because the meaning has changed, or the way we understand them has changed, or, get this, they really have no meaning at all, and never did.
Can he not see that if this is so, then it it is the end of constitutional government altogether? The very purpose, and genius, of a written constitution is to fix the nature of the originating social compact. If it's not fixed, then the society will inevitably be governed by caprice and the arbitrary will of the strongest. If indeed the words of our Consitution are that malleable or that meaningless, then whence Souter's authority as a judge? Why is his conclusion as to the meaning of the words any more authoritative than any other judge, than any other branch, than any other resident power, in or out of government? His argument is worse than fatuous, it's dangerous.
That which is "living and breathing" is the society itself, not the Constitution. To say that "times change" is to state the obvious. It is because they change that an originalist returns to the written document. To remark that even an originalist brings to his interpretation of that document his own limitations and prejudices is to state the obvious again. Two-hundred and more years since its ratification makes ascertaining the meaning and intentions of the Framers sometimes difficult. (Although not nearly so much as people like Souter would have us think.) But if a judge's understanding of his proper role is that he is constrained by those words, then no matter how strong his personal preferences and prejudices in a case, he is at least armed with a substantial reason to set those biases aside. By contrast, a judge of Souter's sort has absolutely no reason to do so. By his own argument, he has denied himself those reasons and that reasoning. Hence, his recourse, his only recourse is always to conclude that it is so "because I say it is so."
Good riddance! Now, if we can only get E.J. Dionne, Jr. to retire as well.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
America, UnLtd.
Today's title may fool you. I mean, who could oppose the unlimited extension of the blessing that is America to ourselves and our posterity, indeed, to the world? But by the absence of a "limiting principle", Claremont's William Voegeli means something else altogether.
George Will does a nice job summarizing Voegeli's Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State by comparing the informing and animating principles of "progressivism" with those of the Founders. But I think a simpler explanation for the limitless government of progressivism is available.
Progressives are in the first instance motivated by the pursuit of equality. The Founders were moved to reach for the "blessings of liberty" instead. These two principles, as Alexis de Tocqueville instructed us in Democracy in America long before progressivism was even defined, much less fashionable, are in the final analysis on a collision course with one another.
The problem with equality as a goal, especially an eschatological goal directed by capital "H" History, is that it is not only illusive, it is impossible. Impossible ends, however gloriously described, justify any and every means, i.e., unlimited means, for their achievement. In fact, the very impossibility of the end means that yet another means is always available. There are an infinity of roads that lead to nowhere, to utopia.
So, can we reasonably expect progressives, i.e., contemporary liberals to one day concede, "Enough"? Never.
George Will does a nice job summarizing Voegeli's Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State by comparing the informing and animating principles of "progressivism" with those of the Founders. But I think a simpler explanation for the limitless government of progressivism is available.
Progressives are in the first instance motivated by the pursuit of equality. The Founders were moved to reach for the "blessings of liberty" instead. These two principles, as Alexis de Tocqueville instructed us in Democracy in America long before progressivism was even defined, much less fashionable, are in the final analysis on a collision course with one another.
The problem with equality as a goal, especially an eschatological goal directed by capital "H" History, is that it is not only illusive, it is impossible. Impossible ends, however gloriously described, justify any and every means, i.e., unlimited means, for their achievement. In fact, the very impossibility of the end means that yet another means is always available. There are an infinity of roads that lead to nowhere, to utopia.
So, can we reasonably expect progressives, i.e., contemporary liberals to one day concede, "Enough"? Never.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Call Me Crazy
Democrat Party strategist (what does that mean, really?) Donna Brazile watches the oil spilling into the Gulf and concludes, what? Why, we need more and bigger government, of course. And Brazile's fairly typical of your average liberal Democrat. So, healthcare's a mess? More and bigger government. Economy's faltering? Same. Need I continue?
What's that definition of "insanity" by Einstein? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Depressing, ain't it?
Anyway, for a slightly different take on the same subject, check out the never depressing Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online.
What's that definition of "insanity" by Einstein? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Depressing, ain't it?
Anyway, for a slightly different take on the same subject, check out the never depressing Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online.
Soldiering On
It appears the various service chiefs are not quite as eager to abandon the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy regarding homosexual service in the military as we were lead to believe. In fact, it seems a serious disagreement has developed between the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, who supports the Obama Administration's determination to end the policy, and the heads of the other services, who apparently don't.
I suspect complicating their deliberations are reports such as these about innocent sunbathers on Rehoboth Beach in Delaware. How does one integrate transgender, uh, what, people? Incorporating "straight" gays and lesbians seems by comparison a piece of cake. I mean, which uniform will these people wear?
Anyway, one thing is certain, denying these loyal Americans an equal right to serve their country is simply intolerable and neither the White House nor the Democrat Party will stand for it.
I suspect complicating their deliberations are reports such as these about innocent sunbathers on Rehoboth Beach in Delaware. How does one integrate transgender, uh, what, people? Incorporating "straight" gays and lesbians seems by comparison a piece of cake. I mean, which uniform will these people wear?
Anyway, one thing is certain, denying these loyal Americans an equal right to serve their country is simply intolerable and neither the White House nor the Democrat Party will stand for it.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A Serious Crisis Gone to Waste
Whoa! Have you noticed the growing number of liberal pundits turning on the President? And I don't just mean disagreeing with him here and there over this or that policy. The watershed , of course, is the now over-a-month-long Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Are we to conclude that these otherwise card-carrying Lefties are now having "second thoughts" about their commitment to liberalism?
Not a chance. As they see it, the oil spill is tailor-made for national government intervention and growth, not to mention profound justification of same. And the opportunity, like the oil in the Gulf, is slipping away. If anything, they worry that Obama's bungling will do great, if not irreversible harm to the noble cause that is Big Government.
And to think that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously said, even before the Administration took office, that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Not a chance. As they see it, the oil spill is tailor-made for national government intervention and growth, not to mention profound justification of same. And the opportunity, like the oil in the Gulf, is slipping away. If anything, they worry that Obama's bungling will do great, if not irreversible harm to the noble cause that is Big Government.
And to think that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously said, even before the Administration took office, that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)