Russia, the Election, and Fake News

There are several aspects to this story, but let's start with what is alleged to have happened.

• The most serious thing that Russia could have done would have been to directly tamper with the electoral process by hacking voting machines, meaning that the vote tallies corresponded with the decisions of the hackers and not the decisions of the voters.  This would be such an assault on our system of government it would be an act of war.  Thanks be to God, there is no evidence this happened, and no one is seriously suggesting it did.  However, the language used in American media to describe the allegations of Russian interference seem purposely designed to plant that suspicion in the minds of those who only keep up with the news casually.
• It is worth pointing out that any serious world player could pretty easily assassinate a political candidate.  Although this would probably provoke a more extreme emotional response, and undoubtedly lead to a real, "hot" war, it would actually be less of an affront to our system.  Even in the absence of assassinations, people die due to accident or disease, and we have a very robust system for providing equivalent replacements in case an office holder, let alone a candidate for office, should die.  This obviously did not happen, though.
• Russia could, through hacking or bribes or some other means, illegally obtain access to classified information held by the U.S. government.  This undoubtedly happens, as the U.S. likewise undoubtedly obtains classified information held by the Russian government in violation of Russian laws.  I suspect the Russians have acquired the technical details to the F-35 Lightning II in this way, for example.  This is the only thing that can really be called spying, but it is pretty old hat, and at any rate it is not what the media uproar is about.
• Russia could, through hacking or bribes or some other means, illegally obtain access to confidential information held by private parties.  This, finally, is one of the things that has been alleged to have happened.  Remember, political parties may control the government, but they are not the government.
• Russia could have made sure that compromising information, however obtained, about a candidate was leaked to the public.  This is also alleged to have happened.
• Finally, Russia could have found plenty of compromising information about either candidate not only by performing perfectly legal investigative journalism, but by merely paying attention the the news over the past three or four decades and using a little common sense.  If this didn't happen, some Russians definitely need to lose their jobs.

Next, let's consider just what it means if the accusations against Russia are true.  

• Imagine if, instead of it being Russia hacking computers belonging to the Democratic Party, it had been Japan hacking computers belonging to Greenpeace -- perhaps out of frustration at Greenpeace's continuing interference with Japanese whaling.  Would this have received anything like the attention the Russia story has gotten?  Not at all.  There would have been some diplomatic protests and probably some minor retaliation, but it would scarcely have become a major point of friction between the two nations.
• But really, shouldn't we retaliate against a nation that interferes with our presidential elections?  If that is the case, I demand sanctions against the United Kingdom.  Remember when British parliamentarians were talking about how Trump should be barred from entry to the U.K.?  That interference is much more blatant, and in fact much more of a real influence, but note the complete absence of any reference to it whatsoever, let alone any calls for retribution.  UPDATE 2/20/17:  Meddling from the Limeys continues.  I am not a fan of Trump, but I take great offense at this kind of interference, which would demand retaliation.  Many Americans will feel even more strongly about it than I do.  

Then there is the question of the trustworthiness of the accusations.

• Would the U.S. intelligence community really lie to the public?  Um ... yeah, at least if they felt they had some reason to.  They've never really even pretended that their mission is to provide accurate and complete information to the public, and the public has generally been quite accepting of this.  The whole bits about "We're not spying on the American civilian public!" and "We don't perform torture!" demonstrate that this is not just a theoretical possibility. 
  
  The question is, do they see themselves as "having some reason to" lie to the public?  We cannot be sure, but the possibility definitely exists.  Senior leadership in the intelligence community may be legitimately frightened that the U.S. stands to lose preeminence in the Middle East if Russia is seen as responding to ISIS  more effectively than we do, or they may be worried about trouble Trump might stir up with China, or they may just fear his unpredictability.  For any of these reasons, they may feel the idea that he was helped into office by Russian meddling might make him less willing to break sharply from policies pursued by previous presidents, or it might at least make him more defensive and preoccupied with domestic criticism.
• Regarding the evidence redacted from the report but made available to American officials, that is only as meaningful as the authors of the report are trustworthy.  The sort of electronic records they could create would be very difficult for even a professional with the full resources of another country's intelligence agencies to confirm or deny.  If the evidence was faked, it was faked by professionals, and it would appear flawless to even professionals lacking independent access to the raw records.  There is no way for the public, or for the government, for that matter, to confirm its authenticity.
• Then again, some readers with experience in reading such reports are claiming the language used actually is less definitive than the press and the Obama administration are suggesting.  Remember Saddam Hussein's WMD -- the ones so fearsome that the mere possibility of their existence was said to justify war?  When George W. Bush wanted to invade Iraq, the intelligence community certainly seemed to be supporting him, but when the WMDs turned out to be nonexistent (or to have been long-abandoned projects), that same community pointed out that they never actually claimed that the weapons absolutely, definitively existed, only that there was some evidence suggesting they existed.  This kind of maneuver allows them to technically tell the truth, but in a way that rather dishonestly leaves the whatever impression their bosses desire to be left, regardless of the truth.
• The other tool one can use in a situation like this is an examination of the balance between risk and reward.  The players we are discussing will obviously avoid major risks unless they are accompanied by great rewards.  We have already considered possible rewards for the American intelligence community to lie, and the fact that the risks are greatly limited by the difficulty in verifying or falsifying their supporting documents.  What about the Russians?
  
  That's a hard question to answer.  Clinton was the embodiment of the American governmental status quo, and the status quo had become increasingly anti-Russian, so there was some benefit to them if she were not elected.  On the other hand, I seriously doubt she is such a moron as to actually provoke a war with a nation controlling 7,000 nuclear warheads.  Furthermore, she obviously needed no outside help in destroying her candidacy -- her "basket of deplorables" comment is almost certainly what cost her the election.  As for the risk, it could have been expected to have been comparable to mere industrial espionage, which goes on all the time.  Would they accept a modest risk for a modest reward?  Maybe.

Taken together, all of this means that the Russians may well have hacked into the Democratic Party's computers, though we cannot be sure, but that even if they did, it's not really that important.  Contrast that conclusion with what we hear from the major news bureaus, though, which is CIA locuta est, causa finita est, and that only a simpleton could doubt that Russian meddling was not only real, but that it completely delegitimized the last election.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of fake news.

The Donald Song

The Democrats are not the only ones who have made fools of themselves this past election cycle.  One thing many people have noticed is how prominent members of the Religious Right have made excuses for Donald Trump for behavior they would have rightly condemned from someone on the left.  They have, in fact, made an idol out of politics. With apologies to VeggieTales, they have sung the Donald Song:

The Donald, the Donald, whoa I love the Donald.
I don’t love my mom or my dad, just the Donald.
The Donald, the Donald, yeah I love the Donald.
I gave everything that I had for the Donald.
I don’t want no background when it’s time to vote –
His past indiscretions are nothing of note.
I don’t need the details of his policy.
He feels my frustrations, he’ll look out for me.
I won’t go to church and I won’t go to school,
That stuff is for sissies, but Donald is cool!

Order 66

Last night I was watching this video about "Why Yoda Should Have Prevented Order 66" in the Star Wars universe, and it occurred to me I had seen this same shock, stunned outrage, and denial not long ago:  I saw it on election night.  It was all there --  a group of people who considered themselves the elite heroes, having doomed themselves through over-confidence and having overlooked obvious warning signs, felt betrayed by people they considered scarcely human, their only function being to support the elites.  It must all be the result of a nefarious plan -- in a galaxy far, far away it was the Sith, but closer to home, Russia makes a convenient (however implausible) scapegoat.

Such melodrama is comical, in no small part because it is out of place.  Yes, Hillary Clinton's political career is as dead as Ki-Adi-Mundi, but no actual people died in this election.  The Democrats will be back, none the wiser for their defeat.

How Many Lights Are There?

Star Trek:  The Next Generation was certainly a mixed bag, but eventually the writers realized that having a great actor in Patrick Stewart opened up some possibilities that would not have worked with a lesser actor.  The story line leading to this scene is a great example of those enhanced possibilities.

In this scene, a Cardassian interrogator, Gul Madred, offers Picard what appears to be a final choice:  Picard can remain stubborn, in which case the Madred very plausibly assures him he will suffer continuing torment for the rest of his life, or Picard can give in to a "small" demand and reject the reality he sees in front of him, in which case the interrogator gives Picard a much less believable assurance of a life of cultured ease.  What is really happening is something that is, I understand, really done in ordeals of this type:  Gul Madred is trying to break Picard's will and spirit.  Because Picard has been subjected to prolonged physical and psychological abuse, he nearly succumbs -- but of course, being as he is one of the main heroes of the series, Picard ultimately bests his tormentor.

One thing that particularly strikes me this year is how much our election process is similar to Picard's test.

1. Both involve similar combinations of plausible threats and implausible promises.
2. Both involve not so much deception as the willful rejection of reality.
3. Both are designed to break those to whom they are applied.

These last two points are the interesting ones.

The political left in America has been about the willful rejection of reality for quite some time.  Perhaps the earliest example, and one of the most morally significant examples, is abortion.  Maybe -- just maybe -- a person can have real doubt that an unborn child at two months of development is, in fact, a child, but an honest person cannot really be in doubt as the months go on.  That, ultimately, is why those who joined the Democratic Party for more traditional reasons -- support for labor unions, for example, or later an opposition to Jim Crow laws -- have been forced not only to back abortion, but to protect abortion at any time up to and including the moment when the child is actually being born.  It is necessary to be sure that they are broken.

There are other examples.  It's hard to forget the image of Jesse Jackson, who once perhaps was serious about being a Christian minister, counseling Bill Clinton that oral sex with Monica Lewinsky wasn't really adultery.  Another blatant example is the more recent insistence that first Democratic politicians and then the public as a whole accept that two men (or two women) can marry each other, and that there is no sense in which what has been traditionally been understood to be marriage is in any way more real.  Very likely the leadership of the left (like many others, to be fair) are moral nihilists who don't believe there is any reality to any marriage, just fictions people tell themselves and each other in order to achieve the desired effects -- but that does not suffice to explain their insistence that everyone else accept the "new reality".  Making sure that they are broken, on the other hand, does explain the insistence.

By no means is this limited to the left, though; the right has its own version, most prominently around Donald Trump.  Consider, for example, the leaders of the "religious right" who have endorsed and supported Trump while downplaying Trump's moral failings.  Yes, this has destroyed their claim to moral authority in a way that has not escaped public notice and seems certain to do lasting damage to the "religious right" as an institution, but it has done more than that; it has broken them.  On the other hand, maybe this will not do lasting damage to their institution (though it should); there seems to have been little consequence to them for their support of Newt Gingrich, who has many of the same flaws.  Perhaps it will make a difference that Trump has actually bragged about how broken his supporters are.

One way or the other, it bodes ill that this year's whole election process has been corrupted to break down the American public mentally and spiritually.

Understand that Gul Madred did not really believe there were three lights.  That was not the point.  The next day, perhaps the answer he would have demanded would have been five lights, and after that two light.  The point was that Picard was to allow him to define reality.  Only once Picard was fully trained to accept fully and unquestioningly Madred's definitions of reality would Madred begin to make full use of his power.

Toward what end are we being trained in 2016?

The Most Important Election of My Lifetime

Every four years, the same tired claim is made:  "This is the most important election of our lifetimes -- maybe even the most important in American history!"  It is a very annoying claim -- firstly because it is obviously not the case that each election is more important than all the elections that came before it, and secondly because it should be enough that this is the only election we can affect now.

It does make me wonder, though:  What actually is the most important election in which I have been able to vote? 

It seems reasonable confine the question to presidential elections, and to base my answer on several considerations.

• Was there a particularly important issue at stake?
• Was there a difference between the stances of the two candidates?
• Was the difference real, or merely rhetorical?
• Was the issue really a priority to the two candidates, or was it at the bottom of their wish lists?
•  Did the issue regard something that a president can actually have an important effect?

Let's go through a list of likely distinctions, then.  Abortion is a hugely important issue, but it is (a) largely outside a president's control, and (b) clearly not an actual priority of Republican presidents, however much they might hype it to certain crowds during fund-raisers and campaign rallies.  The whole "gay marriage" / transgender bathrooms / whatever spectrum of issues is likewise important, but, again, (a) it seems to be driven by cultural forces largely beyond a president's control, and (b) these issues have not featured prominently in the campaigns of Republicans this fall, in spite of the rapid and dramatic changes that have recently taken place.  How about the response to the terrorist attacks of September 11?  I think a US war in Afghanistan was an inevitable response from any president.  Also, although I could not have actually voted for Gore due to his positions on issues like abortion and family issues, he probably would not have invaded Iraq, and the Republican-controlled congress would probably not have given him the exaggerated powers that they granted George W. Bush.  So far, none of these elections are looking that important.

My best guess, then, is that the most important election I have voted in was my very first election, the one that elected George H. W. Bush.  The issue was the US behavior during the collapse of first East Germany, then the Warsaw Pact, then the Soviet Union itself -- and since nuclear war was a very real possibility, the stakes were amazingly high and the role of the president was absolutely essential.  I cannot be sure how Dukakis might have been different, but Bush had much more international experience, and the Soviet Union might have been more reluctant to react by lashing out with Ronald Reagan's protégé in office.  One way or another, that was a dangerous stretch of history, and it is something of a miracle that we got through it with no more violence than what happened in Romania, so I would not be willing to change anything about it.

Why Are We So Polarized?

I've just come across an excellent blog post by Rod Dreher (whom I recommend in general)^1,2 entitled "Inside The Head Of Trump Voters".  His post is in turn a commentary on a very interesting speech given by Jonathan Haidt to the American Psychological Association.  Haidt has some key insights into the nature of political polarization in the West in general, and America in particular, together with how it has developed over the course of the past few decades -- and he has the statistics to back up his assertions.  The trends are alarming, as anyone even vaguely aware of the last few election cycles will have already guessed.

¹ ...which does not mean I endorse all of his opinions, of course; although I agree with much of what he says, there are enough disagreements that I cannot recommend him the way I would recommend, for example, Chesterton.

² After reading his column for a few months, I am no longer comfortable in even recommending him with a caveat. He's beginning to remind me of Mark Shea, in that although he often makes good points, there is a bitterness about him that is shockingly contrary to the fruit of the Spirit. "For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things." St. Paul's advice is something Christian bloggers -- notably including me -- need to do a much better job of taking.

That's not to say the talk is without problems.  Perhaps the most obvious one is that when Haidt says that the country needs two parties -- one of "reform and progress" (which he identifies as a sort of idealized Democratic Party) and the other of "order and stability" (an idealized Republican Party) -- he restricts the "allowable" options for the country to those possibilities that lie between the status quo of 2016 and the most extreme fantasies of the Left.  There is no room in his schema for the many people who think the status quo of 2016 is already toxic and that the Democrats would only make things worse.  Not only would this exclude millions of people from the process, it would not be possible to go back to undo a mistake, much less to pursue an alternative goal that has never been realized in history but that is not in the direction that Obama and Clinton want to take us.  It would be like insisting that a car must have both an accelerator and a brake, but forgetting about the steering wheel.  I suspect this omission was unconscious; as the statistics and response of the crowd make clear, Haidt spends most of his time in the company of committed Democrats.

Aside from that omission -- the result of a major blind spot -- he tries to be "neutral" in his treatment of the two parties.  Oddly enough, this is also a flaw, because it leads him to completely ignore the competing truth claims.  Haidt must know that many people consider the Civil War to be a necessary price to pay to obtain the good of freedom for the slaves, and that many people consider the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be a necessary price to prevent even more casualties on both sides; he probably believes both these ideas himself.  Granted that the political tensions of today are unpleasant, we still need to know whether they are a necessary price for some greater good -- and we need to know what that greater good might be.

And the fact is that the period of increased antagonism that Haidt chronicles corresponds exactly to the period in which the "party of reform and progress" has "progressed" into uncharted moral waters.  Can it just be a coincidence that the worst polarization in American history since the Civil War begins with the legalization of abortion and culminates precisely with the unprecedented claim that two persons of the same sex can have a real marriage with each other?  Haidt is talking about moral psychology -- his term.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to investigate a link between dramatic changes in moral psychology and dramatic changes in morality when the two happen simultaneously?

Now Haidt would probably say that the laws about abortion and marriage are merely symbolic, but the idea that they don't actually affect the lives of many people is demonstrably false -- as is agreed by those on both sides of the issue.  Regardless, and in spite of the fact that I feel very strongly about these issues, the conflict over both these and many other issues is a consequence of a larger and more fundamental cultural conflict over the question whether or not there is a fixed answer to what it means to be human.  If the answer is yes, then we must abide by that fixed answer, and if the answer is no, then someone -- each individual?  the general population?  elected politicians?  judges?  academia? -- must choose an answer on an ongoing basis.  

It is hard to overstate how much rides on the answer to this question.  If there is no real right or wrong, then "right" ultimately becomes a servile euphemism for the will of the powerful.  Our world dissolves into a nightmare of Nietzsche and H. G. Wells; already we see something straight out of The Island of Doctor Moreau. This is something that transcends the traditional division between Right and Left; during the French Revolution, the Royalists believed that the king was "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil," and the Revolutionaries believed in the Rights of Man, but they each thought that they were defending ideas that were objectively true.

I don't think many people put all this together, but they sense it, and many of them don't like it one bit.  That is why the changes have lead to such antagonism.  Something fundamental and important is at stake, and both sides know it.  A few awkward moments at family gatherings is not too high a price to pay.

One last thing:  The recent change has all been in one direction, as the Democrats have adhered with increasing fidelity to the idea that human nature is only a fiction and the Republicans have largely moved to take the same positions Democrats held ten or twenty years ago.  This again leaves those who are happy with neither the current position of the Democratic Party nor the position of the Democratic Party two decades ago frustrated and excluded from the debate.  On the other side, it gives proponents of the Democratic Party's worldview the sense that they are on the cusp of a conclusive triumph; they smell blood in the water and want to press their advantage to the maximum.

So yes, there are notable omissions, but it would be a mistake to undervalue Haidt's speech.  No sane person wants these political tensions to spill over into violence, and the statistics Haidt shows are truly alarming.  I have to wonder what similar statistics would have shown on the eve of the American, French, or Russian Revolution.  His advice for toning down the conflict is good, though I don't think it is sufficient to prevent what seems to be a looming crisis.

Why Not Try Americans at Guantanamo Bay?

The top story at CBSNews.com this morning bears the title, "Donald Trump suggests trying Americans at Guantanamo Bay."  It is a headline intended to shock the reader -- after all, since the administration of George W. Bush it has been American policy that most of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to actions taken by the federal government in its overseas territories like Guantanamo Bay.  [Don't worry, though:  the part that makes the American president commander-in-chief of the American military applies everywhere and at all times, and unlike the Bill of Rights, there is never any talk of balancing this against any other consideration.]  This ends up meaning that "detainees", an Orwellian term if ever there was one, have no status and no rights whatsoever; they are essentially considered non-human, which is very different from how we treat even convicted criminals, let alone prisoners of war.  Guantanamo Bay has become America's oubliette, the place in which we throw people to forget about them.  This has been eased somewhat by the judicial branch, but only over the objections of the other two branches of American government.  

So it is actually quite easy to see why Americans would be shocked at the idea of U.S. citizens being subjected to such treatment by the American government.  The real question is why more Americans aren't shocked that the U.S. government is allowed to do this to anyone.

Regarding Immigration

As the election season progresses beyond any hope of being salvaged, it is probably appropriate that I explain my thinking regarding immigration.  This is one of the issues for which no party has a satisfactory policy.

To start with, let me say that immigration policy is entirely unlike abortion policy.  If the fetus is in fact a human person (which it is), then it is wrong to murder that person, with no exceptions, and it is matter of public interest.  If the fetus were not a human person, abortion would be as much a personal decision as a haircut, and it would be the business of no one but the woman seeking the abortion.  The in-between positions are just nonsense.  These include the assertion that only women should have a say about abortion -- all women, not just the woman seeking the abortion.  That doesn't work: it's either everyone's business, or no one's business; either it's public, or it's private.  Likewise with the "politically moderate" exceptions to abortion of rape and incest.  They make no more sense than it would to criminalize the abuse of five year olds, except for those children who were conceived through rape or incest.  Most things in politics are not all-or-nothing in the way abortion is, and immigration policy certainly is not.

Immigration policy is more like economic policy.  In economics the two extremes might be taken to be a planned economy under the total control of a central authority, as in Communism, and a complete Laissez Faire Capitalism, governed only by supply and demand.  We know from history that both are prone to enormous abuses, and that neither really works.  Economies under central control lack the creativity and flexibility needed to thrive, and unimpeded Capitalism is unstable, subject to both cycles of booms and busts and to monopolization.  As a result, even the most enthusiastic supporters of Capitalism now generally accept the necessity of bankruptcy protection and federally insured deposits, and usually prohibitions on price gouging, dumping, and insider trading; as for Communism, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the adoption by China of more-or-less free markets, it is hard to find anyone except North Korea seriously advocating that system.  There is practical unanimity that the best system must lie between the two extremes, although plenty of squabbling remains about exactly which compromise solution is best.  And, of course, the compromise that works best for Texas might not work best for Sweden.

On one extreme of the immigration debate are those who seem to think that each country has an obligation not only to let in anyone who wishes to come, but also to assist them in their travels, ensure them food, clothing, shelter, medical assistance, and a job as soon as they arrive, give them full citizenship, and expect absolutely no conformity to the culture of their new country.  Although this position seems to be popular with many clerics, it is still obviously hogwash, since it would mean that no nation could defend itself from being washed out of existence by an invading horde -- and the diversity of cultures we get from having separate and distinct nations is a good that should not be casually and carelessly discarded.  It should also be pointed out that it is naive to assume that the people who make use of the generosity of others will necessarily show generosity in turn -- particularly if they have not been asked to accept the culture of their new homeland.

On the other extreme are those who are willing to give the government absolutely anything it needs or says it needs to prevent illegal immigration and to deport illegal aliens who are already here.  Absolutely.  Anything.  That's the sort of talk that makes any would-be dictator's mouth water, because to get rid of 11 million illegal immigrants we would need to become a full-fledged police state.  That is far too high a price to pay for the 96.6% of American residents who are not illegal aliens, let alone the 3.4% who are.

Just because the best solution must lie between the extremes does not mean that every solution between the extremes is good.  In fact, our current system is between the two extremes, and it is perhaps the worst possible solution.  We make it only moderately difficult for people to cross the border illegally -- just hard enough that they are invested in being here when they arrive, having either endured hardship or paid what to them is a substantial sum of money, or both.  Once here, as long as they do not draw attention to themselves, they might be able to stay for decades, meaning of course that they put down roots.  If they attract the attention of law enforcement, though, they are subject to deportation.  Deportation may not sound like such a bad thing if your picture is of being deported from a holiday destination after violating a local taboo while on vacation, but think instead of the deportation from Anatevka at the end of "Fiddler on the Roof".  For those who have made substantial investments or put down roots, it is a real punishment indeed.

What this set of circumstances means is that illegal immigration is not seriously impeded, providing a steady supply of low-income workers to industries that choose to pay wages that do not attract American workers.  Even "better", because illegal aliens do not want to attract the attention of law enforcement, they are not likely to report unsafe working conditions, missing pay, or other abuses, allowing their employers to cut even more corners.  There is no way I believe all this is a coincidence.

My preferred alternative would be the polar opposite of what currently exists.  We should make it very difficult for anyone to enter the country illegally, but we should be much more lenient on those who have already come and put down roots without engaging in violent crime.  If someone does meet the criteria for having "put down roots" -- perhaps by having been in the U.S.A. for 10 years without being charged for a violent crime -- he should have the option of renouncing his foreign citizenship and becoming a permanent U.S. national.  As a national, rather than a citizen, he would be ineligible to vote or hold elected office, and unlike those born in American Samoa, he could never apply for citizenship, but otherwise he would have all the same rights as a U.S. citizen.  Or perhaps he could also be banned from holding any government job other than serving in the military, although I would probably allow that to be upgraded to full citizenship if he serves 6 years in the U.S. military.

We have the right, even the duty, to control our borders, but we need to do so in a way that avoids doing more harm than good.

Guesses (or Suggestions) for the Presidential Tickets

Trump is a disaster for the Republicans, but a disaster that cannot be avoided.  For too long they have quashed candidates like Rand Paul, favoring candidates who may throw social conservatives a rhetorical bone now and then, but who above all pose no threat to the status quo that is so favored by powerful, moneyed interests.  The result is somewhat analogous to the old forest management strategy that put out every little fire, resulting in too much fuel and too few firebreaks, and so replaced many small fires with a few enormous fires.  Now, if they refuse to have Trump as their nominee, he will leave the party and take 20-30% of their voters with him -- voters who will not vote for ANY Republican candidates, not just their alternative nominee for the presidency.  The GOP knows this, so my guess is they will not dare to have a contested election, and will accept Trump as their nominee even with a mere plurality of delegates, and even if they would really rather see him lose to Clinton so they can get their party back.

The interesting question is, "What comes next?"

Yes, Trump is an egotistical blowhard who shoots from the hip, often without thinking or collecting the information he needs.  The thought of a nuclear-armed Donald Trump playing brinkmanship with a nuclear-armed Kim Jong-un should terrify any thinking adult.  Yet for all of his flaws, he is not entirely stupid -- the world is full of egotistical blowhards who never escape anonymity.  My guess is that Trump will see that the most important thing for him to do after securing the nomination will be to try to restore party unity by choosing a running mate who will soothe the GOP establishment and, hopefully, compensate for his lack of experience.  The choice would have to be someone credible, but his pride probably rules out anyone who has been a noteworthy critic during the election cycle.

My suggestion would be Condoleezza Rice.  She is not a natural politician, by which I mean she does not have the personality to schmooze comfortably with people of all backgrounds, but she is strong in areas where he is weak.

1. She is not Oprah Winfrey, and she will not be able to deliver majorities of either the black vote or the women's vote, but because Trump has so far made his appeal mostly to middle class, middle aged, angry white males, he urgently needs the help of someone like Rice to appeal to a wider demographic field.
2. Trump has already made a mess of his foreign relations, and he has not even won his party's nomination.  The British parliament seriously considered banning Trump from the UK, he had a quarrel with Pope Francis in February, he has called NATO obsolete -- an idea I agree with, basically, but it should not be handled this clumsily -- and of course the signature piece of his campaign has been bullying Mexico.  If he is ever to govern, he must have on his team someone with more knowledge, experience, and temperament for international relations, and he must listen to that person.  Rice would be perfect for this.
3. What Trump really, really, really should do is make Condoleezza Rice his running mate and then announce, a week or so after the GOP convention, "I've been talking with Condoleezza, and she made a very good point.  A wall doesn't have to be made of stone or brick, and a fence doesn't have to be made of wood or steel.  All we really want is something that will effectively deter illegal immigration.  This can be done by persuading Mexico to greatly enhance their own border patrols.  This would be a 'wall' Mexico could pay for without having the money leave their nation, and it would respect both our sovereignty and theirs.  This is the wall I intend to see built."
   
   This would bring him back into the world of the actually possible, which would reassure a lot of nervous voters and put him in a less confrontational position should he actually be elected.  Even more importantly, it would show he will listen to reason and can be persuaded -- even by (gasp!) a woman.

That is what he should do.  What he will do, I suspect, is a good deal less.  I could easily imagine him choosing, say, the Republican attorney general of Arizona -- someone with some real political experience, but who is not threatening to Trump's dominant position and who would not force him to change his rhetoric at all.  Alternatively, he might choose another political novice.  If he doesn't show some flexibility, though, I don't see any way for him to win.

For Hillary Clinton, the road is much easier.  She is far from an ideal candidate herself, as the Sanders campaign has demonstrated, and her sloppiness with classified emails is being investigated at a very inopportune time for her, but ultimately I expect her to be at the head of a party that will unify in opposition to Trump.  She can pretty much guarantee a win if she takes Florida, and I think Charlie Crist could help her do that.

The Walrus and the Carpenter

'I like the Walrus best,' said Alice: 'because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters.'
'He ate more than the Carpenter, though,' said Tweedledee. 'You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise.'
'That was mean!' Alice said indignantly. 'Then I like the Carpenter best—if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus.'
'But he ate as many as he could get,' said Tweedledum.
This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, 'Well! They were both very unpleasant characters—'

-- Through the Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carroll

As the political machine moves into full gear, I am already hearing from the usual sources that it is my moral duty to vote for the Walrus.  After all, failing to vote for the Walrus is just like voting for the Carpenter, and we all know what he's going to do -- why, he's shameless about it!  And sure, the Walrus may do the same things, but "Politics is the art of the possible," (Otto von Bismarck apparently being America's favorite political philosopher), and the Walrus doesn't really want to do these thing!

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said, "To play them such a trick, 
After we've brought them out so far, 
And made them trot so quick!" 

When we oysters base our votes not on what a candidate or a party has actually done, and therefore can be expected to continue doing, but rather on emotions and intentions which cannot be verified, the result is "scarcely odd".

Problems with "Conservative Catholic" Gatekeepers

Two recent disagreements I have had with so-called conservative Catholic blogs (which may or may not have obtained permission from their bishop to use the name "Catholic" in their blog title, as required by Church law) highlight the problem I have with calling myself a conservative.  I am obviously no kind of liberal, but if these self-proclaimed gatekeepers of conservatism tell me I have to toe their line to join their club, well, so much for their club.

The lesser problem came from someone who had a quasi-religious belief that all government regulations are bad.  Well, almost all; I'm 99.999% sure he considers government regulation of immigration not only morally defensible (as do I, even though our immigration system is badly out of whack), but even morally imperative.  Let me be perfectly blunt:  anyone who thinks that "the free market" is sufficient to determine which drugs are safe to take, which kitchens practice adequate hygiene, which aircraft are safe enough to fly, what precautions keep miners adequately safe, and what are safe and appropriate means of disposing of toxic wastes is too stupid to engage in meaningful debate.  Such a person thinks that the only alternatives are his form of "conservatism" and Communism --- a choice I would eagerly put to the public if for some reason I wanted Communism.  Make no mistake about it; we should be cautious in permitting government regulations, and we must avoid the idea that the government can regulate us into some sort of earthly paradise; but some regulation is wise and even necessary, and we must also avoid the idea that the "free market" can create an earthly paradise.

The larger problem came in comments to a blog post that was suggesting that it is a mistake for Catholic charities to ever accept government funds, because inevitably this leads to the government "forcing" the charity to do something contrary to the Faith; the specific example of which is the Church's support for the needs of illegal immigrants, and the ACLU's lawsuit that the Catholic charity involved must make abortion available to the immigrants it serves.  (I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument of the blog post, but it should be entirely clear that just because you don't receive money from the government doesn't mean you are safe from government impositions.)  In this case, the commenter objected that the bishops are "giving aid to lawbreakers" --- not that they are giving aid in law-breaking, nor even that, by making it safer to break immigration laws, they are providing encouragement to break those laws.

This was more than I could take.  I gave a hypothetical:  Suppose someone had been driving faster than the posted speed --- perhaps 70 mph in a 65 mph zone --- lost control, and hit a tree.  He was a lawbreaker, because he had broken the law setting the maximum speed.  Should an ambulance refuse to give aid to the lawbreaker?  Should he be left to die because he broke the law?  In general, should a Catholic hospital never admit anyone who has broken a law at any point in his life?  Or does it matter whether the law in question is one that the commenter has broken himself, or one that he will probably never break?

Now I have often argued that, the personal opinions of ever so many present-day priests and bishops notwithstanding, the consistent Teaching of the Catholic Church does not exclude the possibility of the death penalty, and in fact argues strongly for it.  The mistake made by these well-meaning clerics is easy to understand, though, because although the Church is not opposed to the death penalty, the Church is very strongly opposed to death.  Above all, of course, the Church is opposed to spiritual death --- to sin and to Hell, always and everywhere; yet although is it of secondary importance, the Church is also vigorously opposed to physical death.  Physical death is always to be preferred to spiritual death; it is glorious for martyrs and leads to the Beatific Vision for saints; yet it is also always a physical evil and a punishment imposed on us for our sins and the sin of Adam, in which we have a mysterious participation.  So even though I think there is much good to be had from honestly confronting a criminal with the magnitude of his crimes and the penalty that may be justly levied on him, I am also 100% sympathetic with those who ask, "Is there no way that we can spare this man's life without sin?"  The death penalty should be read out as often as necessary, but it should be carried out as infrequently as possible.

More fundamentally, the Church exists precisely in order to give aid to lawbreakers.  How any Catholic can fail to understand that is beyond me.  It is not for nothing that on Palm Sunday and Good Friday we are made to cry out with the crowd, "Crucify Him!"  That is the true meaning of each of our sins.  It is to give aid to lawbreakers that the Church has the sacrament of Confession.  It was to give aid to lawbreakers that Jesus laid down His life on the cross and took it up again on the third day, and we are all of us like one of the two lawbreakers who were crucified alongside Him; it is our choice whether we will be more like the Good Thief or the other thief.

Biased Thinking

One of the current political conflicts is over immigration and Obama's executive orders regarding immigration.  The immigration policies of both parties, to the extent they are sufficiently coherent to be said to exist, are deeply flawed, but that is not my subject now.  Obama's executive orders, like his recess appointments and many other actions, are an attempt to circumvent the Separation of Powers; other presidents, Republican and Democratic, have done the same thing; but that is also not my topic.  My topic is the reaction to the attempt by the Republican Congress to reverse those orders by attaching legislation to that effect to the bill funding the Department of Homeland Security.

The Democrats, attempting to defend Obama, have accused the Republicans of putting their immigration policy over homeland security, and this accusation has been duly reported.  Fair enough.  What is not mentioned -- ever -- is that Obama, by threatening to veto the bill funding the Department of Homeland Security if it violates his immigration policy, is doing exactly the same thing.  This does not seem to be just an omission in the reporting; the Republicans themselves seem to share this blind spot.  Nor is this merely an example of the press favoring the Democrats; there has been the same bias in the past favoring Republican presidents.

This is like a game of chicken.  It's stupid to say that a collision is the fault of the blue car driver, because he didn't pull off, and is not at all the responsibility of the red car driver, because he had said he would not pull off.

In this case, once again it is the Republicans who have chickened out.

Left and Right

Not many years ago, when the therapeutic value of human embryonic stem cells first began to be touted, I frequently came across comments (usually, but by no means always, from the political Left) that can be paraphrased as follows.

The Pope has no business moralizing on this topic because he has no experience and minimal education in cell biology.  He should stick to theology.  After all, "Science has become the cornerstone of modern life, and it is marvelous in our eyes.  And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."  Science is justified in going on without regard to what the Vatican might decide.

This would usually be followed by claims of the goods to be produced by the use of human embryonic stem cells, claims that are not actually realized in the real world.  

Lately, after comments by Pope Francis on some of the moral problems found in modern economic systems, I come across comments (usually, but by no means always, from the political Right) that can be paraphrased as follows.

The Pope has no business moralizing on this topic because he has no experience and minimal education in business.  He should stick to theology.  After all, "Economics has become the cornerstone of modern life, and it is marvelous in our eyes.  And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."  Business is justified in going on without regard to what the Vatican might decide.

This is usually followed by claims of the goods to be produced by Capitalism, claims that are not actually realized in the real world.

The complaints really are that parallel.  In both cases the claim is that if the Pope really knew just how much more pleasant and comfortable life could be made for the powerful, he would accept the sacrifice of a few of the weak.

Don't bet on it.

Soldiers and Umbrellas

To expand a bit on yesterday's post:  A soldier makes you free in the same way an umbrella makes you dry -- an umbrella that someone else is holding.  An umbrella can protect you from some of the external threats to your dryness, but not all of them -- it can't stop you from getting wet from the side or below.  Also, if you are already wet, it cannot really dry you off.  Likewise, a soldier can give you partial protection from external threats to your freedom, though some threats might be seen as sneaking in "from the side".  For example, censorship, rationing, the draft, and the like are real limitations to freedom, and these are often imposed in the face of external threats to freedom.  What's more, if you do not have the habits, culture, and internal disposition of freedom, a soldier is not really able to provide you with them.  

But perhaps most importantly, what an umbrella actually does depends on the skill and intentions of the person holding it.  An umbrella can be used to keep someone dry, but it can also be used to make someone even wetter than he was before (by channeling water onto him or dumping the accumulated water on him).  In a similar way, what a soldier actually does depends on the skill and intentions of the government employing him. 

Right-Wing Version of "You Didn't Build That"

Remember this?  When it came out, "conservatives" (by pretty much any definition) and Republicans reacted with outrage, as well they might.  

Yesterday, however, was Veterans Day, one of several days a year which generate warm hearts and fuzzy thinking from "conservatives".  On such a day it is not hard to find items like this gem:

It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.  It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.  It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.  It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,  And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

This is exactly the same thing Obama was saying.

Inevitability -- The Keyword for Our Age

Nevertheless, I think that with us the keyword is "inevitability," or, as I should be inclined to call it, "impenitence." We are subconsciously dominated in all departments by the notion that there is no turning back, and it is rooted in materialism and the denial of free-will. Take any handful of modern facts and compare them with the corresponding facts a few hundred years ago. Compare the modern Party System with the political factions of the seventeenth century. The difference is that in the older time the party leaders not only really cut off each other's heads, but (what is much more alarming) really repealed each other's laws. With us it has become traditional for one party to inherit and leave untouched the acts of the other when made, however bitterly they were attacked in the making. -- G.K. Chesterton

I have no real feeling for the underlying political attitudes at the time when Chesterton wrote this, but "inevitability" certainly has oppressed political thinking in America for the past several decades.  When I was a child, for example, everyone took it as inevitable that either the Cold War would end in a nuclear holocaust, or at best we would have a bipolar standoff that would last for centuries.  When that turned out to be wrong and America was (according to many) the "last superpower", it became inevitable that American-style democracy would be embraced everywhere; this was the thesis of Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man.  During the late 1990's, it became inevitable that the stock market would only go up -- the dot-coms had brought about a "new paradigm" of economics.  

We all know how those predictions fared.  Other "inevitable" outcomes have also failed to materialize.  A century ago, Prohibition was going to put a permanent end to alcohol abuse in the USA.  It has been "inevitable" on several occasions that Islam would conquer all of Christendom; we hear that it is again "inevitable".   Yet Chesterton was right in another place to describe a Christian hero as, "It is he that saith not 'Kismet'; it is he that knows not Fate."

Today, of course, it is inevitable that "gay marriage" will become a permanent fixture of American life.  The military has been required by their current commander-in-chief to embrace and celebrate homosexuality.  Many ecclesial communities now simulate marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples.  The Republican Party is backing away from support for "traditional" marriage, and a former editor of First Things says the Church should give up on marriage.

Well, maybe it will become a permanent fixture -- not because "gay marriage" will endure forever, but because America is highly unlikely to endure to the end of time.  Regardless, the future comes from two main sources:  the choices we make  each day, and realities that exist without regard for our choices.  The nature of the human being and the nature of marriage belong to the second category, which is why "gay marriage" is not truly marriage, and any legal or popular acceptance is only the acceptance of a fiction.   Whether we choose to accept it, either on a legal or a popular level, is of course a choice, but it is not a choice that will make it impossible for future generations to make a different choice, probably a choice that more accurately represents reality.

So what is behind all this conviction of inevitability, particularly among politicians?  It's easy to come up with several possibilities, and each probably makes some contribution.

• If the future is inevitable, the politician cannot be held responsible for it.
• Politicians are only faking their commitment to the moral well-being of America.  (The moral well-being of a country is a temporal good, and the government does have a responsibility to promote it.)  Frankly, they are probably faking their commitment to the other temporal goods as well.
• The politicians have no moral courage.

Another possibility is suggested by a story by Hans Christian Andersen: 

"But he has nothing at all on!" at last cried out all the people. The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold.

Andersen was right about this.  How often have we stuck with a policy that was manifestly stupid and obviously not working, yet a president decided we must "stay the course" because we would lose face if we admitted that he was wrong?  The whole world sees that he has made a mistake, but in his pride he hopes that if he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, no one will notice.  Foolish pride removes his freedom to reverse course and makes it "inevitable" that he will persist in stupidity.

What Good Does It Do to Pray for Peace?

What good does it do to pray for peace, as the Pope has requested?  At first glance, it might appear to do no good at all.  After all, at least one party to a war must (to some degree) will the war, and one of the clearest but strangest facts of theology is that God will not remove our free will.  He allows us to choose evil; He allows us to hate others.

But think again about times recently when you may have been grouchy or unreasonable.  We do ultimately choose how to behave, but there are many influences on our moods.  Maybe you did not sleep well the night before; maybe you had an upset stomach; maybe you did not know when the mechanic would finish with your car or how much it would end up costing.  Such exterior circumstances have nothing to do with free will, but they can make it easier or harder to exercise your will in a good way.

I assume that the good effect of prayer is likely to be (in many cases) some change in these external circumstances.  A president who is feeling too tired to deal with complaints that he has not taken action may get better rest; a combatant who feels invincible might experience a sudden reminder of his own mortality; a skillful compromise which no one had foreseen might be suggested.  As the saying goes, peace would be given a chance, though that chance may always still be refused.

The other benefit, of course, is the benefit of all prayer:  it reminds the one one praying that God is ultimately in charge of this as of all things.

What I Mean by "Chestertonian"

I few weeks ago I noted that the word "conservative" now comes loaded with too many implications I cannot accept.  Since I am not willing to embrace a police state if only people will concede me the coveted title of "conservative", it is necessary to find some other label.  For now, none seem to fit quite so well as "Chestertonian", which automatically implies a great deal to anyone familiar with the writings of G.K. Chesterton, whose cause for canonization as a saint has finally been taken up.



Now it might be objected that what I really mean is "Distributist", and indeed Distributism covers a good deal of what I mean.  Distributism favors private property, but not monopolies and not usury.  Capitalism is an economic philosophy that sees the purpose of money as making even more money; Distributism is an economic philosophy that sees the purpose of money is the good of people.  Nor is Distributism by any means Socialism.  However, Distributism is really only an economic idea, and I mean something more general.

Well, since Distributism is based on Catholic social doctrine, and I want a more general term, maybe I should just call myself "Catholic"?  No, for three reasons.

1. My intention is to describe a political / cultural position.  This will have nothing really to do with Catholic sacramental theology, for example.  Protestants, Jews, etc. could probably agree with most or all of what I mean.
2. On the other hand, I do mean something particular to Western civilization.  Although most Catholics share this cultural background, the word catholic means universal, and there are Churches in communion with Rome that exist in very different cultures.  I still think that Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and other cultures could be somehow "baptized" as was done with the cultures of pagan Greece and Rome.
3. Finally, it is not helpful to describe my politics as "Catholic" when Biden and Pelosi, among others, also claim that name.

Here, then, is what I mean by "Chestertonian":

1. It starts with an anthropology and ethics consistent with the Catholic understanding of what a human person is.
2. It furthermore includes the cultural legacy of what used to be called Christendom, which for the past thousand years or so has been from Russia to Greece to Spain to Ireland, and in the past has certainly included Syria, Egypt, and North Africa.  That cultural heritage is largely derived from ancient Greece and Rome, but contributions from Celtic, Slavic, and Germanic cultures have also left their mark.  All of these cultures have been harmonized to Christianity, so that they are complementary to each other rather than simply being in conflict.
3. Finally, though, I give preference to the specific practices and attitudes of my own country and region.  These include a preference for individualism and for the frontier; a mountain man is more archetypically American than is a banker or a baker.  Implicit in this is a conviction that anyone can prove his worth and that barriers preventing people from improving their lots in life must be minimized; likewise, there is an implicit distaste for those whose status is achieved only through an accident of birth.  American culture also takes an attitude towards government that is decidedly more vigilant than deferential.  Finally, it also includes a hopefulness that we really can leave the world a better place than we found it.  That hopefulness has often been expressed in rash and unwise actions, but it gives rise to a willingness to take up a noble cause in spite of difficulties.

Why I Am Not a Libertarian

It's not just because many libertarians are, in theory if not in practice, libertines, but rather because we have different views on the appropriate role of government.  To lift a line from the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The goal of the State is the temporal happiness of man...."  However, virtue is a part of temporal happiness, not just eternal happiness (which is the goal of the Church, not the State).  As a result, the State has an obligation to promote virtue, something with which a libertarian would not agree.  That is not to say that the State should be coercive in the promotion of virtue; both justice and prudence place strong limits on what the State should do.

One non-coercive tool for promoting virtue is the "bully pulpit".  Like any tool of government, it can be (and often is) abused, but it is appropriate for there to be some public statements about the character we the people aspire to have.

Anyhow, that is one reason why I am not a libertarian.  Yet at the same time, I would want someone with libertarian habits to always be on hand to ask (to paraphrase the WW2 slogan), "Is this law really necessary?"  Even the most well-intended law may be (or become) too burdensome, intrusive, or punitive.

Why I Can No Longer Call Myself "Conservative"

I cannot call myself "conservative" because that term has come to be loaded with too many connotations that simply do not apply to me.  I realize that there are many people in the same situation who still use the term "conservative", but eventually a break must be made.  A 2-second word followed by a 5-minute clarification just does not make sense.  

Here are a few of the connotations to which I was referring.

1.  Most people think "conservative" means "Republican".  Well, I am not a Republican.  I sometimes vote for Republican candidates, yes, but the only time I voted for a major-party contender in the presidential general election was 1988.  The GOP sometimes calls people with my beliefs part of their "base", but they actually see us a means of getting into political office.  Once in office, their priorities turn out to be rather different from those of their "base".  This has been a problem for many years, but it appears to be getting worse. 




2.  It seems to be expected that a "conservative" favors draconian immigration laws.  This is not the place for a full discussion of immigration, but there does not seem to be any "side" of that discussion with which I can fully agree.  I agree that illegal immigration is, well, illegal, and under most circumstances is also morally problematic.  The same is true of speeding, though; respect for the law is of course important, but so is a sense of perspective regarding the gravity of the offense.  Illegal immigration has been going on so long and in such numbers that any serious effort to deport all illegal aliens would require a police state, and the prospect of becoming a police state is much more frightening than the problem of illegal immigration.

3.  It seems to be expected that a "conservative" will always favor management and oppose unions.  When the huge salaries and bonuses of executives are challenged, the stereotypical conservative will say that (a) their contracts are negotiated, so who are we to question the market?  and (b) contracts are sacred and must be honored.  Where union salaries and benefits are concerned, though, the market suddenly becomes much less infallible and contracts much less sacred.  Somewhere at the root of this is the idea that workers should be grateful for their wages as they would be grateful for a gift -- as though the wealthy and powerful were in fact entitled to the labor of men and women and would be justified in forcing them to work for nothing. 

4.  It seems to be expected that a "conservative" favors an executive branch of ever-increasing strength.  This is usually justified as needed to "get tough on crime" or to "fight terrorism".  The system of checks and balances simply does not work anymore, and several explicit parts of the Constitution are now routinely ignored.  The fact that so much of this was done under the GOP puts the lie to their claim to believe that the original intent of the authors of the Constitution should be the normative interpretation.  Instead, we move closer and closer to being a full-fledged police state.

5.  It seems to be expected that a "conservative" thinks that if anyone in the unfortunate incident was a bad guy, it was Trayvon Martin, and that George Zimmerman is at least manifestly innocent and possibly a hero.  This one has me baffled.  A man with a gun overtakes and confronts an unarmed man who is minding his own business.  The man with the gun is not a policeman or even a security guard; he answers to no one.  The confrontation takes place on a public street.  The confrontation escalates, and the man with the gun kills the man with no gun.  Prima facie, the man who (a) prepared for a fight by bringing the gun, (b) initiated the confrontation, and (c) killed a man has done something wrong.

The only real explanation I can come up with for the "conservative" position is that Obama and Al Sharpton came out strongly against Zimmerman.  For many people, that fact alone means that Zimmerman must be a good guy.

On the other hand, if the prosecution is not able to make its case to the satisfaction of the jury, there should be no second trial in federal court.  We should not allow end runs around the protection against double jeopardy because, once again, it pushes us further in the direction of becoming a police state.  (Do you note a theme?)  So do, of course, attempts by the president of the US and the governor of Florida to influence the outcome of the trial.

..ooOoo..

Of course, it is not right to simply be negative.  If I can't call myself a conservative, I ought to say what I should call myself, and if I don't agree with much of what people associate with conservatives, I should state what principles I do hold.

Having given this some thought, I think I'll call myself a Chestertonian.  I'll have to explain what I mean by that in a separate post.