Do We Still Want Liberty?

 

“Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.” — Sallust

[This quote was cited in an insightful recent piece by the estimable Professor Reynolds in Substack  about wokeness, an article well worth your time.]

The historian Sallust was an early supporter of Caesar and not a fan of free speech. He organized (pre-social media) mobs to disrupt pro-republic speeches by Cicero. In a different age, he could have been a valued staffer for Mussolini or Hillary Clinton. He was also openly corrupt as a provincial governor, so perhaps suited for a Biden connection as well.

I have long been frustrated by brilliant conservative friends who seem to think that the perfect policy paper, the definitive proof of the superiority of free markets, an unassailable fortress of data proving the vital importance of the nuclear family, or a barrage of Buckleyesque wit will lead to ultimate political victory. Did not Reagan’s smashing victory rise from the ideological seeds planted in the ashes of Goldwater’s defeat? Or so they tell me. Even if that’s an accurate take, does it apply today?

Before anyone had heard of a “meme,” it should have been clear years ago that unless a Heritage Foundation or AEI publication could be made into a slogan or image, or entertain in some way, it has very limited social resonance. And it seems that fewer and fewer Americans engage in politics (or much of anything else) via printed discursive prose (Twitter does not count).

We have also largely amputated religion and faith from almost all institutions and from much of society. The consolation and purpose to be found in romantic love followed by lifelong commitment within the traditional family have also been steadily displaced by a more impersonal, mistrustful, barbarous sensuality. It is not surprising that so many young people (women in particular) are attracted to the meaning and membership offered by the Church of Woke.

Some expressly non-religious friends have argued that the Establishment Clause bar to religion in government made America great. I would argue that there is truth in that, but not quite how they think it does. The brilliant structure of the First Amendment freed us from worry about the other guy’s religion being imposed. That allowed us to live the moral and spiritual values of our own religion, which values we mostly share with the other guy. Keeping power politics out of religion helped religious values thrive and promoted moral commonalities without which America would not have been great.

We don’t sufficiently appreciate the Goldilocks nature of our country and culture in which the moral unity of a living Judeo-Christian heritage animated and shaped that which we did with our abundant secular freedoms (as the Founders had hoped). We had sufficient shared moral values to keep destructive behaviors in check but without the need to impose a religious structure to enforce and protect those values and bring about the inevitable downside of such an imposition.

Islam, in stark contrast, holds that morality can be imposed by absolute power. At the other extreme, Weimar Germany dissolved traditional values and promised a libertine nirvana. Both of those approaches inexorably lead to totalitarian rule.

So without a largely shared moral core, can the USA survive in any recognizable form? If Americans no longer treasure liberty precisely because it protects and serves those values, and if we become incapable of debate, discourse, and a love of truth, then who are we?

It should be easy to make the case for the continuation of the American Experiment. The Church of Woke is a miserable place to be. Its works and rituals are patently destructive, its adherents demonstrably unhappier than the normals, but the despair of finding any meaning outside of wokedom and the terror of being alone in the void (or subject to woke group sanction) are powerful forces.

It is so weird to have the lessons of history, science, logic, justice, economics, and common sense unambiguously on our side yet have so little ability to penetrate mindsets largely shaped by fear and insecurity. Do we need a psychologist? A religious revivalist? A master of memes? A world-class rhetorician? Who among us can translate the best think-tank papers into a tweet or captioned GIF? Or is it all just as futile as arguing for the primacy of human rights in the midst of a Nuremberg rally in 1933?

Or is there some other approach we are missing? The best teacher I ever had in high school became my mentor when we both taught at the same school years later. He said that teaching is not about packaging or compulsion. The art of teaching, he said, is to figure out how to make the student ask the question for which that which you are trying to teach is the answer. In his method, his students invariably noticed the joy, fascination, and a kind of friendship he had with the subject matter and then wanted to understand why and how he felt that way about it. His classes were a series of accepted invitations.

In any event, we need to fashion that persuasive invitation to sanity, decency, respectful debate, and dignity sooner rather than later.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 39 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    I think Americans do share a moral core in the sense that a large majority of Americans support keeping prohibitions on murder, rape and robbery in place.  (Of course, the abortion issue shows that the prohibition on murder doesn’t currently extend to the unborn in all 50 states.)

    Uganda recently enacted a law that makes it so that if a man announces that he is homosexual, he will be punished with life in prison.  It would be great if we could just write this off as another example of Islamic extremism, but about 80 percent of Ugandans are Christian.

    Also, El Salvador is nearly 80 percent Christian (split pretty evenly between Roman Catholics and Protestants) and yet El Salvador has one of the world’s highest murder rates, while places like Denmark and Sweden have very low levels of religious practice (but do have state churches) and have very low murder rates.

    So, it’s not clear to me how much “work” Christianity or Judaism is really doing in terms of keeping society healthy or allowing society to decay.  It seems like a society can be very Christian in its beliefs and still descend into castrastrophe.  This certainly happened to the formerly Christians nations of Europe.

    I admit that I think Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all false religions.  I don’t subscribe to any religion myself, but I think every religion I have read about or heard about is false.

    However, one could argue that having people believe in a higher power of some kind (or multiple higher powers as in Hinduism) could be beneficial for society.   Still, it seems like the examples I mentioned above demonstrate that it is more complicated than that.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Old Bathos: In any event, we need to fashion that persuasive invitation to sanity, decency, respectful debate, and dignity sooner rather than later.

    Unfortunately, from my own position, none of these attributes are at all of interest to the Left. In fact, they contradict everything they stand for. 

    • #2
  3. Mad Gerald Coolidge
    Mad Gerald
    @Jose

    Old Bathos: Some expressly non-religious friends have argued that the Establishment Clause bar to religion in government is what made America great.  I would argue that there is truth in that but not quite the way they think it does. The brilliant structure of the First amendment freed us from worry about the other guy’s religion being imposed which allowed us to live the moral and spiritual values of our own religion which values we mostly share with the other guy.  Keeping power politics out of religion helped religious values thrive and promoted moral commonalities without which America would not have been great.

    Old Bathos: We don’t sufficiently appreciate the Goldilocks nature of our country and culture in which the moral unity of a living Judeo-Christian heritage animated and shaped that which we did with our abundant secular freedoms (as the Founders had hoped). We had sufficient shared moral values to keep destructive behaviors in check but without the need to impose a religious structure to enforce and protect those values and bring about the inevitable downside of such an imposition.

    A couple of very good paragraphs!

    • #3
  4. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Old Bathos: Do We Still Want Liberty?

    I’m looking for a particular quote from Ron Paul’s farewell address…

    • #4
  5. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    Not sure why, but this reminded me of Harvey Mansfield’s observation that an institution like the ACLU quickly became the defenders of the enemies of liberty. 

    As for your questions at the end, I’m thinking religious institutions in metropolises are going to be ground zero for any possible rebound. Anything like orthodox observance is so at odds with the heretical homodoxy that antagonism is inevitable, and it means that many Americans who are more or less on board are isolated from their peers; and if they’re young, they rarely have true adults in their lives — other than parents (if they’re lucky). The Church of Woke purports to be community, and they have college campuses, music venues, yoga classes and the like as parish halls. 

    You mentioned a having had a mentor: that’s a big something that’s missing. The problem in America seems to be cowardice more so than stupidity. I think people with role models and a couple friends tend to be braver. If they’re braver, they’ll be in public more. Then they can demonstrate a happier way of life that should win over some converts. 

    • #5
  6. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    This is a great essay and so is the one by Reynolds referenced.

    Genetics is probably important in the degree of desire for liberty.

    What are the things that distinguish humans, one from another or as unchosen members of a group?

    Sex

    Race 

    Ethnicity

    Language

    Religion

    Culture

    Politics

    I’m sure that list is missing some important entries. What I’m trying for is to see how each of them is different and what is the order of importance with respect to changes that have cultural and political effects in American society.

    The one that is most noticeable to me is sex.  Masculine and feminine traits are genetic and come in a spectrum of difference without regard to those other entries listed above. The difference is real. 

    Americans have seen the character of our existence change dramatically over my lifetime in the first listed item of sex. In all those other categories we can be persuaded that the differences are either not real or not particularly significant to our cultural and political existence. 

    When we say we can’t say what a woman or a man is, that’s major.

    • #6
  7. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Old Bathos:

    Or is there some other approach we are missing? The best teacher I ever had in high school became my mentor when we both taught at the same school years later. He said that teaching is not about packaging or compulsion.  The art of teaching, he said, is to figure out how to make the student ask the question for which that which you are trying to teach is the answer.  In his method, his students invariably noticed the joy, fascination, and a kind of friendship he had with the subject matter and then wanted to understand why and how he felt that way about it.  His classes were a series of accepted invitations.

    In any event, we need to fashion that persuasive invitation to sanity, decency, respectful debate, and dignity sooner rather than later.

    Wow. So true. 

    Let us hope some smart people on the conservative side of politics see this insightful and accurate encapsulation of what we need to do. 

    • #7
  8. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    I saw a survey of religious belief in America that reported that 31 percent of people raised in a Christian household and who subscribed to Christianity growing up became a non-believer by age 30.

    However, counter to this, about 21 percent of people raised in non-religious households and who didn’t subscribe to any religion growing up became a Christian by age 30.

    However, as they have tracked religious switching over time, the percentage leaving Christianity seems to be going up while the percentage joining Christianity seems to be declining.   But also, in the very secular nations of Europe, the “exiting percentage” never seems to rise above 50 percent.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/modeling-the-future-of-religion-in-america/

     

    • #8
  9. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Old Bathos:

    It should be easy to make the case for the continuation of the American Experiment. The Church of Woke is a miserable place to be. Its works and rituals are patently destructive, its adherents demonstrably unhappier than the normals but the despair of finding any meaning outside of wokedom and the terror of being alone in the void (or subject to woke group sanction) are powerful forces.

     

    What has been the influence of feminism on the Church of Woke? There is also a criminal world out there that Church of Woke seems to be more accepting of. Are we going to see a push now to accept the world of the drug cartels? The whole thing gets a little confusing.

    • #9
  10. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Old Bathos:

    It should be easy to make the case for the continuation of the American Experiment. The Church of Woke is a miserable place to be. Its works and rituals are patently destructive, its adherents demonstrably unhappier than the normals but the despair of finding any meaning outside of wokedom and the terror of being alone in the void (or subject to woke group sanction) are powerful forces.

     

    What has been the influence of feminism on the Church of Woke? There is also a criminal world out there that Church of Woke seems to be more accepting of. Are we going to see a push now to accept the world of the drug cartels? The whole thing gets a little confusing.

    When Joe Biden said that he would not veto the legislation overriding the latest soft-on-crime laws in Washington DC, you get the sense that many Democrats are worried about the crime issue being a huge liability in 2024.  

    Just last year the very liberal voters of San Francisco booted out their “progressive” District Attorney due to rising crime and chaos in San Francisco.  

    So, even in the most “progressive” precincts of the United States, there is a limit to how much madness people are willing to accept.  

    • #10
  11. Keith Lowery Coolidge
    Keith Lowery
    @keithlowery

    I think it’s Justice Thomas who has a little plaque on the wall in his office at the court which says, “Liberty has a dirty little secret: you’re on your own.”

    Reading Jonathan Haidt’s interesting work on why the mental health of liberal women is more negatively affected by social media than conservative women, he delves into the psychological idea of “locus of control”.  He characterizes liberals as have an external locus of control, which means that they are more inclined to believe that their lives are primarily subject to events outside their control.  Conservatives are, apparently, more inclined to an internal locus of control, which is the general inclination toward believing that their own choices and actions largely govern the circumstances of their lives.

    He talks about how the 1990’s was the demarcation point for a huge uptick in the prevalence of an external locus of control in young people, and it corresponded to a widespread reduction in independent play. Apparently independent play conditions children’s thinking and calculus for risk, reward, consequences, and the effects of their own actions. 

    It seems to me that a side-effect of having an internal locus of control is a felt need to be taken care of by someone, whereas a side-effect of an external locus of control is a desire for more freedom.   Perhaps late 20th century cultural dynamics surrounding the care of children have explicitly cultivated psychological disabilities in millions of people which leave them with a vague, non-specific discomfort with the idea of freedom.

    • #11
  12. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    I think it’s Justice Thomas who has a little plaque on the wall in his office at the court which says, “Liberty has a dirty little secret: you’re on your own.”

    Reading Jonathan Haidt’s interesting work on why the mental health of liberal women is more negatively affected by social media than conservative women, he delves into the psychological idea of “locus of control”. He characterizes liberals as have an external locus of control, which means that they are more inclined to believe that their lives are primarily subject to events outside their control. Conservatives are, apparently, more inclined to an internal locus of control, which is the general inclination toward believing that their own choices and actions largely govern the circumstances of their lives.

    He talks about how the 1990’s was the demarcation point for a huge uptick in the prevalence of an external locus of control in young people, and it corresponded to a widespread reduction in independent play. Apparently independent play conditions children’s thinking and calculus for risk, reward, consequences, and the effects of their own actions.

    It seems to me that a side-effect of having an internal locus of control is a felt need to be taken care of by someone, whereas a side-effect of an external locus of control is a desire for more freedom. Perhaps late 20th century cultural dynamics surrounding the care of children have explicitly cultivated psychological disabilities in millions of people which leave them with a vague, non-specific discomfort with the idea of freedom.

    Sounds like masculinity/femininity in play as well as liberal/conservative..

    • #12
  13. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    I think it’s Justice Thomas who has a little plaque on the wall in his office at the court which says, “Liberty has a dirty little secret: you’re on your own.”

    Reading Jonathan Haidt’s interesting work on why the mental health of liberal women is more negatively affected by social media than conservative women, he delves into the psychological idea of “locus of control”. He characterizes liberals as have an external locus of control, which means that they are more inclined to believe that their lives are primarily subject to events outside their control. Conservatives are, apparently, more inclined to an internal locus of control, which is the general inclination toward believing that their own choices and actions largely govern the circumstances of their lives.

    He talks about how the 1990’s was the demarcation point for a huge uptick in the prevalence of an external locus of control in young people, and it corresponded to a widespread reduction in independent play. Apparently independent play conditions children’s thinking and calculus for risk, reward, consequences, and the effects of their own actions.

    It seems to me that a side-effect of having an internal locus of control is a felt need to be taken care of by someone, whereas a side-effect of an external locus of control is a desire for more freedom. Perhaps late 20th century cultural dynamics surrounding the care of children have explicitly cultivated psychological disabilities in millions of people which leave them with a vague, non-specific discomfort with the idea of freedom.

    Sounds like masculinity/femininity in play as well as liberal/conservative..

    Absolutely.  Single women and weak men vote for the government to protect them.  Note that for these purposes, women married to weak men are effectively still single.

    • #13
  14. Keith Lowery Coolidge
    Keith Lowery
    @keithlowery

    BDB (View Comment):
    women married to weak men are effectively still single.

    Hahahahaha!

    • #14
  15. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    There are also a significant number of “progressive Christians.” 

    They argue that Jesus commanded people to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor “and then follow me.”  

    Of course, it doesn’t follow from this that one should support higher taxes on others.  Still, these “progressive Christians” argue that the test of whether you are an actual Christian is whether you have given up all of your possessions to help the poor.  

    It’s a sneak way of making everyone dependent once everyone has given everything they own away.  A step towards communism.  

    • #15
  16. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    There are also a significant number of “progressive Christians.”

    They argue that Jesus commanded people to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor “and then follow me.”

    Of course, it doesn’t follow from this that one should support higher taxes on others. Still, these “progressive Christians” argue that the test of whether you are an actual Christian is whether you have given up all of your possessions to help the poor.

    It’s a sneak way of making everyone dependent once everyone has given everything they own away. A step towards communism.

     This appears to be an argument against competition in favor of cooperation. I think historical analysis will show that competition yields more productive outcomes than its absence.

    I have a question. I seen the biggest political division today in America being between populist Republicans on one hand and Democrats with GOPe on the other. Another way this division is viewed is rural/urban. I wonder if it is really more masculine/feminine?

    A

    • #16
  17. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    There are also a significant number of “progressive Christians.”

    They argue that Jesus commanded people to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor “and then follow me.”

    Of course, it doesn’t follow from this that one should support higher taxes on others. Still, these “progressive Christians” argue that the test of whether you are an actual Christian is whether you have given up all of your possessions to help the poor.

    It’s a sneak way of making everyone dependent once everyone has given everything they own away. A step towards communism.

    This appears to be an argument against competition in favor of cooperation. I think historical analysis will show that competition yields more productive outcomes than its absence.

    I think the Jesus presented in the Gospel of Matthew seems to give very foolish advice.  I could never be a Jesus follower if Matthew accurately presents Jesus.  

    I have a question. I seen the biggest political division today in America being between populist Republicans on one hand and Democrats with GOPe on the other. Another way this division is viewed is rural/urban. I wonder if it is really more masculine/feminine?

    Problem with that is that rural areas are shrinking.   Everyone is moving out of the rural areas to live in the metropolitan areas where all the jobs are, even as people avoid the urban hell-holes of Baltimore and Detroit.  The suburbs are where it’s at.  

    • #17
  18. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Old Bathos: I have long been frustrated by brilliant conservative friends who seem to think that the perfect policy paper, the definitive proof of the superiority of free markets, an unassailable fortress of data proving the vital importance of the nuclear family, or a barrage of Buckleyesque wit will lead to ultimate political victory. 

    Old B,

    Until I see at least one article or comment making any one of these rather silly assertions, I would assume that there are no active members, brilliant or not, conservative or not, who believe any of them.

    I wonder if you might not be making the same incorrect assumption about conservatives–that their beliefs are simply stupid, or their motives immoral–that the proggies do.

    • #18
  19. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    There are also a significant number of “progressive Christians.”

    They argue that Jesus commanded people to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor “and then follow me.”

    Of course, it doesn’t follow from this that one should support higher taxes on others. Still, these “progressive Christians” argue that the test of whether you are an actual Christian is whether you have given up all of your possessions to help the poor.

    It’s a sneak way of making everyone dependent once everyone has given everything they own away. A step towards communism.

    This appears to be an argument against competition in favor of cooperation. I think historical analysis will show that competition yields more productive outcomes than its absence.

    I think the Jesus presented in the Gospel of Matthew seems to give very foolish advice. I could never be a Jesus follower if Matthew accurately presents Jesus.

    I have a question. I seen the biggest political division today in America being between populist Republicans on one hand and Democrats with GOPe on the other. Another way this division is viewed is rural/urban. I wonder if it is really more masculine/feminine?

    Problem with that is that rural areas are shrinking. Everyone is moving out of the rural areas to live in the metropolitan areas where all the jobs are, even as people avoid the urban hell-holes of Baltimore and Detroit. The suburbs are where it’s at.

    The suburbs dominated by feminism?

    • #19
  20. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Old Bathos: I have long been frustrated by brilliant conservative friends who seem to think that the perfect policy paper, the definitive proof of the superiority of free markets, an unassailable fortress of data proving the vital importance of the nuclear family, or a barrage of Buckleyesque wit will lead to ultimate political victory.

    Old B,

    Until I see at least one article or comment making any one of these rather silly assertions, I would assume that there are no active members, brilliant or not, conservative or not, who believe any of them.

    I wonder if you might not be making the same incorrect assumption about conservatives–that their beliefs are simply stupid, or their motives immoral–that the proggies do.

    The articles or comments do not make these assertions — they enact them.  OB is accurately describing a school of thought *evidenced by its products* even on these pages.

    But you knew that, of course.

    • #20
  21. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    BDB (View Comment):

    The articles or comments do not make these assertions — they enact them.

    But you knew that, of course.

    BDB,

    I tried to think of something that “an article enacting an assertion” might refer to, but could not. 

    So I can’t say that I know it to be true, nor that I know it to be false.

    But to get back to my comment about Ricochet members: it sounds as though you agree with it?

    Regarding the friends not on Ricochet (if that is who he meant) whom he refers to as “conservatives”, I’m ok with not learning more about them. 

    They don’t sound very bright, because they seem to believe in magic. They don’t sound like conservatives, either, at least by any common definition.  Conservatives as the term is usually use are despised because, among other reasons, they reject magical thinking.

    • #21
  22. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    I tried to think of something that “an article enacting an assertion” might refer to, but could not. 

    Darnedest thing.

    • #22
  23. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Old Bathos: I have long been frustrated by brilliant conservative friends who seem to think that the perfect policy paper, the definitive proof of the superiority of free markets, an unassailable fortress of data proving the vital importance of the nuclear family, or a barrage of Buckleyesque wit will lead to ultimate political victory.

    Conservative Inc think tanks spent decades writing policy papers about vouchers and other alternatives to public schools. 

    Chris Rufo and Libs of TikTok showed public school teachers on video turning kids onto queer communists and Now the school choice movement is racking up victories. 

    Not in Wyoming, though, where school choice and parental rights  bills are being blocked by Republicans in the state legislature. 

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/wyoming-gop-house-speaker-buries-parental-rights-school-choice-bills

    • #23
  24. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    There are also a significant number of “progressive Christians.”

    They argue that Jesus commanded people to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor “and then follow me.”

    Of course, it doesn’t follow from this that one should support higher taxes on others. Still, these “progressive Christians” argue that the test of whether you are an actual Christian is whether you have given up all of your possessions to help the poor.

    It’s a sneak way of making everyone dependent once everyone has given everything they own away. A step towards communism.

    This appears to be an argument against competition in favor of cooperation. I think historical analysis will show that competition yields more productive outcomes than its absence.

    I think the Jesus presented in the Gospel of Matthew seems to give very foolish advice. I could never be a Jesus follower if Matthew accurately presents Jesus.

    I have a question. I seen the biggest political division today in America being between populist Republicans on one hand and Democrats with GOPe on the other. Another way this division is viewed is rural/urban. I wonder if it is really more masculine/feminine?

    Problem with that is that rural areas are shrinking. Everyone is moving out of the rural areas to live in the metropolitan areas where all the jobs are, even as people avoid the urban hell-holes of Baltimore and Detroit. The suburbs are where it’s at.

    The suburbs dominated by feminism?

    I think the urban areas are more dominated by feminism than the suburban areas.  But in any case, it is the large metropolitan areas (containing both cities and suburbs) that seem to be gaining population while rural areas seem to be losing population.  

    On the other hand, look at it this way: If a rural area gains enough population, it is no longer a rural area, is it?  

    • #24
  25. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    Wanting liberty vs wanting….other things is of course the subject of the Grand Inquisitor sequence in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.  I excerpted it here: Why the Grand Inquisitor Sentenced Jesus Christ to be Burned at the Stake.

    There is also an interesting SF story which seems clearly inspired by Dostoyevsky’s novel: in this story, the Inquisitor has an intergalactic scope of operations, and he is growing weary of the endless battle against heresies:  The Way of Cross and Dragon.

     

     

    • #25
  26. GlenEisenhardt Member
    GlenEisenhardt
    @

    There needs to be a central moral code. Fighting for special rights for aggrieved and phony minority groups can’t hold any society together. 

    • #26
  27. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Old Bathos: I have long been frustrated by brilliant conservative friends who seem to think that the perfect policy paper, the definitive proof of the superiority of free markets, an unassailable fortress of data proving the vital importance of the nuclear family, or a barrage of Buckleyesque wit will lead to ultimate political victory.

    Conservative Inc think tanks spent decades writing policy papers about vouchers and other alternatives to public schools.

    Chris Rufo and Libs of TikTok showed public school teachers on video turning kids onto queer communists and Now the school choice movement is racking up victories.

    Not in Wyoming, though, where school choice and parental rights bills are being blocked by Republicans in the state legislature.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/wyoming-gop-house-speaker-buries-parental-rights-school-choice-bills

    It appears that you may be using the term “conservative” to describe someone who opposes parental rights and school choice.  Both policies are in the very heart of conservative belief, in the common sense of the word.

    Such a novel definition would be semantically confusing.  We don’t need more ambiguity arbitrarily injected in political language.

    In fact, less would be helpful.

    • #27
  28. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    I enjoyed Yer post, Old Bathos.

     

    Old Bathos: The art of teaching, he said, is to figure out how to make the student ask the question for which that which you are trying to teach is the answer.

    In My younger days conversations with leftists would eventually lead to arguments.

    Then one day I discovered Aristole’s De Anima. He mentions that He was(?) wanted to be(?) a “midwife” to people’s thoughts. I thought that profound. I then began asking questions of leftists in Our conversations instead of simply making counteractive blanket statements.  I learned to ask very elementary questions ultimately leading Them to My conclusion. It has worked wonders. And if the difference isn’t immediate, I have seen it plant seeds and prosper. 

    • #28
  29. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    There are also a significant number of “progressive Christians.”

    They argue that Jesus commanded people to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor “and then follow me.”

    Of course, it doesn’t follow from this that one should support higher taxes on others. Still, these “progressive Christians” argue that the test of whether you are an actual Christian is whether you have given up all of your possessions to help the poor.

    It’s a sneak way of making everyone dependent once everyone has given everything they own away. A step towards communism.

    This appears to be an argument against competition in favor of cooperation. I think historical analysis will show that competition yields more productive outcomes than its absence.

    I think the Jesus presented in the Gospel of Matthew seems to give very foolish advice. I could never be a Jesus follower if Matthew accurately presents Jesus.

    I have a question. I seen the biggest political division today in America being between populist Republicans on one hand and Democrats with GOPe on the other. Another way this division is viewed is rural/urban. I wonder if it is really more masculine/feminine?

    Problem with that is that rural areas are shrinking. Everyone is moving out of the rural areas to live in the metropolitan areas where all the jobs are, even as people avoid the urban hell-holes of Baltimore and Detroit. The suburbs are where it’s at.

    The suburbs dominated by feminism?

    I think the urban areas are more dominated by feminism than the suburban areas. But in any case, it is the large metropolitan areas (containing both cities and suburbs) that seem to be gaining population while rural areas seem to be losing population.

    On the other hand, look at it this way: If a rural area gains enough population, it is no longer a rural area, is it?

    I’m not sure you are getting my point. 

    I put up a list in #6. In that list, only sex physically divides naturally about 50/50. For most of our existence the two sexes divided their physical activities along lines that somehow were determined by sex. And since childbearing is limited to females that influenced the division of non-physical labor. Now this is deemed sexual discrimination and we have laws against it. Although we know there are significant average differences physically  as well as extremes reached by only males because of size and strength and perhaps muscle coordination we are now mixing the sexes in sports and work where these attributes determine performance. This is a more significant change, in my view, than any changes we have made in other items in that list.

    • #29
  30. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I think the urban areas are more dominated by feminism than the suburban areas. But in any case, it is the large metropolitan areas (containing both cities and suburbs) that seem to be gaining population while rural areas seem to be losing population.

    On the other hand, look at it this way: If a rural area gains enough population, it is no longer a rural area, is it?

    I’m not sure you are getting my point.

    I put up a list in #6. In that list, only sex physically divides naturally about 50/50. For most of our existence the two sexes divided their physical activities along lines that somehow were determined by sex. And since childbearing is limited to females that influenced the division of non-physical labor.

    Now this is deemed sexual discrimination and we have laws against it. Although we know there are significant average differences physically as well as extremes reached by only males because of size and strength and perhaps muscle coordination we are now mixing the sexes in sports and work where these attributes determine performance. This is a more significant change, in my view, than any changes we have made in other items in that list.

    I do think anti-discrimination laws have distorted our labor markets and have put employers in a bind.  If they hire the best person for the job, they will often hire mostly men or mostly women, depending on the job.  But then if they hire mostly men, say, in software engineering, they can be accused of discriminating against women.  

    But the real reason why there isn’t a 50/50 split in software engineering is because among those women who have the aptitude for software engineering, most of them prefer professions like medicine, professions where they work with people instead of things.  

    That’s what the social science has shown: The more “choice” women have, the more they choose professions where they work with people, not things.  This ends up making certain occupations dominated by men in some cases and women in other cases, not due to discrimination, but do to people having the freedom to choose their profession, constrained by their abilities and training.  

    And don’t get me started about mixing the sexes in sports.  

    I am a big fan of tennis, especially women’s tennis.  I agree with the very left-wing lesbian Martina Navratilova when she says that transgenders should not be competing against women in pro tennis.  

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.