17/04: A Waco Farmer
Some information about me:
My favorite living American (excluding family members) is Brian Lamb. My favorite historians (excluding friends and mentors) are Eric Foner, David Hackett Fischer, Robert Remini, Gordon Wood, Richard Norton Smith, Joseph Ellis and Victor Davis Hanson. My favorite historical period is Early National. My favorite eighteenth-century American is George Washington; in the c. 19: JQA, Jackson & Lincoln; c. 20: Teddy (TR), MLK, and RR. Other heroes: Tom Landry, John Wooden, Grant Teaff, Nolan Ryan, Muhammad Ali, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson.
I have always proudly self-identified as a conservative, but I am mindful that some of my conservative brethren look askance at many of my positions. In the coming split in modern conservatism, my pronounced bent toward libertarianism and evangelicalism may necessitate my estrangement from the movement (but the initiative won't come from me).
I am an American traditionalist and a Southern Baptist. I believe with all my heart in limited government, but my convictions are tempered with a nineteenth-century Whig sensibility. That is, I wonder if Henry Clay's "American System" and a little evangelical fervor might not be the recipe for national revival. I believe in the republican virtues of the Revolution: frugality, integrity, industry, patience, and subordination of self-interest to the public interest (although I often fail to live out those ideals).
I believe in tradition, in general, and the American tradition, in particular, which I contend celebrates synthesis and compromise as well as innovation, independent thought and principled stands. I think Alexis de Tocqueville had it right when he said (and I paraphrase) that the genius of American politics is the ability of the electorate to tack back and forth, adjusting and correcting.
I believe that history has the power to save our collective American soul.
PS: I do not actually own a farm (nor do I possess the requisite skill to maintain one). The sobriquet, A Waco Farmer, is derivative of John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer” and a paean to the affinity of the Founders for agrarian republicanism.
My favorite living American (excluding family members) is Brian Lamb. My favorite historians (excluding friends and mentors) are Eric Foner, David Hackett Fischer, Robert Remini, Gordon Wood, Richard Norton Smith, Joseph Ellis and Victor Davis Hanson. My favorite historical period is Early National. My favorite eighteenth-century American is George Washington; in the c. 19: JQA, Jackson & Lincoln; c. 20: Teddy (TR), MLK, and RR. Other heroes: Tom Landry, John Wooden, Grant Teaff, Nolan Ryan, Muhammad Ali, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson.
I have always proudly self-identified as a conservative, but I am mindful that some of my conservative brethren look askance at many of my positions. In the coming split in modern conservatism, my pronounced bent toward libertarianism and evangelicalism may necessitate my estrangement from the movement (but the initiative won't come from me).
I am an American traditionalist and a Southern Baptist. I believe with all my heart in limited government, but my convictions are tempered with a nineteenth-century Whig sensibility. That is, I wonder if Henry Clay's "American System" and a little evangelical fervor might not be the recipe for national revival. I believe in the republican virtues of the Revolution: frugality, integrity, industry, patience, and subordination of self-interest to the public interest (although I often fail to live out those ideals).
I believe in tradition, in general, and the American tradition, in particular, which I contend celebrates synthesis and compromise as well as innovation, independent thought and principled stands. I think Alexis de Tocqueville had it right when he said (and I paraphrase) that the genius of American politics is the ability of the electorate to tack back and forth, adjusting and correcting.
I believe that history has the power to save our collective American soul.
PS: I do not actually own a farm (nor do I possess the requisite skill to maintain one). The sobriquet, A Waco Farmer, is derivative of John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer” and a paean to the affinity of the Founders for agrarian republicanism.
15/04: More McCain
Two columns this morning discuss the appeal of John McCain as an opponent to Hillary. One is from Charlie Cook, the election guru, and the other from veteran Iowa political analyst, David Yepsen. Both of these pieces reinforce my contention that McCain is likely "the one" (I have once again included my "Why McCain" piece from last month here for review).
Yepsen, writing in the Des Moines Register today, asserts that the conventional wisdom that McCain cannot win in Iowa is off base:
"As with much conventional wisdom, it's wrong. John McCain could easily win the Iowa caucuses and the 2008 Republican presidential nomination for one reason: Hillary Clinton.
"He may be the only Republican who can both win a GOP presidential nomination and then defeat the New York senator, who is anathema to Republican activists. That fact won't be lost on them as they trudge out on a cold January night to pass an early judgment on their party's presidential candidates."
"Here's how it could work: Republicans are likely to take a bath in the 2006 elections. Strategists differ over just how bad, but if it happens, it will spook the GOP and give Democrats the momentum in the race for the White House in 2008. Right now, Clinton leads in polls of the Democratic contest. Many general-election matchups show there are only two Republicans who can defeat her — McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
"But Giuliani can't win the GOP nomination. Too liberal. He might not even run. That leaves McCain, who is actually a lot more conservative than his image.
"Whatever quibble the party's right may have with him over old issues and slights will melt in comparison to their fears of President Hillary Clinton picking Supreme Court justices."
Cook makes a similar point and, like Yepsen, also notes that important GOP power brokers are starting to move in the direction of McCain:
"McCain isn't the only one doing the moving. The Republican establishment is showing unmistakable signs of edging his way. When you see Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi taking McCain down to the Gulf Coast to look at hurricane damage and fawning over him at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis, while vying with Mississippi Gov.Haley Barbour to see who could suck up to McCain more, you know something is up."
Of course, the reality is that McCain has much to overcome with the GOP base. I continue to hear much more anti-McCain commentary than positive statements among Republican stalwarts. These columns today make a good point: McCain needs Hillary to emerge as the presumptive nominee. Only then will the GOP feel desperate enough to bury the hatchet and embrace the "maverick" senator out of necessity.
Yepsen, writing in the Des Moines Register today, asserts that the conventional wisdom that McCain cannot win in Iowa is off base:
"As with much conventional wisdom, it's wrong. John McCain could easily win the Iowa caucuses and the 2008 Republican presidential nomination for one reason: Hillary Clinton.
"He may be the only Republican who can both win a GOP presidential nomination and then defeat the New York senator, who is anathema to Republican activists. That fact won't be lost on them as they trudge out on a cold January night to pass an early judgment on their party's presidential candidates."
"Here's how it could work: Republicans are likely to take a bath in the 2006 elections. Strategists differ over just how bad, but if it happens, it will spook the GOP and give Democrats the momentum in the race for the White House in 2008. Right now, Clinton leads in polls of the Democratic contest. Many general-election matchups show there are only two Republicans who can defeat her — McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
"But Giuliani can't win the GOP nomination. Too liberal. He might not even run. That leaves McCain, who is actually a lot more conservative than his image.
"Whatever quibble the party's right may have with him over old issues and slights will melt in comparison to their fears of President Hillary Clinton picking Supreme Court justices."
Cook makes a similar point and, like Yepsen, also notes that important GOP power brokers are starting to move in the direction of McCain:
"McCain isn't the only one doing the moving. The Republican establishment is showing unmistakable signs of edging his way. When you see Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi taking McCain down to the Gulf Coast to look at hurricane damage and fawning over him at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis, while vying with Mississippi Gov.Haley Barbour to see who could suck up to McCain more, you know something is up."
Of course, the reality is that McCain has much to overcome with the GOP base. I continue to hear much more anti-McCain commentary than positive statements among Republican stalwarts. These columns today make a good point: McCain needs Hillary to emerge as the presumptive nominee. Only then will the GOP feel desperate enough to bury the hatchet and embrace the "maverick" senator out of necessity.
14/04: A Black Friday
A Meditation on Titian's "Entombment of Christ" (click here to view the painting).
John 19:38-42
Titian’s sixteenth-century oil-on-canvas, The Entombment of Christ, depicts the blackest moment of the early Christian movement: the burial of the promised Redeemer.
John 19:38-42
Titian’s sixteenth-century oil-on-canvas, The Entombment of Christ, depicts the blackest moment of the early Christian movement: the burial of the promised Redeemer.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A lot of good points are being made on the Wal-Mart thread. Let me highlight a solution-oriented post from Tocqueville:
"So what do we do? Well, we must strike a balance between respect for private property rights and our other values. How? On the one hand, government should not legislate against Wal-Mart and its ilk (although Japan has sucessfully done this). On the other hand, government should certainly not subsidize Wal-Mart through zoning or tax breaks. Wal-Mart’s a big boy, so to speak, who can take care of itself. We ought to let it compete in a truly free market. And those of us with a bully pulpit ought to use it to encourage Wal-Mart to become a better neighbor and citizen."
That is a moderate and thoughtful response to what is a real and serious problem. Well done.
Also, FYI, Godspy (click here) offers a nice interview with Rod Dreher, author of Crunchy Cons, wherein he is allowed enough space to explain the crunchy con philosophy in some depth. The site also offers a nice set of sidebars with crunchy-con related links.
Also, let me recap my two main points in re Wal-Mart:
1. Wal-Mart may be ugly on many levels, but for folks for whom a few pennies per item add up to something significant at the end of the day, Wal-Mart is a life rope. We can rail against the disease of which Wal-Mart is a symptom, but we need to acknowledge that right now Wal-Mart is extremely important to a large segment of the population whom we do not consider often or understand very well.
2. Generally, I tend to like the people shopping inside of Wal-Mart better than the ones who are outside boycotting. I enjoy meeting America in Wal-Mart.
"So what do we do? Well, we must strike a balance between respect for private property rights and our other values. How? On the one hand, government should not legislate against Wal-Mart and its ilk (although Japan has sucessfully done this). On the other hand, government should certainly not subsidize Wal-Mart through zoning or tax breaks. Wal-Mart’s a big boy, so to speak, who can take care of itself. We ought to let it compete in a truly free market. And those of us with a bully pulpit ought to use it to encourage Wal-Mart to become a better neighbor and citizen."
That is a moderate and thoughtful response to what is a real and serious problem. Well done.
Also, FYI, Godspy (click here) offers a nice interview with Rod Dreher, author of Crunchy Cons, wherein he is allowed enough space to explain the crunchy con philosophy in some depth. The site also offers a nice set of sidebars with crunchy-con related links.
Also, let me recap my two main points in re Wal-Mart:
1. Wal-Mart may be ugly on many levels, but for folks for whom a few pennies per item add up to something significant at the end of the day, Wal-Mart is a life rope. We can rail against the disease of which Wal-Mart is a symptom, but we need to acknowledge that right now Wal-Mart is extremely important to a large segment of the population whom we do not consider often or understand very well.
2. Generally, I tend to like the people shopping inside of Wal-Mart better than the ones who are outside boycotting. I enjoy meeting America in Wal-Mart.
12/04: I like Walmart?
Yes. I confess. I like Wal-Mart. Not because I reject the widely held belief that Wal-Mart is an essential element in the decay of American manufacturing, labor and popular culture. For the most part, I agree with all those assertions. Wal-Mart helped kill Marlin, Texas. Wal-Mart helps Asian despots exploit their populace. Wal-Mart is unfair to authors and artists. Yes. All those things and more (for an NPR discussion of the "Wal-Mart Effect," click here).
Perhaps old habits die hard. A few years back, when I was in the customer service business, Sam Walton was our guru and Wal-Mart was the standard. Back then you could walk into any Wal-Mart, USA and ask for the motor oil in the home and garden section and the Wal-Mart employee would smile at you and assure you that any rational person could have made that mistake and graciously lead you to the automotive section and deposit you in front of the motor oil. “Here you are, sir,” he would say, “forty-eight different brands to choose from. Give me a yell if there is anything more I can do to help.”
Also, Wal-Mart was the place to meet people in your community. In those days, if you stayed in one place in the Wal-Mart long enough, you would eventually encounter everyone you knew.
Today Wal-Mart is a different place with a different ethos. Sam Walton is dead. It has been many years since I have found an employee in Wal-Mart sensitive to serving customer needs or knowledgable of the store inventory.
Wal-Mart as a public space has changed as well. I never see my liberal friends in Wal-Mart anymore. Staying out of Wal-Mart has become a liberal badge of honor; being seen in Wal-Mart is a source of grave embarrassment. And it is not just socially conscious liberals. Green Conservatives (or “Crunchy Cons”) are increasingly critical and judgmental of Wal-Mart, seeing the massive corporation as the symbol of soulless and destructive hyper-consumerism.
Today only the market-oriented, Wall Street Journal types seem likely to defend Wal-Mart, although I seldom see those people in the store either. Perhaps we would expect to see some neo-cons buying maps of Iraq and Syria or the latest Harry Potter book or DVD, but they seem to be staying away as well.
And that is part of the charm of Wal-Mart today. Wal-Mart has been abandoned by the elites. Once it was kind of hip and trendy for wealthy people to go to Wal-Mart. Now conscientious liberals and "crunchy" conservatives, who are prepared to pay $39.99 at upscale department stores for miniature sport shirts for their toddling children, stay away from Wal-Mart for humanitarian reasons, where working-class people of varying colors buy entire wardrobes of clothes for their children at affordable prices.
The People have taken back Wal-Mart. There is no risk of running into a upwardly mobile executive in a hurry or an obnoxious parent from your child’s private school or a self-important colleague with a new theory. Those folks are gone. Now at Wal-Mart it is just you and the real people of “fly-over” America. Vive Wal-Mart as sanctuary!
Perhaps old habits die hard. A few years back, when I was in the customer service business, Sam Walton was our guru and Wal-Mart was the standard. Back then you could walk into any Wal-Mart, USA and ask for the motor oil in the home and garden section and the Wal-Mart employee would smile at you and assure you that any rational person could have made that mistake and graciously lead you to the automotive section and deposit you in front of the motor oil. “Here you are, sir,” he would say, “forty-eight different brands to choose from. Give me a yell if there is anything more I can do to help.”
Also, Wal-Mart was the place to meet people in your community. In those days, if you stayed in one place in the Wal-Mart long enough, you would eventually encounter everyone you knew.
Today Wal-Mart is a different place with a different ethos. Sam Walton is dead. It has been many years since I have found an employee in Wal-Mart sensitive to serving customer needs or knowledgable of the store inventory.
Wal-Mart as a public space has changed as well. I never see my liberal friends in Wal-Mart anymore. Staying out of Wal-Mart has become a liberal badge of honor; being seen in Wal-Mart is a source of grave embarrassment. And it is not just socially conscious liberals. Green Conservatives (or “Crunchy Cons”) are increasingly critical and judgmental of Wal-Mart, seeing the massive corporation as the symbol of soulless and destructive hyper-consumerism.
Today only the market-oriented, Wall Street Journal types seem likely to defend Wal-Mart, although I seldom see those people in the store either. Perhaps we would expect to see some neo-cons buying maps of Iraq and Syria or the latest Harry Potter book or DVD, but they seem to be staying away as well.
And that is part of the charm of Wal-Mart today. Wal-Mart has been abandoned by the elites. Once it was kind of hip and trendy for wealthy people to go to Wal-Mart. Now conscientious liberals and "crunchy" conservatives, who are prepared to pay $39.99 at upscale department stores for miniature sport shirts for their toddling children, stay away from Wal-Mart for humanitarian reasons, where working-class people of varying colors buy entire wardrobes of clothes for their children at affordable prices.
The People have taken back Wal-Mart. There is no risk of running into a upwardly mobile executive in a hurry or an obnoxious parent from your child’s private school or a self-important colleague with a new theory. Those folks are gone. Now at Wal-Mart it is just you and the real people of “fly-over” America. Vive Wal-Mart as sanctuary!
10/04: More McCain Watch
Howard Kurtz has a compelling piece on McCain and his erstwhile supporters today in the Washington Post. I say "compelling" because it is in agreement with something I wrote here a few weeks ago, and it has been a long wait for someone to write something remotely friendly to my position.
Thanks to my good friend, Tocqueville, for calling my attention to this article.
Thanks to my good friend, Tocqueville, for calling my attention to this article.
29/03: A Baylor Meltdown?
Category: Baylor
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
There is much discussion of Baylor University in the news and on the web this week. Most of it is connected with the denial of tenure for Francis Beckwith, a professor in the JM Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor. Here is a nice round-up of stories from Mere Comments (which includes this link worth reading from First Things by Joseph Bottum).
My comment is 12th in the queue on Mere Comments, but I will save you the trouble:
A Meltdown? Perhaps we overstate the problem. I would imagine that Baylor today (for Baylor students) is very much like Baylor was (for Baylor students) when I was there in the 1980s and then again in the 1990s and when my father was there in the early 1960s and how it will be when my boys are there in the late-2010s.
Baylor has taught secular geology and biology for more than 100 years. Baylor has always employed liberal history professors with degrees from big-name research universities. The Baylor religion department has always been of the moderate-to-liberal variety. And Baylor has always been and will continue to be a great place to get a Christian education.
Part of the current problem is the social awkwardness of the reformers. True Baylorites resent presumptuous outsiders who always seem so ready to tell us how lowly Baylor was before they took an interest in the 2012 project. I have heard enough of that forever.
On the other hand, it was probably unwise to dismiss a sincere scholar for reasons of "collegiality." What does that mean? How do you catalog, quantify or document something that nebulous? Obviously that was a PR disaster waiting to happen. An olive branch might have been wiser than the sledgehammer. Having said that, the Baylor family needs time to heal itself.
In the meantime, Baylor University is today what it always has been: a wonderful and secure place for Christian parents (and well-meaning parents of all persuasions) to entrust their children for four years.
My comment is 12th in the queue on Mere Comments, but I will save you the trouble:
A Meltdown? Perhaps we overstate the problem. I would imagine that Baylor today (for Baylor students) is very much like Baylor was (for Baylor students) when I was there in the 1980s and then again in the 1990s and when my father was there in the early 1960s and how it will be when my boys are there in the late-2010s.
Baylor has taught secular geology and biology for more than 100 years. Baylor has always employed liberal history professors with degrees from big-name research universities. The Baylor religion department has always been of the moderate-to-liberal variety. And Baylor has always been and will continue to be a great place to get a Christian education.
Part of the current problem is the social awkwardness of the reformers. True Baylorites resent presumptuous outsiders who always seem so ready to tell us how lowly Baylor was before they took an interest in the 2012 project. I have heard enough of that forever.
On the other hand, it was probably unwise to dismiss a sincere scholar for reasons of "collegiality." What does that mean? How do you catalog, quantify or document something that nebulous? Obviously that was a PR disaster waiting to happen. An olive branch might have been wiser than the sledgehammer. Having said that, the Baylor family needs time to heal itself.
In the meantime, Baylor University is today what it always has been: a wonderful and secure place for Christian parents (and well-meaning parents of all persuasions) to entrust their children for four years.
26/03: Amen.
17/03: Bigger Love
Charles Krauthammer (linked here) takes on polygamy and same-sex marriage today and makes a lot of sense. Toward the end of the article, Krauthammer articulates the perfect blend of a libertarian world view and pragmatic logic:
"I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to or assault on traditional marriage. The assault came from within. Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long slow suicide, thank you. Astronomical rates of divorce and of single parenthood (the deliberate creation of fatherless families) existed before there was a single gay marriage or any talk of sanctioning polygamy. The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism -- as is the decline of traditional marriage -- and not its cause.
As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have enough gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. It is critical, however, that any such fundamental change in the very definition of marriage be enacted democratically and not (as in the disastrous case of abortion) by judicial fiat."
I agree completely, but I would tweak one minor point in the essay: Krauthammer points out that he has predicted for ten years that "it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights."
I would argue that polygamy would have made more sense as a trailblazer (or Trojan Horse) for same-sex marriage. By that I mean, polygamy is eminently more defensible than gay marriage. Gay marriage draws the ire of Natural Law theorists and scripture-emphasizing Christians. Polygamy, on the other hand, does not offend Natural Law devotees and has deep Biblical roots. For the most part, polygamy has only American tradition to overcome, which is not an insurmountable hill to climb.
"I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to or assault on traditional marriage. The assault came from within. Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long slow suicide, thank you. Astronomical rates of divorce and of single parenthood (the deliberate creation of fatherless families) existed before there was a single gay marriage or any talk of sanctioning polygamy. The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism -- as is the decline of traditional marriage -- and not its cause.
As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have enough gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. It is critical, however, that any such fundamental change in the very definition of marriage be enacted democratically and not (as in the disastrous case of abortion) by judicial fiat."
I agree completely, but I would tweak one minor point in the essay: Krauthammer points out that he has predicted for ten years that "it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights."
I would argue that polygamy would have made more sense as a trailblazer (or Trojan Horse) for same-sex marriage. By that I mean, polygamy is eminently more defensible than gay marriage. Gay marriage draws the ire of Natural Law theorists and scripture-emphasizing Christians. Polygamy, on the other hand, does not offend Natural Law devotees and has deep Biblical roots. For the most part, polygamy has only American tradition to overcome, which is not an insurmountable hill to climb.
15/03: Finding Gold
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat and genuinely Progressive senator and candidate for president in 2008, introduced a resolution of "censure" this week against President Bush for "breaking laws" and "misleading Congress." The Washington Post provides this transcript of his remarks on Monday.
Dana Milbank's piece detailing the Democrats "run for the hills" reaction to Feingold's proposal is absolutely hilarious (perhaps Milbank is trying to make up for his orange clothes during the Cheney frenzy). Hugh Hewitt has it right: the Republicans in the Senate should make the Dems vote on this.
Mark Levin weighs in on the extra-constitutionalism of censure, which is irrelevant to me. Censure is basically a "spirit of the Congress"-type resolution; it is non-binding and has no meaning, but, certainly, the United States Senate has the right to make their opinion on this a matter of public record.
Added material: From the Historian of the United States Senate: a brief narrative on the Henry Clay-engineered censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834.
One more add: From the weekly whose ad reads: "If you think it is time to impeach Bush, then it is time for you to subsribe to the The Nation," William Greider pens a tribute to Feingold, "A Peculiar Politician," in which he casts him as "a lion of the Constitution," comparable to Sam Ervin.
Dana Milbank's piece detailing the Democrats "run for the hills" reaction to Feingold's proposal is absolutely hilarious (perhaps Milbank is trying to make up for his orange clothes during the Cheney frenzy). Hugh Hewitt has it right: the Republicans in the Senate should make the Dems vote on this.
Mark Levin weighs in on the extra-constitutionalism of censure, which is irrelevant to me. Censure is basically a "spirit of the Congress"-type resolution; it is non-binding and has no meaning, but, certainly, the United States Senate has the right to make their opinion on this a matter of public record.
Added material: From the Historian of the United States Senate: a brief narrative on the Henry Clay-engineered censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834.
One more add: From the weekly whose ad reads: "If you think it is time to impeach Bush, then it is time for you to subsribe to the The Nation," William Greider pens a tribute to Feingold, "A Peculiar Politician," in which he casts him as "a lion of the Constitution," comparable to Sam Ervin.
