March and Meaning

The media told us there was a historic event across the country and around the world this past Saturday. Women came out, in extraordinary numbers, to march about….   I’m not sure.

As a strong woman friend, who didn’t attend, said on Facebook, “The whole point of a protest is to educate those who don't know anything about what it is about. I was left completely clueless.”

A confusing poster from the Women's March
found on a friend's Facebook,
original source unknown

I know a few women who participated. Young, educated, successful women. Women who have made their career choices, or are staying home with beautiful children while their husband pursues career goals that support the whole family. That’s anecdotal, I know. I just don’t happen to know any downtrodden, marginalized women who participated. But I assume in crowds that big, there were some.

But I’m confused about their message. Women around the world were protesting the election of a US President they don’t like? When the alternative was a catastrophically bad choice? That seems unlikely.

So, if we broaden out the purpose(s) for this solidarity march, maybe it’s about pushing a progressive (tyrannist), social justice (fascist) agenda that happens to be led by people who identify as female for now.

To anonymously quote one of my Facebook friends who attended in her city:

My earlier post only mentioned it was a reaction to a misogynistic president (which it definitely was), but it also was a pro-immigrant, pro-racial equality, pro-LGBTQIA rights, pro-environment, and pro-healthcare accessibility demonstration as well. Everyone marched for their own reasons, but it did expand beyond just feminism yesterday.

She linked to this Reuters article, which claims the activists were “outraged by Trump's campaign rhetoric and behavior they found to be especially misogynistic.” This is the very next day after the inauguration, and the event was in planning stages for some time, so it is not about either his rhetoric or behavior as president. Their timing, therefore, is a bit off; the campaign is over.

Another clever person made a comparison to NFL football following yesterday’s games:

I refuse to accept the results of the AFC & NFC Championship games. Tomorrow I’ll be protesting, picketing, looting, rioting, and forming support groups. Contact me privately for details.

#NotMySuperBowl     NFLMemes on Facebook

So, there’s the timing problem. Then, it is difficult to believe people are outraged about distasteful, disgusting things the now-president has said or done in the past when they show up costumed as their own genitalia. Signs they carry are some combination of vile, offensive, profane, or just stupid.

Video here, if you care to see; I’d rather not reproduce those images on my blog. But here's a photo of the leftover detritus.

The leftover detritus
photo credit Ben Ferguson

Then there’s the irony related to solidarity.

This Occupy-Wall-Street-sponsored, Planned-Parenthood-funded march attempted to exclude pro-life women.

A piece on Lifesite News, by Kelsey Kurtinitis, two days ahead of the march, starts out, “I am a woman, and yet the Women’s March on Washington does not represent me.” Later in the piece Kurtinitis explains,

According to their mission statement, they aim to “join in diversity” while sending “a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights.”…

All of these well-intentioned statements might have at least maintained consistency if they had not then immediately violated their very own mission statement.

Yesterday, the Women’s March organization made headlines by removing New Wave Feminists, a pro-life women’s group, as an official event sponsor. The Women’s March released a statement to defend their decision, apologizing for “the error” of having previously listed an “anti-choice” group as a partner. They also made it clear that they only wish to march on behalf of those who share the pro-abortion mindset.

So, women who “choose” life for children are not “woman” enough to qualify for the Women’s March. Hmm. Given pressure, organizers backtracked and decided to grudgingly allow participation from women who believe in giving birth to babies rather than killing them in the womb. For some reason that doesn’t win me over.

There has been some pushback. Some women explain why they didn’t join the march, while others respond with why they were wrong not to join. Some claim the definition of feminism has been hijacked, and others say the definition means anything and everything.

Conservative Review had a piece last September about the failure of modern feminism:

Like most progressive movements, modern feminism purports to laud equality, tolerance, and freedom of expression as its primary goals. The truth, however, is that feminism promotes two unappealing visions of equality, neither of which could be considered “tolerant.”

Some feminists have attempted to reach equality by disarming and devaluing men. For these women, equality demands that the status and intrinsic worth of men be lowered for the sake of female liberation, independence, and “leveling the playing field.” This is the “fight the patriarchy” and “the future is female” group.

An alternative and more radical form of modern feminism asserts that equality demands total transcendence of sexual and all other differences—complete uniformity in role, in pay, and, consequently, in perceived value. This view not only attacks men, but any person whose beliefs or values challenge the progressive feminist agenda. I call this camp the “feminist fascists.”

I have good friends who are willing to use the term feminism, and then define it themselves. They usually mean they want equal pay for equal work—usually unaware that women already have this, because they hear soundbites rather than look at data. [Pew Research points out that nearly all pay differences can be traced to women’s choices.] Sometimes they mean they want women to have the opportunity to pursue whatever work they want to do, as long as they are capable—again, unaware that women are more likely to graduate from high school, more likely to go to college [52% since 2010, according to UN statistics], and are more likely to be hired over a man to avoid accusations of sexism.

These sisters mean well. I don’t really have a quarrel with them. But I’ve been around long enough to know how the word has been used for many decades to mean anti-female. Women don’t gain more rights as women by denying their womanhood and acting like uncivilized men.

So I don’t ever describe myself as a feminist. And it never occurred to me to join in this meaningless march.

What did I do instead? I attended a funeral to celebrate the life of a beautiful, energetic, humanity-serving woman I had the privilege to know during the last few of her 78 years. Then I spoke at our local Tea Party meeting, outlining our legislative priorities during the session that just got underway here in Texas. (No one at the meeting talked about the march, or even mentioned the inauguration; we’re on to doing what we need to do next.) Then I went and played some music with friends. And then I went home to share a quiet evening watching a movie with Mr. Spherical Model, because sometimes being a woman living a very full life is  not only enough, it's exhausting.

Inaugurals

We’re within hours of the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. I don’t know what will be said yet. But I’ve been thinking about what an inaugural address ought to contain—and some good words from the past.

If I were imaging the ideal, I would want the new president to express his intention and dedication to protecting and defending our Constitution—as written and understood when written. I would like to hear humility, and gratitude for the confidence placed in him by the American people—and an appeal for prayer to sustain him in that effort.

I love beautiful language, like you get from Lincoln. But even more I’m in favor of honesty and integrity—being authentically himself, so no efforts toward flowery, pretentious, “I’m making this sound more important so I will seem more important” language. Short is good. And the words should be meaningful and understandable—not just sound like they must be in a “the emperor has no clothes” kind of way.

If I were to guess, I predict Donald Trump will sound like himself. Hopefully he will be clear and meaningful. And I pray that he might connect with our Constitution—and mean it.

We’ve had some good examples in the past. Ronald Reagan was good at being himself and meeting those other requirements. We could probably say the same of John F. Kennedy’s speeches. Back much further and we have to just imagine their voices. But here are a few words from the past.

George Washington’s 1^st Inaugurual, April 30, 1789

Depiction of Washington's 1st Inaugural Address
image from here

The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.

George Washington’s 2nd Inaugural, March 41793, in its entirety

Fellow Citizens:

I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

Thomas Jeffersons 1st Inaugural, March 4, 1801

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

And:

I repair then, fellow citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from this station with the reputation, and the favor, which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose pre-eminent services had entitled him to the first place in his country’s love, and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional; and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage, is a great consolation to me for the past; and my future solicitude will be, to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.

Relying then on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choices it is in your power to make. And may that infinite power, which rules the destinies of the universe, lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

Abraham Lincoln’s 2^nd Inaugural, March 4, 1865

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Ronald Reagan’s 1^st Inaugural, January 20, 1981

Reagan's 1st Inaugural Address
image found here

"To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every 4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle."

And:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.

And also:

We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

MLK's Ten Commandments

It’s Martin Luther King Day today. Yesterday I came across a Wallbuilders post in honor of the day. David Barton of Wallbuilders pointed out that he was the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  There are schools that remove the “Reverend” title out of some misguided idea that mentioning a historical person’s religious affiliation is somehow “establishing” a national religion.

Ten Commandments of Nonviolence
image from here

If that is true of some school—yet another reason to homeschool.

But David Barton went on to share Martin Luther King’s Ten Commandments for those joining him in the nonviolent movement. If we share nothing more about the man today, these Ten Commandments of nonviolence ought to be repeated.

1.       MEDITATE daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.

2.       REMEMBER always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation—not victory.

3.       WALK and TALK in the manner of love, for God is love.

4.       PRAY daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.

5.       SACRIFICE personal wishes in order that all men might be free.

6.       OBSERVE with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.

7.       SEEK to perform regular service for others and for the world.

8.       REFRAIN from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.

9.       STRIVE to be in good spiritual and bodily health.

10.   FOLLOW the directions of the movement and of the captain on a demonstration.

So, the tenth is directly related to the movement, at that time, in a particular city, so we may not need that right now. And the second is worded as time and place specific as well, but the idea of seeking justice and reconciliation rather than some nebulous idea of victory is still valid.

Not everyone is Christian. Nevertheless, I believe it is true that meditating on the teachings and life of Jesus. The remaining commandments are a pretty good description of what a regular person might work on to be more Christlike—to live a more truly civilized life.

There’s a lot in there about love—even when love isn’t offered in return—and about being kind, courteous, self-restrained, and selfless toward others.

The list I use most often to describe civilized behavior is the summary of the original Ten Commandments: honor God, family, life,property, and truth.

And another good list comes from the description of charity, the pure love of Christ, in I Corinthians 13:

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is    not puffed up,

 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

 8 Charity never faileth

I love the King James English language, but if you need a quick translation, the list is

·         Long suffering

·         Not envious

·         Not self-centered, no over-inflated ego

·         Well-mannered (courteous, kind, modest)

·         Not self-serving

·         Controlled temper

·         Controlled thoughts to avoid evil

·         No joy in doing bad, but joy in finding truth

·         Tolerant and long-suffering

·         Positive, believing, and hopeful

·         Enduring in goodness through life

As Peter taught, “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). In the Book of Mormon, Nephi taught the same principle, that God “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).

The required bahaviors of civilized behavior—leading to the comforts and joys of true civilization—apply to everyone. Live that way, among others who live that way, and you can fully enjoy civilization.

Live that way even when not among others who live that way—and work, as Rev. Martin Luther King did, to persuade others to live that way as well.

That is still a movement to get behind.

To Read or Not to Read--Shakespeare

I’ve begun yet another free online course by Hillsdale College, this one about Shakespeare’s Hamlet and The Tempest.

As you’re probably familiar, Hamlet asks,

To be, or not to be: that is the question:

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them? (Act III, Scene 1)

That’s what happens in Shakespeare; people take a look at what can be done, and what ought to be done—what is right to do when faced with whatever life throws at us.

The Globe Theater in London
from our trip last May

Professor Stephen Smith will be the main teacher. In lecture 2, his introduction to Hamlet, he says,

I really think all of Shakespearean drama broods over a key question: what habits does the human being need to lead a free, prosperous, truthful, and great life?

Here at the Spherical Model, we ask these questions too. Less artfully than Shakespeare, but we want to know, what is the way to freedom, prosperity, and civilization—rather than the alternatives of tyranny, poverty, and savagery?

Dr. Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, gives introductory lecture 1, about why we read Shakespeare—what we get out of it. One reason is to see what happens when a person makes certain choices. We can see the situation, the thought process going into the decision, and then the results—all complete.

He gives an example of something Winston Churchill advocated for that, at the time, looked like it might not move toward peace. In fact, the war lasted another five years. But it eventually did appear that Churchill was right about the choice, although some consequences are probably still playing out even now.

Actions that we take seldom are really complete. But in a play, they can be complete. In three hours you can see some dramatic things done by people, in Shakespeare in beautiful language, to explain why they’re doing it. And a world, a whole world, can be described in a few words, that is rich and beautiful, and compelling, and evocative.

In Hamlet, Dr. Arnn says,

we can find out what happened to him. We can find out his choices in detail. We can feel the pressures that he feels. We can weigh the competing goods to which he is loyal, and then we can see how it comes out in the end.

Both Churchill and Lincoln were avid readers of Shakespeare—enough that they could mouth the words when they attended performances. Why?

To conclude, what did Lincoln and Churchill find in Shakespeare? Why did they love him? Well, they were people who made extremely consequential decisions all the time. And what they could do is practice those decisions by watching those plays. To see how one thing happens and another follows—and this is this, and this is that. Also see how even the highest intentions sometimes go wrong. But nonetheless the intentions are high and worthy, even if they don’t succeed.

Both those men—I think the greatest statesmen of democratic history, along with George Washington—both those men had Shakespeare for a teacher. And if he was helpful to them, think how helpful he can be to us in our daily lives and how we carry on.

Back before our homeschooling years, our boys attended a gifted magnet school. One year they studied Shakespeare. They had a “reduced” version of Hamlet. That is, a version that uses mainly the original language, but simplifies the plot and some of the lines, so it can be more easily understood and performed by children. The teachers had originally planned to just read it together. But the kids said, “Why don’t we put it on?”

In a gifted school, if you have kids who want to do something, you probably go with it. Two weeks later they put on a performance for family. Not all the lines were memorized, and costumes and sets were very simple. But they did it. Son Economic Sphere was in fourth grade that year; Political Sphere had already moved on to middle school. Economic Sphere went around the house quoting Shakespeare at appropriate moments (seeking out such moments), which delighted me, but his brother thought he was showing off. The next year they did A comedy of Errors.

When we started homeschooling, I looked up the same reduced versions and we started putting them on. All of my kids got their chance, along with dozens of their friends. I directed for six years. Then a friend took over for longer than that. Then others stepped in. They’re still happening in our homeschool community. (In fact, auditions coincidentally are tomorrow for Twelfth Night.)

One thing our young actors learned was that Shakespeare is understandable. And he’s funny. And his plays make more sense when you see them acted out. Plus, they learned a few basics about acting, and projecting, and doing things for an audience. Mainly, they learned to think through what a character was thinking—why he was doing what he was doing—and finding a way to let the audience see that motivation. Sometimes—or nearly always—the character was not like them. That was probably valuable in itself.

So I hope we passed along a love for Shakespeare. I think we did.

During our trip to London last spring, a highlight for me was touring the Globe Theater, which is approximately where the original stood some centuries ago, and is built very much like the construction of the original, although this one is only a few decades old. They still perform there, in the open air. They mostly did that in the original, because they didn’t have many ways of lighting the stage at night. So they were open to the elements.

During our tour of the Globe Theater, they were prepping
a stand-in to take over the role of Kate
in The Taming of the Shrew

Our tour guide told a story about how that open air can affect what’s going on. Once, some years ago, a famous actor (I don’t remember who, but it was an actor whose name I have heard in my lifetime) was performing Hamlet in The Globe, and a pidgeon flew in and landed near him on the stage. This was at the point in the story when Hamlet was standing over Ophelia’s grave. Without missing a moment, the actor continued his lines while following the bird as it wandered around the stage. At last it hopped in on top of the startled, live actress playing the dead Ophelia. Hamlet hopped in after it—which he does at nearly that point in the script, and scooped it up, continuing his lines. And then, at the appropriate moment lets the bird fly free. I’ve looked for the line, not sure which it is. Possibly as Hamlet faces her brother Laertes, who blames him for her death, says,

I pr’ythee, take thy fingers from my throat;

For, though I am not splenetive and rash,

Yet have I in me something dangerous,

Which let thy wiseness fear: away thy hand. (Act V, Scene 1)

That memorable dramatic moment is something that can happen only in a live performance, and only in an outdoor theater. It’s like watching life.

Watching life is why we still love Shakespeare. It is something other species do not do—act out and observe various possibilities to try to determine a better course for a similar future life choice. And this is because humans rightly ask such questions as, “What habits does the human being need to lead a free, prosperous, truthful, and great life?”

Citizens, Not Subjects

Back in the 1770s, American colonists had a disagreement with the King of England. The king insisted that he was to rule over them, because it was the right he was born to; and they were to be his subjects and were obligated to submit to his rule.

They believed they were born to be the same things as the king: men. They were not willing to be subject to a king the way a horse would be subject to a man.

Image found here

And they wrote clearly of their disagreements, and their intentions to defend themselves and their God-given rights. The king could have seen things their way and let them separate peacefully; he didn’t. That is why the Revolutionary War happened.

Freedom won.

Some years later the founders set up a system of limited government—so that God-given rights would be protected, and no one would have power to “rule” over another. Slavery took several more decades and a bloody civil war to eliminate—in order to align with the founding principle that all human beings are created equal before the law.

But there has been some forgetting, particularly over the past century, since around 1913.

Then-Congressman Mike Pence spoke at Hillsdale College in September 2010, which became an Imprimis publication the following month. He spoke on “The Presidency and the Constitution”:

Mike Pence
image from here

The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us; we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law, and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.

Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? Listen to the words of the leader of President Obama’s transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: “It’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” Or, more recently, the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate—the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—who wrote last Friday: “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again.”

“Take power. . .rule. . .leveling.” Though it is the model now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly, and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects; we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and—if I may remind you—we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?

I’m comforted, as we come at last to the end of Obama’s rule, that we have a vice-president who understands the constitutional limits of presidential power.

A week or so ago Valarie Jarrett asserted that one thing that can be said for the Obama administration was that it was essentially scandal-free.

Andrew Napolitano takes issue with that. The subheading on his Judge Napolitano Chambers is “Making Sure Government Is Not Our Master.” He takes the opportunity to contradict Valarie Jarrett with a few reminders in this video.

Back in 2013, the list of scandals was so long it was becoming a joke. You couldn’t just refer to the Obama administration scandal; that was too vague, because there were so many. Just to review, I’ll repost a joke from that time:

Multiple Scandals

Bob: "Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?"

Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6 Extortion 17?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the voter fraud?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president demoralizing and breaking down the military?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the Boston Bombing?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president wanting to kill Americans with drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, e-mails and everything else?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons and falsely blaming the sequester?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "HHS employees being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"

Bob: "No, the other one."

Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters stuck us again with the most corrupt administration in American history?"

Bob: "THAT'S THE ONE!"

And now we’ve had three more years.

We could add the purposeful(?) deterioration of race relations under our first black president (the timeline is offered here on The Daily Wire).

Whatever we have to look forward to, at least this administration is ending.

There is some fear and trepidation of what is to come. I share some of that; I was not a Trump supporter (and absolutely wasn’t a Hillary supporter). But much of the worry has been, not that he will be too authoritarian, but that he will be an unstable personality for a ruler.

Keith Olbermann, now a correspondent for fashion magazine GQ, offers a video of a supposed well-considered sane assessment—the irony of which ought to be striking, if you have followed his career. He says that you ought to admit that Trump is crazy and the best end for everyone is to remove him before something bad happens. The lack of self-awareness is amazing.

As I said well before the election (before the primary), we’ve had a narcissistic authoritarian; we don’t need to try that again. But here we are. And, while I still don’t like his style or personality, there is reason to rejoice that at least Trump is not anti-American and pro-socialism.

As Thomas Sowell pointed out recently, Trump has put together perhaps the best cabinet and staff, at this point in the process, of any president within memory. The thing we don’t know is what he will do as president. If he listens to these appointees, we have much reason to be hopeful; if he doesn’t listen and just does what he wants, that won’t be as good for America.

What we do know is that, whenever we hold fast to the Constitution, limiting government to its role of protecting our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, then we maximize our freedom, and set up the best situation for prosperity and thriving civilization as well.

Some Klavan on the Culture

The other night I happened upon a short video by Andrew Klavan, explaining God. And that led to another suggested Andrew Klavan video. And then another.

Andrew Klavan
screen shot from Uncommon Knowledge interview

Andrew Klavan, a novelist and conservative Christian commentator (who has the talent of being simultaneously funny and insightful), talks about culture. A lot.

The first introduction I had to him was a Klavan on the Culture video in which he compares liberal ideas to zombies that keep coming back from the dead. This was around 2009. I didn’t know how to save a video, so I sat through it multiple times to transcribe it—just so I would always have it. It turns out he’s extremely prolific, so I couldn’t keep doing that.

Anyway, a couple of the videos I watched the other night were a bit of a look back in time, both following books he had recently written. 

In this one, from 2013, he has written A Killer in the Wind, but the talk, he says, is about “Sex and German Philosophy,” two things you should never attempt at the same time, but that are related. In the end, he summarizes with this (around 20 minutes in):

The arts naturally, inherently, by nature, support the conservative view of man. They naturally—they cannot help, left to themselves, but produce a view of spiritual people with a right to choose for themselves.

And what we have to do, as we take back the arts, and take back the culture—and we will do it—is we have to keep from being seduced into being censors and scolds, and simply let the arts speak the truth. Because if the arts speak the truth about spiritual man and what makes him happy, then they will sing the song of human freedom. I know this for a fact, because they always have.

In other words, have faith in the truth. I agree.

The video that got me thinking I ought to write about culture, here in this early January 2017 post, was an Uncommon Knowledge interview (yet another of my favorite things) from 2008, following the publication of his book Empire of Lies.

Peter Robinson talks with Andrew Klavan about his journey to Christianity (from a non-religious Jewish upbringing, through atheism). And they talk about art—particularly in Hollywood, where Klavan both works and criticizes.

Toward the end they cover speaking truth to power—which he says is not what Hollywood does.

PR: So, last question in this segment: Do you get the feeling that Hollywood today—this notion that the arts are always avant-garde, the cutting edge—my feeling is, that’s nonsense. At the present hour, they’re a lagging indicator. You could parachute into Kansas, anywhere in Kansas, walk into the nearest diner and find people who have a much more acute grip of reality than you could by strolling up and down Wilshire Blvd.

AK: No question about it.

PR: And so, is it purely a question of time? All these studio heads who are in their 60s are going to retire soon…. My view would be, let’s buy them places, since we’re…. In other words, is there going to be just kind of a healthy turnover, or is there more kind of an enduring ideological fight that has to be fought?

AK: I’m very optimistic. I think there is an enduring ideological fight that has to be fought. I think the reason they’re a lagging indicator—perfect phrase for them, because they are straight-jacketed by their ideology; they’re the most conformist group of people, backward group of people, you can imagine. But we, conservatives, have let them get away with this.

I’ve said this again and again. But if you win the White House, if you win the Congress, if you win the Supreme Court and lose the culture, you will lose the country. It’s the culture… You know, Shelley was right, the poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. It will take a longer time, but if you lose the culture—if you let them drip this poison into the consciousness of America forever, they will win.

And I think it really is going to require—I’m very optimistic about it, but it is going to require an effort to take the culture back from these people, who are, as you say, conformist, backward, living in the ideology of a generation ago.

They end with a discussion from the novel, which I appreciate:

PR: OK. Let me put the same question in a slightly different way, and ground it in your Empire of Lies, your new novel. Here’s a quotation from Empire of Lies:

The day it began was an autumn day, Saturday afternoon in October. I was sitting in a cushioned chair on the brick patio at the edge of my backyard, looking down half an acre of grassy slope to where my two boys were organizing some kind of Frisbee game around the swingset.

I loved our neighborhood—Horizon Hill, the Hill for short. Big yards. Craftsman houses. Lake views. Friendly, mostly like-minded people. Hard-working dads, housewife moms. Not too many divorces. Lots of kids.”

Andrew Klavan, I charge you with having become irretrievably bourgeois. You are attempting to do something that cannot be done: you’re a novelist; you seek to inhabit the world of the entertaining, the hip, the cool. And yet here you are, as a Christian, a conservative, holding up for praise the square, the unhip, the conventional. You’ll never be cool again.

AK: I may never be cool again. I’ll certainly never be called cool again. And yet, and yet, I cannot help but think that at the center of the arts—because at the center of human life—is the experience of love. And that love is not excluded from the suburbs. It’s not excluded from the bourgeois life. It never was; it never has been. It frequently finds its best ground to grow in there.

My life is deeply affected by my marriage, which is an anomalous marriage in its romance. It’s been a 30-year romance. And I know that’s anomalous, and I know that’s not something that everybody gets. And yet it does give you an insight that this is a possibility—that love, in marriage, is a possibility.

It seems to me that that possibility has been excluded by the so-called avant-garde, who really are the behind-garde. It seems to me that that possibility has been excluded, and that putting it forward is in fact a revolutionary act. Putting it down is in fact saying, “You know what, you know, this is here. You can’t close your eyes to it. You can’t constantly tell us that all marriages are Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf? without us coming back and saying, ‘You know, I live in this neighborhood, and I see marriages that aren’t like that at all.’”

Yes. Because family is the basic unit of civilization.

There’s a section near the end of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy that I’ve written about. When the Hobbits return to the Shire, and Sam Gangee musters the courage to go talk to Rosie—and begin what becomes a happy family life. That is, I think, what all the mission was to secure.

I’m often puzzled by the word bourgeois. I think it means middle class, but it’s pejorative, implying corruption. In the real middle class, where families live their lives, mostly happily, but with real life struggles, and love one another—that is where you're most likely to find civilization.

There’s a section of the Spherical Model where we talk about what civilization looks like, and it includes cultural arts:

Creativity abounds; enlightening arts and literature exceed expectations. Architecture and infrastructure improve; innovation and invention are the rule.

People feel free to choose their work, their home, their family practices, their friendships and associations. And they generally self-restrain before they infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

When people are secure in their persons and property, and have the freedom to choose their own life paths, but are self-restrained by the love of one another—mainly because of family—then civilization is set up to thrive.

It is in the northern hemisphere—of the political, economic, and social spheres—that we get the good outcomes. Nothing that drags people into the southern hemisphere and keeps them there can get those positive outcomes.

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”—that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.—John Keats

Andrew Klavan is right about culture: truth in art leads to conservative values--the values of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. We need to take this opportunity, while we have more outlets for expression, and find better ways of saying so.

The Basic Principles

It’s the start of a new year, so it seems like an appropriate time to review what the Spherical Model is. I’ve done the description of the model a number of times:

Condensed version here: The Political Sphere Is Round 

Video here: https://youtu.be/IGoh5X-CPGA

The whole website here: www.sphericalmodel.com

In all of these we’re changing the language from a right/left dichotomy to a three-dimensional model. The hope is that, with old language out of the way, we can discuss the principles that lead to the best outcomes: freedom (instead of tyranny), prosperity (instead of poverty), and civilization (instead of savagery).

Rather than review what the model looks like, today we’ll cover the basic principles that lead to the best outcomes—upper northern hemisphere—in the three overlying spheres: political, economic, and social.

Go North on the Political Sphere

The Political Sphere

Government must be limited to its proper role: protecting life, liberty, and property. We can ask (and insist that our government officials ask and honor) a series of questions to test whether or not a policy fits within the freedom zone:

·         Is the policy being debated something that an individual has the right to do, and therefore has the right to delegate to his/her government?  For example, a person has the right to protect his own life and property. He can, therefore, combine resources with his neighbors and hire a government entity, such as a sheriff, to do that job for him. Similarly, the several states can combine to delegate the power of defending the nation to a national government entity. Conversely, a person does not have the right to take his neighbor’s excess grain production, for example, and bestow it on himself, because his neighbor was more prosperous in a particular season. He can, of course, ask his neighbor for charity, but he cannot coerce the neighbor to give. That would rightfully be considered theft. Therefore, the person cannot delegate the redistribution of wealth to the government to do for him.

·         Does the policy infringe in any way on the rights enumerated in the US Constitution Bill of Rights? Does the policy infringe on the free exercise of religion or try to establish a particular sect as a state religion? Is political speech hindered? Does the policy infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms? Does the policy constitute an illegal search or seizure? Does the policy deprive a person of life, liberty, or property when the person has not committed a crime for which that deprivation is the just sentence? Does the policy try to claim for government a power that was not specifically granted in the Constitution? etc. If the policy infringes on God-given rights, then government cannot take that power without usurping power from the people.

·         Is the idea being debated a proper role of government; i.e., some aspect of protection (including defense, protection from interstate crime, enabling international and interstate commerce, standardized weights and measures and currency, the judiciary that guarantees the protective laws), as enumerated in the Constitution? If not, then accepting the idea is outside the Constitution and south of the freedom zone.

·         

Go North to the Prosperity Zone

The basic principle for economic prosperity is: the person who creates the wealth gets to decide how to spend it.

The Economic Sphere

The closer we get to that principle, the more prosperous the society.

Inequality of outcome is not a problem government should solve. In fact, protecting property is pretty much the only assignment of government related to the economy. We know from long experience that government interference in the economy, for whatever well-intentioned purpose, will cause negative consequences—usually the exact opposite of the stated goal of the interference.

Included in its job of safeguarding our wealth, government can be charged with coining/printing money. But whenever it prints/coins/creates money not representing actual created wealth, it devalues money, robbing earners of some portion of their wealth.

So, above all, we get prosperity in a free-enterprise society where government is limited to protecting property.

What do we do about the poor?

That is a combination of an economic question and a social question. “For ye have the poor always with you,” (Matthew 26:11). If we want to help one another, it has to be a free-will charitable gift—not a coercion of government. Government is incapable of charity; it is only an exertion of power, or coercion. So government needs to stay out of the issue of helping the poor.

If we live in a civilized society, we will care about one another. We will go through churches, organizations, and individuals to help those who need help.

There will always be a bottom 10% of earners. But the goal is to raise the standard of living so that even those lower earners have basic food and shelter, and, whenever possible, the opportunity to get out of poverty and become self-sufficient.

Respecting one another’s property rights, obeying laws, and honesty in business transactions are also necessary for economic prosperity, so the interrelationships of the spheres becomes evident. Political freedom from limited government, plus the self-government of civilized people set a background for economic prosperity.

So, economic prosperity comes when we have a free-market combined with philanthropy, and a government strictly limited to protecting property.

Go North to the Civilization Zone

The Social Sphere

In the Spherical Model, Civilization is more than a society where people write records, have a certain amount of technology, and live together in cities. It is a society free from savagery. Civilized people live peaceably among their neighbors, helping rather than taking advantage of one another, abiding by laws enacted to protect property and safety—with honesty and honor. Civilized people live in peace with other civilized people; countries and cultures coexist in appreciation, without fear.

As with the other spheres, where good people agree that freedom is better than tyranny, and prosperity is better than poverty, civilization is better than savagery. These are not close choices; they are clearly different.

A civilized society requires a critical mass of people who live a certain way.

·         A civilized society must be a religious society.

o   Not all religious societies are civilized (according to my definition), but every civilized society is a religious society. This absolutely does not mean state-sponsored religion or lack of religious freedom; in fact, the opposite is true. Freedom of religion is essential, and the flourishing of religion in general must be encouraged.

o   Rights come from God, not from government or some human grantor; so belief in God is the basis of freedom.

o   Individuals feel accountable to God in this life and the life to come, so they choose to self-govern.

·         The religious beliefs of the people must include honoring God, life, family, truth, and property (this is the summary of the Ten Commandments).

·         Because it perpetuates the civilization, family is the essential basic unit of civilization. There must be a critical mass of married mothers and fathers raising their own children to be civilized people.

So those are the basic principles of the Spherical Model.

If we can agree that we want freedom, prosperity, and civilization—as opposed to tyranny, poverty, and savagery—that’s a lot of agreement. And then we can move the conversation on to how we get those outcomes. I’ve proposed what I believe are the true principles. Most of what I write about here relates to how these principles are playing out in our world.