The fight for the soul of conservatism

David Brooks, New York Times Op-Ed Columnist and moderate conservative, writes in his column today of the coming fight for the soul of conservatism. While he does an excellent job of elucidating the grounds for the coming fight and the history of the traditionalist/reformist split in the Republican Party, his conclusion of ultimate reformist dominance, reassuring though it may be, is fundamentally flawed. Though he is correct in pointing towards a traditionalist victory in the short term, he is so only accidentally in that he has stumbled upon the ephemera of a large point - that is that the traditional wing of the Republican Party will end up triumphant in both the short term and the long term because it is only the traditional wing that holds onto a coherent view of humanity and its government.
In so far as we are to take the examples Mr. Brooks offers for a moderate conservative position, problems like inequality and middle-class anxiety, he fails to see that seeing such social phenomenon as problems to be addressed by collective action is precisely the folly that conservatism exists to fight against. In so far as conservatism, especially the conservatism of the young movement conservatives, actually means something, it stand squarely as a rejection of the idea that the ills and anxieties of a juvenile populace can be exorcised by the Holy Water of government and an enthronement of individual rights and responsibilities in the face such problems. We stand, in short, with adulthood that will accept neither wails of victimization nor the comfortable buzz of a cocktail reception with its fetid insinuation that our collective sophistication will be the end of all our problems. 'Reformists' conservatives, in so far as they wish to hand to the federal government a greater scope for the micromanagement of our lives and property are not actually believing in anything essentially conservative - their reform is not essentially a reform at all. It is essential equivalent to modernizing an airplane by stripping it of its wings and engines and thus declaring it perfectly safe - perfectly safe to go no where.
This isn't to say that conservatism doesn't have its problems, and in singling out the pervasive anti-intellectualism endemic to much of our movement Mr. Brooks is quite right. But we should not allow the very fatuity we currently suffer from to be replaced by the greater follies Mr. Brooks seems to be arguing for. It would be far worse for us, and for our nation we purport to serve, if we replaced our sometimes habitual anti-intellectual impulse with the ersatz-intellectual sophistication that our moderates and their liberal friends would like to offer us.

Misplacing our faith in politics.

This is an opinion essay I wrote which will appear in the Fall Quarter Edition of The Fish - the Christian magazine of InterVarsity at The University of Chicago.

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.

Matthew 22:15-22 (NASB)

Caught in a trap of our own devising, we Christians still struggle with the need to balance the competing demands of God and government. Although the question no longer concerns poll-taxes, the American Church finds itself increasingly embroiled in political life. From Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition – whose evangelical foot soldiers have become the dominant political force in large swaths of the country – to emerging Christian initiatives to use the government to fight poverty or combat climate change, Christianity in the United States has political consequences. What Christianity means to our vote on social and economic policy, not to mention in the world of foreign affairs, has become the subject of pundits and pastors whose individual brilliance is rivaled only by the multitude of their opinions. But beyond the political implications of Christianity, it remains necessary for Christians to recognize the limitations of politics and the supremacy of God’s claim on our lives.

Modern Christianity lies in danger of sacrificing our hopes and our energy in the service of politics. Watching as the secular world turns politics into its religion, Christians begin to fall into the temptation of finding salvation not in Christ but in a politician or a political party. In too many cities and churches, Christians place their faith in John McCain or Barack Obama for ‘our nation’s salvation’ and waste their evangelical energy in the pursuit of votes. Increasingly, our hearts (and wallets) move not to aid the work of salvation but instead to aid the work of television advertising. We forget to give our love God and our fellow man, and instead offer it to fallible politicians in the service of issues we all to often regard as sacred crusades.

A telling example of this phenomenon is found in Westboro Baptist Church. Famed for their belief that ‘God hates Fags’, Westboro shows the consequences of allowing political beliefs to take precedence over our Christianity. Allowing disapproval of homosexuality to overwhelm all other aspects of Christianity, most notably the doctrine of redemption, Westboro has lost any semblance of real faith in their attempt to turn homosexuality into a capital crime. Westboro, in loosing themselves to the politics of the world, has found a place in hell for themselves equal (or worse) to any that they have condemned.

Fundamentally, we lose the carefully cultivated balance between God and the world when we allow our hopes for the world and our drive for its betterment to be satisfied in the fires of politics. We must remember the fallen condition of man and the folly, so expertly demonstrated by history, of trusting in the strength of humanity for our salvation. When we get caught up in the calculus of the ballot box or of the Electoral College, we forget that in the end it is the souls of human beings that are truly important – and that ultimately the only way to help them is through Christ. That our faith, our hope, and our love are the things that make us human in God’s image and deserve to be given only to God.

Christian interaction with politics requires striking a proper balance between the legitimate claims of our Nation, the prudent demands of public policy, and the moral promptings of our faith. But in that balancing, it cannot be forgotten that we must render unto to Christ the preeminent role as the liberator and redeemer of mankind and our ultimate and only hope for true change. For in the end Christ will look at us and ask “Whose likeness and inscription are you?”

Is questioning mormonism religious bigotry?

The common refrain of the past 10 months, ever since former Gov. Mitt Romney entered the presidential race (of whom I am a supporter), has been that questioning voting for a candidate based on their religion is illegitimate.

While making judgments only on a theological disagreement seems to be wrong, evaluating a candidate's faith — insofar as it informs our understanding of his world view, life philosophy and basic rationality — is a perfectly reasonable enterprise.

While certain individuals have said that questioning the intellectual basis of Mormonism is ill-advised for orthodox Christians (a group to which I claim membership), such an opinion begs the question of whether any belief can be considered 'strange' and 'unreasonable'. If it is impossible to examine the rationality of the claim's of Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) against the evidence, then it is certainly impossible to contrast the claims of a lunatic against the real world he disputes. Besides, a deep and popular examination of the life of Jesus Christ and his very real and unique identity is the very last thing Christians have to fear; if the world could be made to engage in such an examination, half of the evangelical battle would already be won.

The outlandish history and absurd claims of Mormonism, detailed here, offer us two possible ways in which to evaluate Mr. Romney and his views of absolute reality. First, he might have critically examined his faith and its claims from every angle and judged it to be true — in which case he is either a lunatic or he possesses foundational beliefs so alien to the rest of humanity that he is immediately analogous to a lunatic. Such a person is not one an individual that any reasonable person could conceivably vote for. Second, he may be an individual who does not see religion or propositions concerning the nature of absolute reality as subject to truth claims, he may hold his religion on the basis of inherited belief, unthinking in both his affirmation of Mormonism and his practice of it. While regretful, as such a position would show that Mr. Romney is fundamentally not a reflective and rational person who has come to his particular ideology in light of reason, such a fact about his life does not place him beyond the scope of popular politics, for the primary reason that nearly all of humanity behaves in the same exact way.

Which is Mr. Romney? I am glad to say that I believe strongly that he is a person of the second camp (on account of being from a family of Mormons, of his primary interest in business and his belief in pragmatism and utilitarianism in regards to economic policy). While not ideal as a presidential candidate, being as he lacks original thought and will likely fall into the trap of living a paradox, his religion on accout of the method by which he comes to it, does not disqualify him.

What then of a 'rational Mormon'? Would they be fit for public office? No. The simple truth is that the claims of Mormonism are not sufficient for rational belief, and an individual who believes that they are ought to be closer to a diagnosis of lunacy then to the assumption of political power.

P.S. If there are any Mormons who believe my understanding of your faith is incorrect or that Mormonism can be a rational belief system, please leave a comment with a method of contact; I would love to speak with you.

Dean Barnett is leaving HughHewitt.com

It's a sad day for the conservative blogging world - the Sox blog will blog no more.

Since I first read one of his epic missives, or humorous FAQs , I was struck by how great a writter he was. Not just as a stylist, although on that front he can hardly be faulted, but as a sensative and thought provoking commentator he embodied everything that is good about the conservative online movement.

It was on account of his incisiveness on everything from Iraq to Boston sports hegemony, that the workaday reader could reach out and touch the important issues of the political world; his words let us grasp, perhaps only for a moment, what had before seemed distant and incomprehensible. Barnett's arguments enabled the wired conservative to clear away the dross of the political world and see the necessary principles, which are the true motivators of action.

Although Mr. Barnett is not leaving us for ever, instead moving genres to the Daily Standard, he leaves his post at HughHewitt.com as one of the few contributers of sense in an raucous and factitious climate of modern punditry.

He will be sorely missed.

UPDATE: You can also visit the SoxBlog and put something in the tip jar to show your appreciation for all of Dean's work.

My Job

One of the things that has recently been occupying my time is building this website for the Arapahoe County Republican Party.

I have been a Tech Intern with the Party since the beginning of the Summer.

I built the entire site from scratch using pagebreeze a free HTML editor, and Core FTP Lite

And yes, I have mad skillz

Learning Pains

The last time I decided to write something concerning education I primarily focused upon the economic problem of the current state of higher education, the fact that it has become unbelievably expensive to pursue a private university degree.

However, of the problems which face modern higher education, cost is both minor and symptomatic, a nasty boil of an underlying issue. The most significant failing of The Modern University (and consequently of the entire educational artifice) is its fundamental lack of purpose.

This is so incredibly important, educationally and to our nation as a whole, because educational purpose is so different from other institutional purposes. Whereas churches and businesses, to name just two, have specific and narrow purposes, such as the accumulation of converts or profit, the University ought to seek truth, both as an absolute entity and codified as a rational order by which all men can live.

Such a rational attempt to order the universe is necessary, and indeed essential, because human progress is directly linked to an understanding of our surroundings. We are able to achieve little when we understand little, when our surroundings begin to make sense, we become more able to change them. This can most clearly be shown by the difference between an Archimedes's screw (ancient simple machine used in irrigation) and the Atom bomb. Human abstract knowledge, the difference between experimentation and true science, has immense practical value.

Even more so, the truth has a sort of self-evident importance. While in general I am against claiming self-evidence in a rash manner, all real truth has value. Not valuing truth is equivalent to not valuing existence, being as such things are merely reflections of each other.

Real search for this truth will always be at the center of human life. Our understandings of it, religious, political, scientific, and philosophical must necessarily direct and focus human activity. Since the idea of the university is of nothing more then an institution seeking knowledge of the truth, then the University (even more then government) will be the center of power and change in humanity.

In modern times the idea of the University and the actual entity have parted company. With schools either loading up with undergrads and athletics, or filling seats with grad students, the concept of a purposeful institution committed to both scholarship and holistic education has left us - perhaps for good.

Yet education does not have to be this way. For the vast majority of students neither suited nor inclined for real study, institutions specializing in business and engineering (together with a smattering of communication skills) would almost certainly do as good a job. The simple fact of the matter is that there are a huge number of people (almost certainly a majority) who are going to University without the slightest intention of attending a University. The prestige and desirability of these institutions creates a huge surplus of demand for something entirely different then what a school is supposed to provide. It doesn't take much of an economist to see what happens then.

Some might say that this is equivalent to wimping out, claiming that realliving price pressure will be enough to 'help our children'. Of course it won't be. Prices will likely remain high, or at least higher then I would wish. Yet, lamenting the base facts of economics is rather equivalent to threatening law suits concerning the weather (although the 'Green movement' may be trending in that direction). Education will always remain valuable, and prices will always reflect that value. The best we can hope for is to streamline the process and make the price mechanism as efficient as possible (which probably means the destruction of many scholarships and loans as well), so that the free market can strike a proper balance. Any more then that would not only be immoral, it would also be futile.

Scholarship Search

One of the great difficulties of modern American suburban bourgeoisie, in so far as we have difficulties, is the daunting prospect of college tuition. For a talented member of the middle or upper middle class (families making between 60,000 and 140,000 dollars a year) opportunities for success are not difficult to find. Loads of test taking guides, unprecedented educational opportunities and helpful parents make it (relatively easy) to excel in high school. Yet with each sure step towards college education, the idea of paying for college education weighs heavy upon the mind.

In my case this is particularity clear. Since I was a wee tyke, my parents have home schooled me and my siblings, showering each and everyone of us with opportunities that they themselves did not possess. Yet as each of us took advantage of these, and profited greatly from them, the pending costs of college began to skyrocket.


For instance, prior to her SAT scores, my sister's options (Local public universities) would cost between 10 and 15 thousand dollars a year - including room and board. Subsequent to evidence of her excellent academic achievement, my sister was admitted into the University of Chicago, which in exchange for the privilege of attending it, will end up (over four years) demanding around 200,000 dollars from her and her relatives.

Leaving aside for the moment her skill, and good fortune, in discovering enough scholarship money to make such a cost feasible, it is interesting to note that our best universities increasingly demand funds from their students approaching a moderately sized mortgage. The American Dream of education is quickly beginning to resemble to American Dream of homeownership, one of assets mortgaged in the hope of future success.

There are a number of points concerning this information that I think it is critical to make.

The existence of such an expensive sector of our economy is not an excuse for government intervention. There are very good reasons for why some one would want to spend 200 grand on a Harvard (or similar) education, not the least of which being that such an outlay will in many cases be returned by the exponential increase in earning power such a degree makes possible. Furthermore, the picture of government involvement in education is that, if anything, it has the effect of significantly increasing the costs of college. Universities operate in accordance to the laws of supply and demand in the same manner as Ice Cream trucks or any other operation, and a Stafford loan (or Pew grant) is really just a large increase in the number of dollars chasing after the same amount of educational slots. Cost inflation is thus to be expected.

However, there are significant cultural effects of such a situation which have undesirable consequences for America as a whole. First, the incredible expense of attending a higher tier university has a 'chilling effect' (Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S.Ct. 1493 1965) on the ability for students to concentrate on disciplines which are not economically lucrative. From certain sciences, to the humanities, to the arts and beyond, individuals which a wise civilization wishes to promote in their endeavors may be discouraged from pursuing academic and cultural fields with little to no payoff. While the resulting abundance of lawyers and investment bankers is not exactly evil per se, such a use of societies best and brightest is certainly not healthy.

Secondly, such costs require children (unwilling to stomach debt that, to be fair, is the cheapest they will ever have access to) to enter the 'Scholarship Search' with with a devotion resembling an actual job. It makes no sense to earn 7.50$ and hour, when they have to produce something on the order of $250,000 by the time they are 22! Not even accounting for the, significant, cost of grad school, the pressure placed upon young students with little or no experience in the work force is nigh on incomprehensible. It approaches to realm of satire to demand of our most talented highschoolers an amount of specie which their adult guardians did not - usually - begin to accumulate until years into the workforce. To echo William F Buckley, "The mind boggles."

This then is the problem; I will post what I feel is the solution soon.

But for now - I need a sandwich.

Paul Dueck