In Search of a Black Republican

April 28th, 2001

The comedy show Saturday Night Live used to run a skit, “In Search of a Black Republican.” The skit would show people talking at a party and just when you thought they might have found a black Republican, the search would end in disappointment. Though the skit played many years ago, the results of the November elections would suggest the same search remains largely in vain.The conventional wisdom or, more accurately, fervent hope among Republicans is that they can penetrate this Democratic strong hold and radically shift electoral politics to their benefit. Without the largely monolithic black vote in their favor, Democrats would be uncompetitive. While Republicans can manage to squeak out victories without the black vote, Democrats, as presently constituted, could not.

Even though African-American leadership is strongly Liberal, the African-American community as a whole is far more Conservative than its leadership. Especially in the inner cities, black Americans have endured Democratic leadership that has given them high taxes that still yield poorly performing schools and higher than average crime rates. It is blacks that have suffered the most from failed Democratic policy prescriptions.

As measured by church attendance, African-Americans are more religious than the rest of America. This religiosity is correlated with social Conservatism and provides another potential opening for Republicans. Republicans have believed if they could just find a way to explain to the African-American community how Republican Conservative policy principles would help address their problems, they could peal off support.

Eric Cohen writing the article “Race and the Republicans” published in the Weekly Standard argues that Republicans must do more than “criticize the excesses and destructiveness of race-based thinking.” Articulating Conservative ideology is not only insufficient but off-putting.

Republicans must engage the African-American community in a way that acknowledges their unique history and experience. Republicans must come to recognize that because of their “history of slavery and freedom, segregation and civil rights, bigotry and courage” black America “retains a special moral authority.” In essence, Republicans need to enlist the black Americans in a way that allows them to embrace and speak for a Conservative policy agenda out of that same moral authority.

For example, before his sell out to the Democratic Party establishment, Rev. Jesse Jackson used the historical experience of blacks in his critique of the abortion culture. In 1977, Cohen reports that Jackson explained, “There are those who argue that the right to privacy is [a] higher order than the right to life … That was the premise of slavery.”

Republicans need to embrace the black experience and to learn from African-Americans how their history informs and enriches Conservatism. Republicans need to allow African-Americans to claim an important measure of ownership of Conservatism. There are a number of Conservative blacks from Alan Keyes to Thomas Sowell that can help lead this movement.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

The Lexus Runs Over the Olive Tree

April 15th, 2001

Confucius was asked, “What say you of the remark, ‘Repay enmity with kindness?”’ And he replied, “How then would you repay kindness? Repay kindness with kindness, and enmity with justice.” Lun Yu (The Book of Analects).

A few years ago, Thomas L. Friedman penned a book about globalization entitled The Lexus and the Olive Tree. The title embodies a metaphor. The Lexus represents the wealth and prosperity brought on by the relentless forces of markets, capitalism, and free trade associated with globalization. The olive tree represents “everything that roots us, identifies us, and locates us in the world … a family, a community, a tribe, a nation, a religion or, most of all a place called home.” The olive tree can represent the values and institutions we wish to nurture with the wealth represented by the Lexus.

While wealth and connectedness symbolized by the Lexus and the olive tree can both be part of a healthy society, the forces of global markets often bring these values into conflict. The economic and regulatory walls erected by societies to protect communities and cultures make it difficult to partake in the growth and wealth production made possible by global markets. Modern markets depend on rapid communications and travel and the free flow of trade and capital. To reap the benefits of globalization requires that societies open themselves up to the world. Openness and market transparency are important values, but they can also overwhelm local cultures as McDonald’s restaurants, Disney World, and the cell phones replace local cultural symbols and practices. What pleases global markets is not always what is culturally, morally, or religiously uplifting.

Nonetheless, globalization is a moderating influence between nations. Economically interdependent nations entwined in trade are less likely to begin wars with each other. Even the forces of nationalism and cultural exclusivity, values associated with the olive tree that sometimes lead to war, are often modulated by economic imperatives. War is bad for business.

Those who support free trade with a brutal authoritarian regime like the People’s Republic of China (PRC) do so with the faith, borne out by some empirical evidence, that the requirements of global trade, the rule of law, financial accountability, and open communications, serve to undermine the Communist regime there. Even though authoritarian structures may appear solid on the surface, economic freedom eats away at the foundation of authoritarian regimes.

Others are less sanguine about the salutary benefits of trade. They recall Lenin’s prediction that the capitalist will sell you the rope with which you will hang him. However, the regime that Lenin begat is as dead as he is. It turns out that people are not particularly anxious to hang people with whom they can conduct profitable business.

In an important way, last week’s release of the 24 American crewmen from the reconnaissance plane, which was forced to land after a collision with a Chinese fighter jet, is evidence of the effect of trade. If the United States and the PRC were not engaged in extensive trade, the 24 crewmen would probably still be in China. When the North Korean government seized the reconnaissance ship the USS Pueblo in 1968, they held the crew for eleven months. Of course, the North Koreans to this day have an impoverished and insular economy. There was little economic incentive for the North Koreans to be accommodating.

In this case, the Chinese government realized that a prolonged incident would decrease the likelihood they would be admitted to the World Trade Organization. The US represents a large fraction of the export trade of China. If this trade were reduced it could cause economic turmoil in the PRC, which in turn could lead to political instability. It is probably not entirely coincidental that the day before the crewman were released Kmart informed the Chinese that American consumers were intent on boycotting goods from China.

By the same token, the US reaction was also modulated. Part of the restraint on Americans was the fact that the PRC held Americans in custody; part was an unwillingness to see the matter escalate to the point of affecting trade. Many of us Americans love commerce more than we hate communism.

Although we did not explicitly apologize, we said “very sorry” in such a way that the Chinese could deliberately misinterpret it as an apology. The US got the crewmen back through the use of what diplomats call “constructive ambiguity.” The imperatives of globalization overwhelmed other considerations. The Lexus mowed down the Olive Tree.

However, it is in the American parochial interest and in the interest of international trade and global economic prosperity if this incident is not simply forgotten in the service of economic amicability. Lawlessness and mendacity are not appropriate character traits of those who wish to be part of the world economic community. As Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post pointed out the lie that the American’s caused the plane collision “is a reflexive act of pride and pride is driving force for [the Chinese President] Jiang as he draws an even clearer line in the sand for Bush.” Trade may have restrained China’s hand, but the PRC is still intent on politically dominating the Pacific region.

Now that the American crewmen rest comfortably on American soil, the PRC government, particularly the Chinese military whose incompetence and intransigence was the cause of the aircraft collision and protracted detention of 24 Americans, needs to learn there are importance consequences to unlawful behavior. A price needs to be extracted so that similar actions by the Chinese in the future are discouraged. However, using trade as a weapon may be counterproductive, harming the Chinese people as opposed to the Chinese government. We want to drive a wedge between the Chinese people and their government, not push them together in common cause.

First, Americans should resume reconnaissance flights along the same flight paths they previously used. At least in the near future, we should devote the resources necessary to accompany to the aircraft with fighter escorts. The Chinese should be warned they within a mile of these reconnaissance it will be considered an attack on the plane and defensive action will be taken. The right to fly in international airspace needs to be asserted if it is to be maintained. International bullies should not be accommodated.

Secondly, the US needs to sell Aegis cruisers to the Taiwanese. The anti-missile defenses of the ships will partially offset the buildup in southern China of missiles capable of reaching Taiwan. Moreover, it must be privately made clear to the Chinese that the decision to make the sale was cemented by their illegal actions.

Globalization has made the world safer. However, the world is not yet given over entirely to commercialization. Sometimes more traditional responses remain necessary.

Posted in Economics, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Dangerous Redistricting

April 8th, 2001

The year after the decadal census is always an interesting political one with many opportunities for mischief. The growth and redistribution of population necessitates the redrawing of Congressional districts. The party that controls a state legislature has an important chance to cleverly redraw Congressional districts for its own political advantage. By concentrating areas that strongly vote for the opposition party into a relatively few districts where the opposition party can win by large margins, a party can create a larger number of districts where they can win with more modest margins. The party in control of the state legislature can thus increase the likelihood of gaining seats for itself in their Congressional delegation.

Of course, the courts constrain the shape of the Congressional districts from getting too ridiculously far out of control. Nonetheless, Republicans have gained control of more state legislatures and stand to gain a few seats in Congress simply by virtue of redistricting. Some analysts have suggested that Republicans could add 10-15 seats this year.

However, in a less well-known way, Democrats and Republicans have conspired to draw districts that create greater Republican, yes Republican, representation in Congress. The key to understanding how this is possible lies in appreciating the conviction by many African-Americans that the best way for black candidates to win is by creating districts where blacks constitute a majority. Since blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and whites tend to be more divided, any majority-black districts will likely vote heavily for Democrats. African-American Democrats insist that the Democratic Party help them create such majority-black districts. Unfortunately, Republicans are all too happy to oblige.

The indirect consequence is to thin out Democratic votes from neighboring adjacent districts. This improves the chances for Republicans in the remaining districts. Despite the fact that Democrats used to exercise greater influence in district drawing, Republicans have a disproportionate number of seats.

The effect can be seen in the relative proportion of votes Republicans receive versus the proportion of Congressional seats won. In 1998, the last election I was able to conveniently find the statistics for, Republicans won 31,983,627 popular votes versus 31,255,470 for the Democratic candidates in Congressional elections. In other words, Republicans won 50.58% of the votes casts versus 49.42% for Democrats.

However, in 1998 Republicans won 225 versus 210 Congressional seats. If Congressional seats were won in proportion to the popular vote, Republicans would have five fewer seats. If you go through the numbers, this is far more deviation than could be explained by statistical fluctuation. The districts are drawn to both give Republicans and black Democrats more seats.

The concentration of Democratic voters in fewer districts is even more obvious in uncontested elections. There were 96 uncontested Congressional elections in 1998 and 60% of these were in Democratic districts. Democrats, in essence, squandered their votes in places were they did not really need to win by such large majorities. Florida represented a particularly egregious case. In 1998, 16 of 21 Congressional races were uncontested.

The other unintended consequence of this redistricting is that the parties become more polarized. When many Congressional districts are competitive, representatives are forced to be more moderate and to accommodate factions within their own district. When districts are either strongly Republican or strongly Democratic, extremes in both parties hold more sway. Moreover, this process insures black representatives will almost always be Democrats. This is unhealthy, unhealthy for both Republicans and African Americans.

Given Republican control of state legislatures and the continual insistence by Democrats on majority black districts, Republican chances to hold a very split Congress should improve. However, not everything that helps Republicans is a good thing.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Racial Profiling in College Admissions

April 1st, 2001

`But let someone actually advocate a prohibition against considering the color of our skin, and we know at once that we’re hearing the words of an enemy — either a white racist or a black sellout.” — William Raspberry, columnist for the Washington Post, March 30, 2001.

Statistical correlation is a valuable thing, but when we start to apply statistical generalizations to individuals, a mathematical calculation can turn pernicious. This is certainly true in the case of racial profiling, where law enforcement officers single people out for scrutiny on the basis of skin color. Even if there is a real correlation between race and ethnicity and likelihood of crime, it is immoral to leap to the presumption that a person of a certain group has particular characteristics. Unless people are judged on how they act and what they do as opposed to membership in an ethnic or racial group their humanity is ignored.

Assumptions lurking behind the use of racial profile float over the different but intimately linked issue of racial preferences in college admissions. Both seek to classify using race on the grounds that skin color is associated with other characteristics. Recently, United States District Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the Eastern Division of Michigan ruled that the use of race in the admissions process at the University of Michigan Law School “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The court further ordered relief to plaintiff Barbara Grutter who had been denied admission to the law school.

The case, which will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court, is particularly interesting since many of the arguments in favor of using preferential treatment based on race were adjudicated and found wanting.

In the Bakke decision, the US Supreme Court hinted that if race were just one factor in the admissions process, essentially breaking ties in close decisions, it might be constitutionally permissible, even given the “strict scrutiny” the Court applies to considerations of race by the state.

Evidence presented at trial provided, in the view of the judge, “mathematically irrefutable proof that race is indeed an enormously important factor” for admissions at the University of Michigan’s Law School. Statisticians found that minority applicants with similar credentials were far more likely to be admitted than similarly situated white students. “For example if a Caucasian applicant has a 6-7% chance of being admitted, an African-American with a similar index score would have a 93% chance of being admitted. If a Caucasian applicant has a 10% chance of being admitted, a Mexican-American applicant with a similar index score would have a 90% chance of being admitted.”

The evidence is so overwhelming that no one can really believe that race is merely one of many factors used in admissions. Even the statistician for the University of Michigan admitted that if color-blind admissions were used, African-Africans would constitute 4% instead of 10-17% of the entering classes. One can argue that there are valid reasons for weighting race so heavily, but it is not honest to argue that race is not a definitive factor in admissions.

The judge found that the effect of the University of Michigan’s admissions policy was indistinguishable from a formal quota system.

The University of Michigan Law School argued that “diversity” in the classroom was an educational value. By admitting a “critical mass” of minority students, the defendants argued, the law school insured a diversity of ideas in the classroom.

Judge Friedman was uncomfortable with the generalization that different ideas are associated with race. Friedman wrote, “[A] distinction should be draw between viewpoint diversity and racial diversity. While the educational benefits of the former are clear, those of the latter are less so. The connection between race and viewpoint is tenuous, at best.”

Indeed, the former dean of the law school admitted that, “I cannot recall an instance in which, for example, ideas were presented by a black student that have not also been expressed by white students.”

To argue that we can presume that people of a different color will have different viewpoints is to engage in the same type of stereotyping that should have expired decades ago.

Few involved in the admissions process at many universities really believe that race plays a minor factor in admissions or that viewpoint diversity is the real goal. The hidden, but by no means ignoble, truth is that the Liberal attitude, so pervasive on college campuses, worships at the altar of equal outcomes. Liberals believe that unless outcomes are equal, society is unfair or racist and that the state is justified in taking extreme steps to alleviate the disproportionately low representation of minorities. But to clearly express this view and not hide behind the diversity argument or the fiction that race plays only a minor role in admissions would be to acknowledge the unconstitutionality of their remedy.

William Raspberry, a Liberal African-American, sympathetic with preferential treatment in the admissions process, admits as much when he laments, “…we are required to dance on legal and definitional pinheads to defend policies we believe ought to be sustained for at least a while.”

The other sad truth is that some conservatives who rail against affirmative action do not demonstrate similar concern for persistent under-representation of minorities. As Raspberry complains, “…we want the rest of Americans to desire — really desire — fair outcomes.”

Efforts to alleviate the problems of minorities will not succeed if the primary modality of the solution starts at college admissions or at the time people apply for jobs. Our job collectively via government action and through individual and private efforts is to nurture those institutions, schools, churches, and families that will ultimately provide the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual resources necessary for success. As long as minorities are given preferential treatment and as long as they believe they cannot compete with out it, they will be relegated to second-class status.

Posted in Law, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Maestro

March 25th, 2001

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else.” — John Maynard Keynes.

Bob Woodward set for himself a rather difficult task. In his book, Maestro, he attempts to paint a heroic portrait of a purposefully ambiguous Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. Although Woodward does a competent job of explaining some of the more Byzantine aspects of the operations of the Federal Reserve, his effort falls too often into hagiography. Even if one accepts the portrayal of Greenspan as a maestro beautifully and skillfully conducting the orchestra of the economy, one has to be concerned about any system so critically dependent upon having a rare expert.

The primary obligation of the Federal Reserve Board seems straight forward enough: Increase the money supply at the same rate that wealth is created in the economy. Create too much money and too many dollars will chase too few goods and inflation results. Inflation adds noise to economic transactions and calculations making the economy less efficient. In the long run, inflation suppresses real economic growth. Miscalculate on the other side and the country experiences deflation and possible recession.

Unfortunately, measuring the money supply is problematic. With various monetary instruments from currency, to bank deposits, to deposits in mutual funds, defining and quantifying the monetary supply has become more and more difficult.

The Federal Reserve Board also relies on indirect measures to divine the present and future states of the economy. If prices start to increase, or growth appears to be unsustainably fast, or unemployment becomes low enough to increase rapidly wage rates, then the Board may indirectly infer that the money supply has grown too large and raise interest rates. The entire effort is complicated by the fact that the actions to increase or decrease the money supply can take months to affect the economy. Therefore, the Federal Reserve Board must attempt to anticipate the future and act proactively.

Greenspan has been the Federal Reserve Chairman since 1987. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to replace Paul Volcker. Volcker was not a very popular character. He had the unenviable task of driving interest rates to 19% in a painful but successful effort to wring double-digit inflation and inflationary expectations from the economy.

Perhaps Greenspan’s initial luck was not that much better than Volcker’s. His tenure began just before the stock market experienced a precipitous 20% drop in 1987. Greenspan wanted to comfort the markets without loosing monetary discipline. Greenspan responded with the vague but reassuring statement, that the Federal Reserve was prepared to insure that there was no liquidity shortage in the economy. The country survived this 1987 stock market drop and in a few short years, the market exploded upward much further than in it had been in October 1987.

The only recession during Greenspan’s tenure, thus far, occurred after the energy price increases during the Gulf War. The Bush Administration, pled, begged, and even tried to berate the Federal Reserve into loosening the money supply. To this day, George Bush (41) believes that Greenspan cost him the 1992 election.

As Woodward points out, the first Bush Administration made two important strategic errors. The first was to publicly pressure the Federal Reserve to ease interest rates. Always sensitive to maintaining not only the independence but also the appearance of independence of the Board, Greenspan was less inclined to reduce rates when he might appear to be doing so in response to political pressure.

Bush’s second mistake was to not take the political initiative in explaining the economic recovery. The economy had been actually recovering from 1991 on. The unemployment rate was still high, but unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy. Bush appeared detached and was not successful in conveying his concern for those the economy had not yet helped. It was Bush’s political failings more than Greenspan’s monetary policy that caused his defeat to Clinton in 1992.

According to Woodward, Bill Clinton avoided both mistakes. Clinton’s most important political asset was his ability, sincere or not, to invoke the sense that he empathized with those who were suffering. He “felt their pain.” Perhaps most importantly Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin knew Greenspan well and was savvy enough not to lobby publicly Greenspan for specific actions. Greenspan’s policies managed to insure robust economic growth in 1996, the presidential election year, and helped ease Bill Clinton into a second term.

Nonetheless, in the mid-1990s, budget projections clearly showed Federal budget deficits of $200 billion indefinitely in the future. The unemployment rate was a little under 6%, about as far down as it could go, so the conventional wisdom had it, without triggering inflation. The Federal Reserve was prepared to keep the economy from overheating. Such actions would have likely killed the growth of the late 1990s that obliterated the budget deficit and plunged unemployment rates to 4%.

Woodward explains that Greenspan was intrigued with apparent contradictions in the economic numbers. On the one hand, conventional measurements suggested that productivity, output per worker, was growing only slowly. On the other hand, profits were going up, wages were not increasing rapidly and there were no signs of inflation. Greenspan’s conclusion was that computers and communications advances were increasing worker productivity in ways that were not being measured.

Others favored this same hypothesis. It was not novel, but it was controversial. Important economists did not subscribe to the argument that productivity was really increasing. The prominent Liberal economist Paul Krugman of Stanford University ridiculed other economists who suggested that higher growth rates could be sustained by increases in productivity. Krugman believed that, “…the so-called revolutions in management, information technology and globalization are vastly overrated by their acolytes.”

It is an interesting irony that Greenspan, former member of Ayn Rand’s inner circle, was leaning toward looser monetary policy, while Liberal economists were not so sanguine about the rapid growth in the economy.

In any case, Greenspan’s skill and fortune may be running up against an inevitable recession. At present, the economy is struggling at near zero growth rates. This last week, the Federal Reserve decreased interest rates by 0.5%. If the reaction of the stock market is a measure, the reduction is too small and too late to avoid a recession. We shall see in the next year, whether the Maestro will be able to cajole one more virtuoso performance from the economy.

Posted in Economics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

International Speech Codes and the Internet

March 18th, 2001

To say that the Germans have had a history of problems with Nazis and the fascist worldview ranks as a colossal understatement. Surely, there is no country with a greater justifiable reason to separate itself from this dangerous and ugly part of its past. Despite American free speech sensibilities, it is difficult to criticize the efforts of modem Germany to use the law to suppress, within their own borders, Nazi symbols and sentiment.

Nonetheless, a recent action by the Bundesgerichtshof, the highest German civil court, should concern those who view the Internet as an important medium for free and unfettered speech. The German court recently convicted Frederick Toben of publicly denying the historical reality of the Holocaust. Of course, Toben’s claim is despicable and false, but it also came from Toben’s web site in Australia not in Germany. The German court claimed jurisdiction over web sites outside its borders so long as Germans had access to the site.

Perhaps this should not concern us too much since Toben is being prosecuted in Germany. If you don’t like German laws, just do not visit Germany. Then what should be done about Yahoo’s predicament? Yahoo is a multinational company. They have spun off web enterprises in different countries. There is a Yahoo France, Yahoo Italy, and even a Yahoo Argentina that use French, Italian, and Spanish as their base languages, respectfully. These locally-based divisions are ready to comply with local law and avoid tweaking local sensibilities.

French law prohibits the sale of Nazi memorabilia. The International League Against Racism and the Union of French Students successfully persuaded French Judge Jean-Jacques Gomez to enjoin Yahoo against the auctioning of such material at its web site. Yahoo’s French division was already in compliance with the French law in this regard. The United States-based Yahoo had not yet implemented such restrictions in its auction area. In essence, the French arm of the law was reaching across the Atlantic to enforce its regulations on a US-based web site. It was attempting to enforce a law that would, if issued by a United States jurisdiction, violate the First Amendment.

The US Yahoo has since disallowed the sale of Nazi memorabilia on its auction site as a matter of company policy. It has also asked a US federal judge to issue a declaratory judgment to render the French Judge Gomez’s verdict unenforceable in the United States. If French speech codes are enforceable against United States web sites, US citizens no longer have the choice to simply not visit France to avoid French law. French law could constrain American web sites.

The entire issue of international enforcement of speech codes is becoming complicated with improvements in Internet technology. It is becoming possible to resolve the location of IP addresses to different countries, states, and even towns. The positive side of this new technology is that it allows web sites to provide content that is tailored to the location of the user. A web site can automatically provide content in the appropriate language and provide news information on local topics.

Such technology also allows sites to refuse to provide material to certain areas. Web sites could become indirect agents of foreign governments precluding access to residents of certain jurisdictions.

In the future, might the United States Yahoo, be required to block content from IP addresses from France, even when there is no US law prohibiting certain content? In the future, could Tennessee, with stricter pornography laws, sue to prevent California-based web sites from providing California-allowed content to IP addresses originating from Tennessee? Will Dr. Laura’s web site be required to limit access to certain areas by politically correct jurisdictions that find her moral views objectionable? Will the foreign divisions of multi-national corporations be held hostages, lest the web sites hosted on American soil post information uncomfortable for foreign magistrates?

What about e-mail? Can the originator of e-mail in the US be held liable for violating local speech codes for mail sent to another country? To what extent will foreign countries be able to invoke extradition treaties or civil penalties to enforce their local laws on Americans?

The recent conventional wisdom has been that George Orwell’s vision in 1984 was incorrect. Rather than computer and communications technology acting as agents for surveillance by the state, they empower individuals to market their ideas across the world unencumbered by the state. Perhaps as Internet technology matures, conventional wisdom will grow to conform the Orwell’s more frightening and chilling predictions.

Posted in Law, Social Commentary | No Comments »

In the Beginning

March 11th, 2001

[Editor’s Note: Time passes by quickly. It has been three years since Tony Glaros wrote a column in the Laurel Leader, a local paper in suburban Maryland. Glaros enjoyed lunch with the pastor of the Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church at a well-like local restaurant, Red Hot and Blue. The two discussed the Biblical description of the origin of the universe and of life and its relationship to scientific inquiry. As a consequence of that discussion, Glaros was motivated to write, “Maybe I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.” I took the liberty of responding to that column in a letter to the editor. That response can also be found in the form of an article entitled, “Better Places to Discuss the Origin of the Universe.” I urge readers to check out that link before proceeding. A little while ago I received an extensive e-mail from Rick Petersen, critiquing the essay. With his kind permission, I reproduce Rick Petersen’s e-mail below. My response follows further below. As usual all readers are invited and encouraged to contribute. — FMM]

Rick Petersen’s E-mail:

Dear Frank,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond to your comments regarding the article in the Laurel Leader concerning the meeting with Pastor Skip Dusenbury.

I don’t know if you’re a Christian or not, so this makes the arguing difficult. As a physicist, I am sure that you can accept well thought out science that follows the scientific method. In this vein, I challenge you to prove that evolution, much less, the old age of the Earth can be proven to be scientific fact using the scientific method. It does not follow from the scientific method. At best, these thoughts can only be thought of as theories.

As a Christian, there are a few things that have been overlooked by many Christian theologians to try to resolve the antithesis of evolution and the inerrancy of Scripture. First, either the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, or it is nothing. For if there are any errors in it, then who can say what is God’s Word and what isn’t. As liberal theologians have tried to discern what is and isn’t God’s Word, they have become lost in a world of relativism rather than the objective truth of God’s world. Second, there is a real problem with evolution and the Bible. If evolution is true, then the Fall is a lie! For the curse of the Fall was death (Gen 2:16-17, 3:19), but if evolution is true, then death already existed. (Note: by evolution, I mean macro-evolution). Again, this makes the Bible nothing but a bunch of empty words with morals.

I believe that the Word, the Bible, is inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit (I Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correcting, for training in righteousness.”). The God of the Bible is one who is omnipotent and omniscient. With this all powerful and all-knowing God, it is a small matter to have his Holy Spirit inspire men to write truth, even with the personalities of the writer showing through. Having said all this, the take-away is that the Bible doesn’t have to fit science; rather, science has to fit the Bible. Sometimes the problem may be a poor or wrong interpretation of Scripture, but if it does not agree, then science must be wrong.

Your comments regarding Skip Dusenbury and, I am sure your thinking is same for all other like-minded Christians, is that we are ignorant and not well learned. Most Christians that I know that believe in Creation came out of homes that believed Evolution. I know I did; in fact my parents and I still disagree. Most of us have had to wrestle with the differences and come to sound Biblical conclusions. The problem with most evolutionists, that I know, is that they are not well read on Creation because they do not feel threatened with the God of the Bible. To accept the God of the Bible and his inerrant Word would mean to have to change their thinking, to go against the norm.

The issues that you brought up in your paper regarding the speed of light and the age of fossils/dinosaurs are good arguments; I should know, I relied upon them for a long time. The easy answer to the speed of light is the “appearance of age,” and it may very well be correct since Adam was created with full maturity (i.e., the appearance of age). However, there are some excellent theories being proposed by excellent physicists that may be able to explain the appearance of age when the whole universe was created by God at the same time, yet with light reaching to us now, millions of years later. I have found one book, Starlight and Time , to be an excellent theory for this explanation. The author is also a physicist with a Ph.D. who uses Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to explain this creation.

As for the fossil record, I have a couple of thoughts to pass by you: 1) Can you explain why there are inconsistencies in the “fossil record” such as inversions in the layers and also how a fossilized tree that has been fossilized for millions of years can go through multiple strata? 2) Is the environment and in the Earth the same as it always has been? Is it possible that there were radical changes that would make our assumptions on dating methods in gross error?

You also asserted the need to visit the Smithsonian Institute to see the fossil record and how it “shows clear and systematic change in the types and complexity of species.” Again, as has always been the problem with the fossil record, it shows greater variation of species, but fills none of the gaps required for macro-evolution.

Another interesting thought is how the current theories of evolution and the beginning of the universe can violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, everything left to itself would run down and go from order to chaos. If this is true, then how can evolution work? Wouldn’t everything get worse? Wouldn’t the gene pool continue to worsen over time such that species would die rather than be created? At the same time, I have always thought it interesting that the examples I was given in school of current evolution show degradation from more complex to simpler. Evolutionists claim that mutations are the way that new species are made, yet when pressed, they cannot give an example of a good mutation, except perhaps Sickle Cell Anemia(?).

You made the following statement: “History is full of important Jewish scientists in western countries. Einstein is the most well known. Atheists in the former in Soviet Union and members of other non-Christian religions have made profound scientific contributions.” This is an unsound argument. What is their science originally based upon? The God of the Bible. I would expect Jews to share much of the same doctrine of unchanging scientific laws. As for atheists, their science was based upon what came out of the Renaissance and Reformation. These people had a clear understanding of God’s sovereignty and control of nature. It is their understanding of the God of the Bible that allowed them to surpass the more advanced technology in the Far and Middle East. It is only since Man’s turning his back on God’s revealed Word that shows how ignorant and foolish he can become. (Romans 1:22-23 “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”)

In your article you mention the Hubble telescope to look at the universe — I agree! What a wonder!! The universe clearly shows the handiwork of a Creator, not the hit or miss chance coming from chaos (Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”) also (Psalm 19:1 “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of his hands.”)

In conclusion, I ask you the same question that Pilate asked Christ, “What is truth?” And which takes more faith, the probability of an orderly creation arising out of chaos, or a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and holy who has left us the proof us who he is in his Word, the Bible, and in creation? (I Peter 4:19 “Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.”)

I also just wanted to pass on a couple of comments — Pastor Dusenbury is my pastor; I did not want to say this at first because I wanted you to be more open to what I have to say. Skip is a wonderful pastor and a great friend. He is well learned and takes his faith seriously. Also, my intent here was to defend the Word of God. I hope that you will read this whole letter and mull it over. Read the Bible yourself, if you haven’t, read literature on creationism, especially Starlight and Time. I hope that you would consider even visiting our church, Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church, or at least some other Bible-believing church. Most of all, if you are not a Christian, I pray for your salvation.

Rick Petersen

Response to Rick Petersen

Dear Rick,

Let me first thank you for your sincere letter. Such letters deserve equally well thought out replies. I chose to respond, with your permission, in this forum because I believe others would not only profit from the discussion, but might feel motivated to contribute.

Rick you began your letter with a challenge “to prove that evolution, much less, the old age of the Earth can be proven as a scientific fact using the scientific method.” At best you suggest that evolution and the proposition that the Earth is far older than a few thousand years are “theories.” Your challenge, however, begs the question as to what would constitute a “proof” to you and what is the status of theories.

One method of proof is by deduction. Begin with a few commonly assumed postulates and use deductive logic to “prove” the necessary consequences of the postulates. This form of proof is common in mathematics.

The scientific method is both deductive and inductive. It certainly relies on commonly held assumptions. It assumes that the universe is understandable. To embark in scientific inquiry requires a faith, yes a faith, that there is no malicious force deliberately making the universe unintelligible. There would be, for example, no way to disprove the assertion that the universe was created from nothing moments ago, complete with evidence and memories of its previous existence. However, that would violate the assumptions behind the scientific method. The general acceptance of the scientific method by different cultures derives not only from its success at explaining the universe, but in also making predictions. For example, the theory of universal gravitation can predict accurately when the next solar eclipse will occur.

The scientific method assumes that the rules by which the universe works apply not only here but also elsewhere in the universe and at other times. This is a common faith we virtually all hold. For example, flying on a plane invokes apprehension among some, but the concern generally involves the failure of equipment or of human error. No one fears that suddenly the physics of aerodynamics will change, making air flight impossible. Indeed when you sent me your e-mail, Rick, you probably exhibited the same faith. I am sure that no doubt crossed your mind that the quantum mechanics that explains the operation of the semiconductors in your computer would change. You had no fear that the electrodynamics describing the propagation of electrical (or optical) signals along the Internet would cease to work. In a real sense, we all share this faith.

Science begins with observations either in the laboratory or of the outside world. From these observations, we make generalizations about the operation of the universe. This is the process of induction. If these generalizations continue to hold and if we are able to make accurate predictions then we have comprehensive theories. Some important theories are the theory of gravitation or of relativity. After we become comfortable with theories, they are sometimes called laws. You use the term theory with respect to evolution as if it were a pejorative, as if theory meant only a guess without serious support. Rather in this context, the word theory implies a set of generalizations that have great explanatory value.

Nonetheless, in reality evolution is less a theory and than an observation. There has been a progressive alteration over time in the types and complexity of species. This is an observation. There are competing explanations; variations on the process of natural selection or genetic drift, that are debated by scientists, but serious working scientists treat evolution as an observation. You are welcome to travel to the Natural History Museum in Washington, DC and make the same observations yourself. [1] If you are concerned with the direct observation of mutations, I direct you to the scientific literature where scientists tract mutations in bacteria on a regular basis.

Carbon dating, counting tree rings, and radioactive dating are internally consistent with the dating of the fossil evidence. Sure there is the possibility of error and the Earth has undergone radical changes, but these could not induce the gross errors necessary to create an Earth that is thousands of years old rather than billions. Science by it nature is provisional, always open to new evidence. However, to assert a universe that is extremely young is inconsistent not only with fossil evidence but with the same physics of solar and planetary evolution that control the internal workings of your hand calculator. If your hand calculator works, the universe is old. [2]

In my previous article, I explained that the observation of background radiation from space is in essence a snapshot of the “Big Bang.” We are directly observing the Big Bang. You neglected to address this direct evidence, but you took issue with my explanation that the age of the universe is verified by light from stars that are billions of light years away. You suggest that perhaps there is only the “appearance” that we are receiving light from distance stars.

Arguments I have seen along this line suggest that the speed of light is increasing and hence the stars are not nearly so far away. However, the data from those individuals who make this argument is carefully selected to exclude contradictory data. In the time since we have been making extremely precise measurements of the speed of light there has not been a variation consistent with a significant increase of the speed of light. Even rather large changes in the speed of light would be insufficient to change the age of the universe from billions of years to thousands of years. It would require the speed of light to at one time have been the speed of a human sprinter. [3]

Finally you invoke the second law of thermodynamics: that things run from order to chaos. You ask how could organisms evolve to greater complexity if the universe tends to less order? You, however, neglected to state the second law of thermodynamics in its entirety. “Closed” systems tend to disorder. If you add and subtract energy from a system, order can increase. The Earth is an open system that is being pumped with energy from the Sun. The second law of thermodynamics does not preclude evolution. [4]

In her recent book Galileo’s Daughter, Dava Sobel recounts the story of Galileo’s career and his persecution by the Catholic Church. Galileo was forced into house arrest for suggesting that perhaps Copernicus was correct and the Earth revolved around the Sun. To some people this contradicted Biblical passages about the sun moving across the sky.

The story is complex, but in reality Galileo’s persecution did not revolve (no pun intended) about scientific questions. Copernicus’s new description of the universe came at the time of the Protestant Revolution. Punishing Galileo was more an assertion of authority over Biblical interpretation than adjudication of scientific question. The Catholic Church has belated recognized its error. Indeed the modern Catholic Church has no problem embracing both a Copernican solar system or evolution. Surely, no one believes that Pope Paul II has a liberal theology with regard to faith and morals. But his Biblical understanding does not attempt to transform Scriptures into a scientific text.

Let me suggest that in an era of moral relativism, many people cling to the Bible so tightly they inadvertently force it into inappropriate roles. You yourself quote I Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correcting, for training in righteousness.” So be it. However, to assert that Scriptures also represent a scientific treatise, more than Scripture themselves claim to be, appears somewhat presumptuous.

Galileo believed that God revealed himself both in Scripture and in the Universe. Allow me to respectfully suggest that if God’s revelation in the Bible seems inconsistent with God’s revelation in the Universe, then it is not the Bible nor Universe that are in contradiction. Rather is it the theory of Biblical interpretation that is inadequate.

I believe the argument is not between the God and the Godless, but between different modes of Biblical interpretation. To try to make the Bible a science text book is, in my view, to unintentionally diminish its real stature and authority. Such an approach appears to violate the Biblical prescription to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s and unto God the things which be God’s.” (Luke 20:25)

Regards,
Frank Monaldo

  1. “Evolution is a Fact and a Theory,” Laurence Moran.
  2. “The Age of the Earth,” Chris Stassen.
  3. “The Decay of c-Decay,” Robert P. J. Day.
  4. “The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability.” Frank Steiger.

Posted in Social Commentary | No Comments »

Yawn

March 4th, 2001

“Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing… You can’t lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they have betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them.” — Bob Herbert, Liberal columnist for the New York Times, February 26, 2001.

Yawn… It is difficult to once again become outraged about former President Bill Clinton’s recent pardons. Perhaps I am just as spent as an elderly fire horse too old to respond just once more as a Clinton scandal rings the fire bell.

The pardon power is, and ought to be, part of the unfettered discretion of a chief executive. Pardon decisions must rely on the judgment of the executive. Elect an executive with a well-tuned conscience supported by a strong ethical base and you will reap gracious, thoughtful, and merciful pardons. Elect a different type of executive and you will be disappointed. Where’s the news? What did you expect? What did Bob Herbert and other Democrats think would happen if they, by their previous unflinching support, allowed Clinton to believe he was immune from the ethical constraints others must respect? It is hard to muster sympathy for the enablers.

Of course, there remain some Conservatives and Republicans who are not as spent as I am and are willing to pursue this scandal. But for me, interest requires something new or unexpected and so I grow bored. The trajectory of a Clinton scandal is so utterly predictable. We have lived through so many of them that it is now possible to generalize about Clinton scandal ballistics.

First, everyone is upset, even Democratic allies of Clinton. Second, Clinton supporters search for parallels, no matter how contrived or strained, of similar behavior by previous presidents. This strategy is designed to raise Clinton’s relative stature by dragging down the reputations of other occupants of the Oval Office. Third, Clinton supporters will give up defending Clinton’s behavior and claim that at least no law was broken. Or if a law was broken it’s not really important enough to punish the President in light of his progressive policies.

At the end, we are left with the distasteful notion that our only expectation of a president is that he remains in hyper-technical compliance with the law. Ethical or even respectable behavior is too much to expect. Or worse, we are saddled with the proposition that we can even ignore violations of the law if on balance we like a president. Relying on the phraseology of former Senator Patrick Moynihan, we will have “defined deviancy down.” But this is sad, old news. The latest pardon scandal is just one more example. Why get excited?

The only intriguing aspect of this latest episode is that since Bill Clinton is out of power, many of his former allies have miraculously transformed into his most vocal critics. Representatives Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, Senator Paul Welstone, and former President Jimmy Carter have all expressed chagrin and disappointment in Clinton’s pardons.

It is now clear that much of the defense of Clinton by Democrats during his term was his motivated by two feelings. The first is the principle that the enemy of my friend is my enemy. If Conservative Republicans were criticizing Clinton, there is a Pavlovian response among Democrats to defend Clinton. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the political prospects of Clinton were linked inextricably to Democrats in general. If Clinton went down in disgrace, all Democrats were likely to suffer in the polls. This was not an idle concern for Democrats. Political catastrophe was the punishment meted out to Republicans in the wake of the resignation of President Richard Nixon in disgrace. Guilt by association is not fair, but it often occurs in politics.

To some extent, Democrats have already paid a price for Clinton’s behavior. Al Gore lost the presidential election. With economic prosperity and relative peace abroad, but for the anvil of Clinton’s ethical problems dragging Gore down, Gore would have won by 10 percentage points. In the lament of Bob Herbert:

“[Clinton] has been president for eight years and the bottom line is this: For the first time in nearly half a century, the Republican Party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress.”

Perhaps part of the current venomousness by Democrats reserved for Clinton’s pardons represents pent up anger with Clinton. Democrats are exasperated at the Faustian bargain they accepted: Defend indefensible behavior by Clinton in order to rescue personal political fortunes. Now that Clinton’s political popularity is not so directly tied to other Democrats, their vision has considerably improved. No longer blinded by political ambition, it is now painfully clear to even highly partisan Democrats that the emperor has no clothes.

Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

From Bakke to Atkinson

February 25th, 2001

“The consideration of race as a measure of an applicant’s qualification normally introduces a capricious and irrelevant factor working an invidious discrimination. Once race is a starting point educators and courts are immediately embroiled in competing claims of different racial and ethnic groups that would make difficult manageable standards consistent with the Equal Protection Clause.” — Justice William Douglas, DeFunis v. Odegaard, 1974.

“Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” — Justice Harlan Stone, Hirabayashi v. US , 1943.

The University of California System perpetually finds itself at the center of affirmative action controversies in college admissions. This is no accident. In 1973, Alan Bakke applied for admission to the University of California, Davis Medical School. The medical school had 100 positions available for incoming students. Of these, the medical school reserved 16 for minority applicants. Alan Bakke demonstrated that he had test scores and an academic record superior to minority students that had been admitted under the special program.

Bakke sued. The case worked its way up through the courts. In 1978, the US Supreme Court found that since race was the only reason that Bakke had been excluded from the special program, the University of California violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The Court did, however, leave open the possibility that race might still be considered as one factor in the admissions process. In particular, “race or ethnic background may be deemed a `plus’ in a particular applicant’s file, [so long as the applicant’s race] does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats.”

The University of California System nonetheless seems intent upon making sure that the college admissions process yields the appropriate number of students in different racial and ethnic groups. Seizing upon the wording of the Bakke decision, the University of California employed race and ethnicity as one additional factor in admissions. If race and ethnicity had remained a modest consideration only playing a part in borderline cases, splitting the difference between students with similar credentials, the policy might have continued indefinitely. However, this additional factor turned out in many cases to be a definitive one. At the University of California at Berkeley there was a time when the mean SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores between black and white students was 200 points out of a possible 1600. Since Asian-American students were statistically over-represented, they faced even higher barriers than whites did for admission.

Because of such abuse of discretion, the sense of justice among California citizens eventually caught up with the University of California. In November 1996, Californians passed Proposition 209, which read in part:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

The Supreme Court granted the University of California the discretion to consider race, the citizens of California suffering under its abusive use terminated the discretion.

University of California President Richard Atkinson is now proposing to eliminate SATs as an admissions criterion in favor of a more “holistic” evaluation of applicants. Part of the problem with the test, according to Atkinson, is that is serves as a barrier to access for minority students. Atkinson talks of using SAT achievement tests (SAT IIs) as a partial substitute. This is disingenuous given that such achievement tests would favor students with access to more rigorous curricula, most commonly more affluent students.

No one believes that SAT tests or any other test is a means to completely and solely evaluate potential students. Any school that looks solely at SAT scores or scores from similar tests does itself a disservice. SAT tests cannot measure dedication, assiduousness, motivation and other character traits important in making maximum use of a college education. SAT scores do not measure musical or athletic achievement, which may be an important part of a student’s contribution to a school.

Nonetheless, elimination of the SAT test throws away important information. According to comparisons of SAT scores and college grades, SAT scores forecast approximately 25% of the college academic performance of students. High school grades and ranking, taken together, have about the same predictive value as the SAT. Standardized test scores and high school academic achievement are the best predictors of college success.1,2 Even with these measures, student performance cannot be completely forecast. It would, therefore, be unwise to dismiss the important information provided by SATs. More information, not less is required.

Ironically abandoning the SAT test may hurt minority students. Although, minority students have on average lower scores than white applicants, statistics from the College Board suggest that SAT tests actually overpredict minority performance in college. If other criteria could more accurately predict college performance, access for minority students could be reduced.

The likely reason that Atkinson is really proposing to eliminate SAT scores is to muddy the college admissions process with so much arbitrary discretion that Atkinson will be able to implement a covert racial spoils system. It would be very difficult to go to court and argue that any particular student has been arbitrarily treated if the judgment criteria are undecipherable or amorphous. The absence of clear standards hides racial or ethnic discrimination and allows it to survive scrutiny. If one really wants to have an effect on minority access to college education, the emphasis must be on the front end, in young childhood. Squandering efforts in the college admissions process by stacking the system merely covers a much larger wound with a tiny Band-Aid and ultimately does a disservice to those who preferential treatment is meant to help.

  1. Bridgeman, Brent, Laura McCamley-Jenkins, and Nancy Ervin, “Predictions of Freshman Grade Point Average from the Revised and Recentered SAT I: Reasoning Test,” College Board Research Report No. 2000-1. ETS RR No. 00-1, College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
  2. Wightman, Linda F., “Standardized Testing and Equal Access: A Tutorial,” Book Chapter in Compelling Interest , Eds: Mitchell Chang, Daira Witt, James Jones, Kenji Hakuta, sponsored by the American Educational Research Association and Standard University Center fro Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, in press.

Posted in Law, Politics | No Comments »

Be Not Afraid

February 18th, 2001

To those that knew him well, John Bradley was a middle-American citizen whose soft hues seemed reminiscent of a Norman Rockwell painting. He spent the bulk of his life quietly raising his family, running a modest business in Wisconsin, and eschewing opportunities for attention and rewards, while earning the respect of his community. In an age that worships celebrity, it is hard to appreciate those who value achievement over self-aggrandizement.

Yet John Bradley was briefly a celebrity. The fact that few now recognize his name is a testament to how steadily and assiduously he worked at maintaining a conventional life. John Bradley was a medical corpsman in the Navy who was one of the six soldiers that raised the flag atop Mount Suribachi on the small volcanic island of Iwo Jima during the World War II. A photograph of the marines and corpsman tilting the flag into place instantly became a national symbol of courage and honor. Only three of six in the photograph survived the next few days. The US Government retrieved the three remaining “heroes” and used them to promote a seventh war bond campaign. Nonetheless, Bradley and the other survivors viewed the fellow Marines who were killed as the true heroes of Iwo Jima.

It is hard to imagine the courage, fortitude, and devotion that motivated the marines that captured Iwo Jima. Despite incredible losses, these men moved day-after-day rooting out an equally determined enemy who would rather die than surrender. It was a time when “uncommon valor was a common virtue.” The accidents of history asked much of what has been called the “Greatest Generation” and they responded.

It would be foolish to seek economic or military crises just to serve as a test of metal. We live in a time of relative peace and prosperity and this is certainly a wonderful blessing. Nonetheless, I have often wondered whether, if called upon, we Baby Boomers who have spent their lives basking as the center of attention, could muster the same courage. Could the D (digital)-generation the children of the Baby Boomers, pampered with the Internet and video games and mind-numbed by MTV, find the fortitude of their grandparents?

In a recent speech, the usually quiet Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised the possibility that we too face a challenge that is, in a different but important way, threatening to the nation. The fact that the new challenges are subtler makes them difficult to recognize.

Justice Thomas is worried that an undue emphasis on “civility,” toleration, and being non-judgmental has circumscribed rather then enlarged the scope of the vigorous debate necessary for a democratic society. Because the Left has effectively demonized legitimate positions on important issues, Conservatives censor themselves lest they be ridiculed and labeled as racist, homophobic, misogynist, or plain mean-spirited. The reactionary liberals have used this strategy to place their policy proscriptions outside the scope of legitimate debate. The tendency to bow to these pressures represents, according to Thomas, intellectual cowardice.

Justice Thomas’s comments can and will be deliberately parodied to suggest that Thomas is against civil discourse. Of course he is for civility, but not the false civility that degenerates into a dishonest modulation of ideas that obscures real and important differences. There are those who could say that Justice Thomas’s call for intellectual fortitude is somehow in conflict with President George Bush’s effort to return civility to political discourse. In reality, it would only be a contradiction if one constrains the meaning of civility to the narrow definition of silence or unwillingness to make spirited yet fair argument.

According to Thomas, “A good argument diluted to avoid criticism is not nearly as good as an undiluted argument, because we best arrive at truth though a progress of vigorous and honest debate.” Those who engage in “debates of consequence” should expect to be treated badly, but must remain “undaunted” in this pursuit.

Justice Thomas is a devout Catholic who has drawn lessons of courage and forthrightness from Pope John Paul II. The Pope has been a key figure in the twentieth century, helping to liberate Eastern Europe, consoling those persecuted in Africa, and calling upon the rich western countries to eschew a “culture of death.” According to Thomas, the common theme that runs through the Pope’s message is to stand up for what you believe to be right and most of all “be not afraid.”

Of course, we are all afraid. John Bradley was afraid as he landed on shores of Iwo Jima, pinned down by machine gun fire and artillery shelling. Eastern Europeans were afraid under dictatorial constraints of Communist rule. In a smaller, but still important way, Conservatives are afraid of the personal attacks that can come for standing up for certain beliefs. The injunction to “be not afraid,” is not an instruction on how to feel, but how to act.

Today’s challenges do not require us “to risk our lives against some monstrous tyranny.” Thomas tells us that, “though the war in which we are engaged is cultural, not civil, it tests whether this ‘nation: conceived in liberty…can long endure.”’ How we act now, whether we choose to “be not afraid” in the face of intimidation, will indicate whether we honor in a small way those who froze at Valley Forge, died at Gettysburg, or climbed the slopes of Mount Suribachi.

Posted in Social Commentary | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »