Preparing the Ground, Part II

The last post was a request not to “draft Romney” for President, even though he’s a great man, made for our times. The reason has to do with the culture—a culture that rejected him when the alternative was a known failure.

So what we need to talk about, rather than who should run, is how to improve the culture. Very quickly. Now.

Related to culture, on the Glenn Beck radio show last week, Pat and Stu were discussing “a new poll” about religion and beliefs. I tried, unsuccessfully, to track down exactly which poll—or perhaps a collection. My guess is that the info comes from the Pew Research Foundation, or possibly this Harris Poll (a Nielsen company),but they didn’t say. So I’ll just go with Pat and Stu’s numbers.

First they were talking about what American people believe:

·         62% of Americans believe in Satan and hell; 75% believe in heaven.

·         42% believe in evolution.

·         82% believe in God; 8% don’t believe in God; 10% are unsure.

·         79% believe in miracles; 74% believe in angels.

·         41% believe in ghosts; 35% believe in UFOs; 31% believe in witches.

·         74% believe Jesus is the Son of God; 72% believe Jesus was resurrected; 60% accept as truth the virgin birth.

·         25% generally attend church weekly.

So far it’s just interesting. We Americans still have a pretty strong belief in God, especially compared to other countries. But if you measure dedication to belief by attendance, one in four is not that good. That’s certainly down from my childhood. (My childhood home, Utah, still has the highest attendance of 74% attending weekly—the highest in the US.)

Then Pat and Stu started talking about a specific surprising shift in belief. I’ll let their transcript tell the story:

Stu: Right now adults now support "same-sex marriage" by 54-38%; a 16-point margin now support "gay marriage." For more than a decade only about a third of Americans supported the idea, ranging from 27% in 1996 to 35% in 2009. So in 2009 it was 35%, and today it’s 54%. A 19-point move in that type of topic is incredibly fast. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anything like it, to be perfectly honest with you. In 2011 it was the first time it crossed over the plurality level, and 2013 was the majority. Now we’re at 54%.

Listen to these numbers, though, broken down by age category. Those 60 and older oppose "gay marriage" 50-39%. They’re the only group now that opposes it.

Pat: Sixty and older.

Stu: Sixty and older, uh huh. [Age group] 45-59 favor "gay marriage" by a percentage of 49-40%. Between the ages of 30 and 44, they favor it 55-38%. So that’s a 17-point margin. But this is where you find—and this is, you know, where democrats are going, you know, because they try the same arguments over and over again. But these are the numbers they’re basing these arguments on: Those aged 18-29 favor "same-sex marriage" 75-18%. Seventy-five to eighteen!

Remember, this is a topic that Karl Rove is known as the architect because of—the idea that he organized a bunch of constitutional amendments on "gay marriage" to get conservatives out to vote, and they voted George W. Bush in for a second term in 2004. That’s the general reason he’s known as the architect, because he thought of that idea. That it was so popular to be opposed to "gay marriage" and to support traditional marriage back in 2004, that it was the thing that motivated people to go to the polls over a presidential election. Now we have a situation where it’s a 16-point margin among all people, and it’s 75-18% for younger people. Pretty amazing….

I mean, that’s just a societal study. You’re kind of seeing how people’s views change. I will say, on "gay marriage," I don’t know that I’ve ever seen something move that fast. 19 in five years is an astounding move for something that has been… You know, it wasn’t like a, you know, an idea no one had ever thought of. This is something that people considered for a really long time. And about a third of people said, “Yeah, there should be 'gay marriage.'” And all of a sudden, 19 points in five years. Interesting.

What else has happened during this five years? A civilization-hating president has been in the white house. Certainly he hasn’t helped, by lying during his campaign about what he wanted to do on this issue (lying about pretty much any issue, if he didn’t want us to make a judgment based on truth) and then going so far in the other direction that people are prosecuted for their beliefs, or forced out of business if they don’t go along with the homosexual agenda.

But it can’t be all just him. The speed of the change is alarming.

Meanwhile, more people are educated on the Constitution and basic human rights than ever before—mostly in the same time frame—about five years since the Tea Party started popping up. Albeit with the mistaken idea that Mitt Romney isn’t conservative enough, but at least making it clear that adhering to the Constitution—which we read and carry with us—is required of anyone we vote for.

If we’re looking for a reason the changes could happen so quickly, I think we have to look at the diversity of the media. We connect with each other instantaneously and widely, where such communication used to take days, weeks, or months, and was much more limited.

This blog is a tiny little example. The Spherical Model think tank is just me, and my computer, and whatever resources I put to use (which include my son Political Sphere, my son Economic Sphere, and my daughter Social Sphere). As obscure as this spot on the internet is, during the past week, it reached people not just in the US, but also in Russia, Ukraine, Taiwan, France, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom, Canada, Philippines, China, and New Zealand. If you add beyond this week, there were also significant readers in Turkey, Poland, Lavia…. Thank you, readers, for sharing. I write because I hope that what I have to say can help people seeking freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Such people are kindred spirits, wherever we are in the world.

Elder David A. Bednar
speaks on flooding the earth with positive messages.

David A. Bednar, former BYU-Idaho President, and now an Apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave a talk this past week in which he suggested that we flood the world with positive messages. Use the internet for good, for uplifting one another. He said,

"I exhort you to sweep the earth with messages filled with righteousness and truth—messages that are authentic, edifying, and praiseworthy—and literally to sweep the earth as with a flood."

We need to flood the world with truth, in greater quantities than the opposition is flooding the world with lies. On the issue of same-sex “marriage,” for example, the widespread message/lie has been, “It’s discriminating to prevent gays from marrying.” In truth, no homosexual is prevented from marrying, according to the definition we’ve always had; they simply choose not to. They choose instead to force a change in the definition, so that we no longer have what marriage has always been.

What if every time any media source supported “gay marriage,” a clarifying message showed up saying, “homosexuals insist on changing the definition of marriage, so that it no longer includes permanence, exclusivity, nor the sexual act that can lead to procreation, but refers simply to any two people declaring they are currently in some sort of sexual relationship”? What if every time any media source referred to “a ban on gay marriage,” a more accurate reference showed up: “a change in the definition that would throw out the millennia-old definition of marriage and replace it with a new definition that lacks all the known benefits”?

The term “gay marriage” is quicker to say than what is actual. And the term “banning gay marriage” is quicker to say than what is actual. But going with the “quick” and “easy” over and over, in a flood of messages, has led to a change in thinking that is harmful to civilization and to freedom. (More, new, examples another day.)

How do we get out the truth, on this issue and so many others, when the message is harder and longer to say? I don’t know. Twitter might not be enough. And we don’t want to put out contention on Facebook or Pinterest. A blog, like this, at least has a chance of saying the fuller message—to people who choose to seek it.

But we have to get into the minds of young people, and older people, to get the ground ready for re-planting a great tree of civilization.

And, not to put too much pressure on, but a year from now we’ll be deciding who to put forward as president against the anti-civilization crowd currently dominating the media.

Flood! Positive, uplifting, truth! Now! Go!

Preparing the Ground, Part I

When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty years ago. When is the next best time? Today.

I’d like to offer a variation on that theme. When is the best time to have Mitt Romney as President? Since 2009. When is the next best time to have Mitt Romney as President? Since 2013. When is the next best time to have Mitt Romney as President? From January 2017 on.

But I’m not planting that tree. I am not hoping he runs again.

It matters who is president—because a president can do so much damage to our country, our freedom, our economy, and our society. We have seen that deterioration in action more during the current administration than any in US history.

But the problem isn’t on the shoulders of a single person. The current climate in this country is not about an ineffectual, America-hating socialist; it’s about an electorate who chose an ineffectual, America-hating socialist—when they had the option of an extremely successful executive, with a long record of turning difficult situations into successes, who lives the highest level of civilization, honoring God, prioritizing family, and giving service generously.

 

There are people who are saying, “I told you so” at this point. It is true that Romney was right—about Obamacare, about taxes, about international conditions and America’s best role in a dangerous world, about, well, pretty much everything.

But there are also people, still, among conservatives who claim the problem was that Romney wasn’t a good enough candidate to beat the known-to-be-bad-for-America Obama. These include some names I would like to trust on conservatism: Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, various Facebook fellow conservative soldiers, Tea Party associates, the county GOP chair…. The main claim is that, since Romneycare (Massachusetts medical insurance plan) was the blueprint for Obamacare, Romney couldn’t possibly be anything but a liberal being shoved down our throats by RINO party leadership.

The lie about "Romneycare" came from the Obama campaign. That ought to be a clue. If you need a refresher, I wrote a seven-part assessment of Romney the candidate near the end of 2011, called “Measuring Mitt.” Most pertinent might be part VI on MassachusettsCare. Anyone who looks into it can see one thing really clearly: Obama and minions patterned NOTHING on anything that could be called Romney policy. Romney worked with Democrats to get policy that would be the most conservative possible—because that would be best for the people. And he succeeded in changing every organization he ever touched from debt-prone to profitable.

We admire George Washington because he was an honorable man, who gave selflessly for the country he loved, working always toward freedom rather than personal aggrandizement. Washington happened to be the wealthiest of colonists at the time of the founding. But it was not his wealth that was memorable; it was his character.

Lincoln started out in poverty and worked his way up, with much opposition. He was made for such a time. It was also his character that we admire. His strength, his dedication to principle, his love of the goodness of our country as a whole. He did things that were divisive—because to be good required division from those who preferred the continuation of a great evil. You can't compromise with evil and remain whole. Dedication to principles of truth and freedom gave the American people something to hold to in wholeness.

Reagan, who earned his significant wealth in Hollywood, is also remembered for his character. He stood strong and bold against evil. He honored America’s goodness, without even a hint of shame for country love. And he spoke directly and clearly to the good hearts of good Americans.

Our best presidents had valuable qualities, made for such times as they faced.

Romney has the experience, ability, and character to precisely fit this decade. He has the attitude of servant leadership that we admired in Washington. We simply would not be in much of the messes we’re in, if we had chosen him instead of the ignominious alternative. Yet many of the best conservatives among us missed the obvious and said, “Not good enough!”

I do not trust people so recently blind to suddenly see the light. They don’t even yet recognize their error.

So, please, don’t “draft Romney.” He is available to help wherever needed, in various campaigns, perhaps in a cabinet position later. Unlike most people in politics, he is motivated by a desire to serve. We can still let him, without putting him and his family through yet another “you’re not good enough” campaign, which is not likely to pull in the masses of even less informed voters.

I do not know who the candidate should be. No democrat should be allowed to win again in my lifetime; they have proven incapable of leading America and Americans. So that is a given. Almost any Republican would be better. But better than a democrat is hardly enough to move us from our sinking southward position, back up to the northern hemisphere of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. We could use a great man, made for the time. One who is so obviously right that every voter can be held responsible for an informed vote.

I’m leaning toward Ted Cruz. He is bold, and principled, and clearly willing to stand up against great opposition. There may be others. I pray the Lord will lead us to someone meant for the even more difficult job of restoration-after-destruction.

But my greater concern is the blinded society.

In the metaphor I began with, it’s about preparing the ground for planting. The current soil is in great need of nutrients.  The culture needs to be…cultivated.

Pointing out the blindness took this whole post. So it’s going to take a second part to consider how to get better cultural conditions.

Not All Cultures Are Equal

I like food from lots of different cultures: practically anything with a lot of fresh (or simply prepared) fruits and veggies and simple grilled or roasted meat, poultry, fish or shrimp. There are lots of ways of coming up with variety of flavors and styles using those basic requirements: Tex-Mex, Italian, Asian, Indian, French provincial, Greek, etc. We have an extraordinary variety here in the Bayou City, with more authenticity than we find in other domestic cities we’ve spent time in. (My guess is you can get this variety in NYC, but I haven’t done more than drive through, many years ago.)

It’s hard to pick a favorite. I’m used to American food, but chicken-fried steak with thick gravy and potatoes along with canned green beans just won’t sit well with me. (Nothing at McDonalds or most fast foods, with the exception of salads, meets my personal cuisine culture either.) American culture is a mix of other cultures, so we probably combine handed-down food ideas with other cultures several times a week, and sometimes in the same meal.

So I’m not saying one cuisine is better than all others, only that I require that general freshness and healthfulness from my food, whatever the cultural heritage.

Similarly, there are particular rules for civilization that lead to thriving culture. That is not to say that certain flavors are better than all others. But it is true that not all cultures lead to thriving culture. Thriving requires a freely religious people, who are honest and family oriented. (See the civilization section of Spherical Model.)

Yesterday I read a piece by Victor Davis Hanson, where he dared to state the politically incorrect fact that not all cultures are equal. His words:

I lived in Greece for over two years and often travel to northern and Mediterranean Europe and North Africa. While I prefer the Peloponnese to the Rhineland, over the years I have developed an unscientific and haphazard—but often accurate—politically incorrect method of guessing whether a nation is likely to be perennially insolvent and wracked by corruption.

Do average passersby throw down or pick up litter? After a minor fender-bender, do drivers politely exchange information, or do they scream and yell with wild gesticulations? Is honking constant or sporadic? Are crosswalks sacrosanct? Do restaurant dinners usually start or wind down at 9 P.M.? Can you drink tap water, or should you avoid it? Do you mostly pay what the price tag says, or are you expected to pay in untaxed cash and then haggle over the unstated cost? Are construction sites clearly marked and fenced to protect pedestrians, or do you risk walking into an open pit or getting stabbed by exposed rebar?

To put these crude stereotypes more abstractly, is civil society mostly moderate, predicated on the rule of law, and meritocratic — or is it characterized by self-indulgence, cynicism, and tribalism?

The answers to these questions do not hinge on race, money, or natural wealth, but they do involve culture and the way average people predictably live minute by minute.

I think we can even ask these questions about our own cities and regions, or even neighborhoods. Maybe we need to start by asking some of them about our own homes, and move out from there—which is the way a thriving culture grows.

I read one other item about culture this morning. This is from Facebook; a friend posted a letter from an emergency room doctor. I don’t know the original source, but I'm including the doctor's name as given.

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ring tone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"!

During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses.

Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based on the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me."

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,

Starner Jones, MDDuring my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ring tone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"!

During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses.

Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based on the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me."

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

His point is that the health care “crisis” can in large part be solved by changing our culture. If we look at many other “crises,” we might find far more solutions in cultural change than in political tinkering.