Category Archives: Uncategorized

Educational Alzheimer’s

Posted on by | 1 Comment

When individuals lose their memory to Alzheimer’s or another form of dementia, we universally recognize this as a tragedy, and so we pour large amounts of money into research to identify the causes and work toward developing a cure. But when the nation loses its collective memory? As any lover of history knows, that’s what’s happening year by year. The great historian David McCullough put it this way thirteen years ago in his National Book Award acceptance speech:

We, in our time, are raising a new generation of Americans who, to an alarming degree, are historically illiterate.The situation is serious and sad. And it is quite real, let there be no mistake. It has been coming on for a long time, like a creeping disease, eating away at the national memory. While the clamorous popular culture races on, the American past is slipping away, out of site and out of mind. We are losing our story, forgetting who we are and what it’s taken to come this far. . . .The decided majority, some 60 percent, of the nation’s high school seniors haven’t even the most basic understanding of American history. . . .On a winter morning on the campus of one of our finest colleges, in a lively Ivy League setting with the snow falling outside the window, I sat with a seminar of some twenty-five students, all seniors majoring in history, all honors students—the cream of the crop. “How many of you know who George Marshall was?” I asked. None. Not one.At a large university in the Midwest, a young woman told me how glad she was to have attended my lecture, because until then, she explained, she had never realized that the original thirteen colonies were all on the eastern seaboard.

As Brian Ward of Fraters Libertas notes, the situation hasn’t improved in thirteen years, either.

The liberal news site MinnPost celebrates this glimpse into the state of public education in Minneapolis:When asked what historical figure they’d most like to study this year, an astounding 22 of the 35 students in Ms. Ellingham’s eighth-grade history class at Susan B. Anthony middle school in Minneapolis answered, “Yoko Ono” and/or “John Lennon.”I weep for the future. The great historian David McCullough was on C-SPAN this past week, looking like a beaten man while describing the crushing level of historical ignorance among America’s youth. He summed up with the warning that one can never love a country one doesn’t know. It sounded like an epitaph.

A lot of people will look at this and blame it on history being boring—a perception which I’ve never understood, since history is the human story, the summation of all the interesting (and not-so-interesting) things that have ever happened; sure, it’s boring if badly taught, but so is anything else. The real problem, I think, is ideological: the teaching of history, and especially American history, just isn’t valued by the elites who controle public education, because too many among them don’t especially value the country which that history has produced. Like Barack Obama, their chosen candidate, their conception of the good of America is primarily forward-looking—it’s about the changes they want to make and the good they believe they can create; they don’t want to learn from history, they want to be free of it. Thus John Hinderaker writes,

My youngest daughter started middle school this year. After around a month of classes, as far as I can tell the curriculum consists largely of propaganda about recycling. My high school age daughter told me tonight that in Spanish class she has been taught to say “global warming,” “acid rain” and “greenhouse effect” in Spanish. . . .The schools can teach anything if they care about it. The problem is that they don’t care about teaching history, least of all American history. Public education is agenda-driven, and American history—the facts of American history—is not on the agenda.

The problem is, we cannot get free of history—not as long as human beings are still sinful; the attempt to do so only leaves us blind to what others may do. The study of history is in large part a way of learning from the mistakes (and the insights!) of others so that we don’t have to reinvent them all ourselves. This is why the philosopher George Santayana was right to declare that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it; it’s also why progressives who try to evade this truth by dismissing it as a truism are self-defeating, because any true progress requires escaping the historical loop, which requires learning the lessons of history and taking them seriously. True progress must be founded on a chastened realism about human behavior, not on utopian optimism about human potential.The nub of the matter here is that the command of the Delphic oracle is still essential to any human wisdom: “Know thyself”—and our ability to do so rests on our memory, because to a great extent, as I’ve said before, memory is identity. We cannot know ourselves if we’ve forgotten who we are, what we’ve done and why we’ve done it and whom we did it for (or to, or against)—and this is no less true of us as a nation than it is of us as individuals. We cannot understand who we are and why we do things the way we do if we don’t understand how we got here; and as a consequence, we may well throw away treasures because we don’t know enough to see their value.The last word on this really should belong to David McCullough, of whom I am a great and fervent admirer, who put it beautifully in his 1995 acceptance speech (which is well worth reading in its entirety):

History shows us how to behave. History teaches, reinforces what we believe in, what we stand for, and what we ought to be willing to stand up for. History is—or should be—the bedrock of patriotism, not the chest-pounding kind of patriotism but the real thing, love of country.At their core, the lessons of history are largely lessons in appreciation. Everything we have, all our great institutions, hospitals, universities, libraries, this city, our laws, our music, art, poetry, our freedoms, everything is because somebody went before us and did the hard work, provided the creative energy, provided the money, provided the belief. Do we disregard that?Indifference to history isn’t just ignorant, it’s rude. It’s a form of ingratitude.I’m convinced that history encourages, as nothing else does, a sense of proportion about life, gives us a sense of the relative scale of our own brief time on earth and how valuable that is.What history teaches it teaches mainly by example. It inspires courage and tolerance. It encourages a sense of humor. It is an aid to navigation in perilous times. We are living now in an era of momentous change, of huge transitions in all aspects of life-here, nationwide, worldwide-and this creates great pressures and tensions. But history shows that times of change are the times when we are most likely to learn. This nation was founded on change. We should embrace the possibilities in these exciting times and hold to a steady course, because we have a sense of navigation, a sense of what we’ve been through in times past and who we are.

The crowning irony of a strange campaign

Posted on by | 5 Comments

Paul Hinderaker of Power Line has brilliantly captured something I’ve been thinking about but hadn’t quite put together like this:

If it turns out to be the financial crisis that puts Barack Obama over the top in his quest for the White House, the irony will be difficult to overstate. First, the biggest driver of the financial crisis was not any conservative policy such as the kind of deregulation John McCain supports. Rather, as Diana West argues, the biggest driver was the “race-based social engineering” that “virtually created the sub-prime mortgage industry.” The implosion of that industry, in turn, triggered the present crisis.The operative vision, then, was leftist and racialist, not free-market. As West puts it, the social engineers decided that not “enough” minorities had homes because not “enough” minorities were eligible for mortgages. The solution was to junk the bottom-line, non-racial markers of mortgage eligibility traditionally used by banks to distinguish between good and bad credit risks—steady employment, clean credit, and a down payment. Obama, then, is the beneficiary of the terrible failure of affirmative action style policies in the mortgage banking sector.But the irony extends further. For it turns out that intimidating banks into making bad loans to minorities was a major activity of “community organizations” during the 1990s. And, according to Stanley Kurtz, Obama himself trained and funded ACORN activists who engaged in such intimidation.Using a combination of intimidation and white guilt to plunge the banking industry into the crisis that brings a radical activist to power—even Saul Alinsky couldn’t have drawn it up this well.

“A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.”

Posted on by | No Comments

So said Willy Wonka, anyway (though I’m not sure if he said it in the book or only in the movie). Anyway, for some random reason I looked up this site that a friend of ours back in Bellingham introduced us to almost a decade ago, and was surprised to find it not only still up, but updated. (I suppose I shouldn’t have been.) It’s by no means deep, but it’s amusing for a little while, if your sense of humor tends toward the goofy. If it does, and you want a grin or two, you might want to go check out Dancing Paul.

The order of decrees

Posted on by | 2 Comments

For those who aren’t theology wonks, “the order of decrees” is a theological catchphrase dealing with a disagreement among Calvinist theologians. The phrase relates to the order in which God decided to decree, or determine, certain things; the dispute relates to the question of whether God decided to create people, then decided to permit the fall into sin, and then set the plan of salvation in motion, or whether he decided to create human beings in order to save some and not others. (That’s a very rough sketch of the difference between the positions, and not really fair to either of them, but I think it’s the best way to capture their difference for those who aren’t familiar with this discussion. If you are, my apologies, and I’ll be happy to have a serious conversation on the subject with you at some other point. If you aren’t but would like to be, go read the chapter for Boettner linked above.)It seems to me, though, that this is a concept and a question which is of value beyond simply the Reformed understanding of the Christian doctrine of salvation by grace. In particular, I think this is valuable in evaluating our political positions and our political philosophy if we apply it to ourselves: what is our own “order of decrees” with regard to the positions we choose to take and defend?What got me thinking about this was Chris Matthews (he of the tingly leg), and specifically his comparison of the first presidential debate and the VP debate: as Mary Katherine Ham pointed out, he argued that the Democrat won both—for mutually contradictory reasons. Had he been consistent, he would have had to score one of them as a win for the GOP ticket; so he scrapped consistency for the sake of ideology.Now, Matthews’ performance here is easy to mock, as a particularly blatant (and particularly ludicrous) example of bias trumping logic; but it’s also, I think, a valuable pointer to an approach to politics that we see all over the place. To borrow the “order of decrees” language, his decree of support for the Democratic Party and its candidates is prior to all his other decrees in this instance, and controls them. Therefore, his chain of reasoning and consequent analysis of the situation in front of him (the debates, in this case) is not independent, but is dictated by his a priori commitment to do what is best for the Democratic candidate; what matters is not that what he says is logically coherent or represents a rationally consistent position, but that it serves his agenda.As I say, though this is an especially obvious and risible example, I believe it’s something most of us do: we put our decree of which side we’re on ahead of our evaluations of people, positions, and situations. Rather than putting our governing principles first and trying to reason independently from them in each instance to determine what we think of this candidate or that, of this position or that, of this bill or that (and, yes, of this debate or that), we have the tendency to decide who we’re rooting for and who we’re rooting against and let that shape, or even determine, what we think about all those other matters. Chris Matthews did it in his debate analysis. More than a few people on both sides of the political aisle have done it with respect to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin—we’ve seen some of the arguments over Sen. Clinton reprised over Gov. Palin, only with the sides switched. Scads and scads of folks did it over the Paulson plan, because they’d already decided they were against “Wall Street fat cats.” It’s certainly a faster and more efficient way to come to conclusions, because it cuts out the need for all that time-consuming thought; that’s an especially strong temptation given the speed with which our world moves these days. What it isn’t, however, is a good way to build politics with integrity—or indeed, to build integrity in any area of life.

Trading excuses for grace

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Ray Ortlund, as usual, goes right to the heart of things:

The world is a mess, and it’s always someone else’s fault. Every rational person on the face of the earth knows something is wrong, and every single one is pointing at the next guy saying, “He’s to blame.” Everyone is an exception. This is our natural moral psychology.

This is why we need to hear the Law of God, because it renders this self-deception impossible and forces us to see our own guilt and our own responsibility; it drives us to admit and reckon with the real problem, so that we can hear the gospel of Jesus Christ as the good news that it truly is—and so that we’re ready to accept the only true healing available to us, which comes only by his grace. We need to come to the point where we realize that we have no excuses for this mess, so that we can receive as a gift his answer for it.

All need a new heart, created by the Holy Spirit. All need a grace from beyond themselves that flies in under their radar with humbling self-awareness that bows low and says, “I fall short of the glory of God. In fact, there is no justification for my life at all. God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” This is the one who is justified by God’s grace, as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Negligence? Or deliberate endangerment?

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Even as our government is supposed to be trying to support our economy through this difficult time in order to bring about a return to prosperity, we have a definite pattern among senior Democrats that’s working to undermine this. First, this past June, New York’s senior senator, Charles Schumer (D-NY), took deliberate action that sparked the run that brought down IndyMac. Time was, he would have been indicted for provoking the stampede. If he were a Republican, he probably still would be.Then, on Monday, having helped put a bipartisan agreement together on an economic rescue bill, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), gave her troops the tacit green light—and key lieutenants the explicit green light—to vote it down, thereby sending the stock market into a tailspin.As if that weren’t enough, on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told a group of reporters that “a major insurance company—one with a name that everyone knows” was “on the verge of going bankrupt.” The utterly predictable result was a sharp fall in stock prices across the insurance industry, since Sen. Reid’s vague comment called all those companies into question.The problem here is that, as every member of Congress ought to understand by now, “if we have learned anything amid the panic over Bear, Lehman, Merrill and adventures in naked short-selling, it is that rumors can obliterate economic value, instantly.” The fact that so many of our legislators (and not only Democrats, but including far too many senior members of that party) are behaving with so little care toward the institutions that are the engines that drive our national economy is deeply troubling. Rather like Barack Obama’s adventures in Iraqi policy, their behavior raises a couple possibilities.On the one hand, all this behavior could be absolutely deliberate: they could be intentionally working to worsen the economy at home and delay gains abroad in order to improve their own election prospects and those of their party. This could all be a willful effort with malice aforethought at political manipulation, putting the good of the Democratic Party ahead of the good of the nation.Or, it could be a combination of negligence, incompetence, and sheer folly. As Lois McMaster Bujold has her character Dr. Vorthys put it in her novel Komarr, “Carelessness, stupidity, haste, and ignorance are quite as powerfully destructive forces as homicidal intent. Though I must confess a special distaste for intent. It seems so unnecessarily redundant. It’s . . . anti-engineering.” I share his distaste; as such, I tend to agree with the principle, “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.” In this case, however (as in many), that isn’t terribly reassuring, as Jennifer Rubin explains:

But if we assume that they “meant no harm” we are left with an equally troubling conclusion: they are reckless and ignorant about the ways in which their words and actions may impact a fragile economy. Or to put it differently, their first consideration is invariably “How do we maximize the public’s perception that things are rotten?” rather than “What can we do to contain the conflagration?”It does remind one of their attitude on the Iraq war: every set back was gleefully trumpeted and every minor advance was dismissed. They never much cared how their rhetoric or votes might embolden the enemy or unnerve our ally. The sole consideration was domestic political gain. If they didn’t want to lose they certainly gave every indication it was low on their list of priorities. Bashing the President, rallying their base and positioning themselves for the next election was clearly more critical.Well, at least they are consistent.

Second time is the charm

Posted on by | No Comments

Following the House defeat of the modified Paulson bill—a defeat not merely enabled but actively encouraged by the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi—and the subsequent cratering of the stock market, the Senate decided to stand up and act like the adults on the Hill, passing a modified version of the bill in pointed fashion. Amazingly, it was even a more conservative version of the bill (despite the added pork), though I doubt it was enough so to be worth the cost of the bill’s failure the first time around. In any case, this time, Speaker Pelosi took the hint and actually decided to do her job, and the House fell in line and passed the bill, 263-171. It’s always nice to see our politicians acting like grownups for a change. (Even so, I still think a lot of these folks—Speaker Pelosi first and foremost—need to be swept out like yesterday’s dustbunnies.)Update: obviously, the rescue bill hasn’t stopped the stock market’s slide to this point; part of that, I expect, is the market principle “buy on rumor, sell on news,” which has always seemed stupid to me but is very much part of the pattern of the markets. Part of it, too, is that the markets expect an Obama victory and don’t like what they think that will mean. Even so, I remain convinced that those who opposed the bill on the grounds that it was bad for the free market were wrong; rather, as an editorial in Investors’ Business Daily, argued, the bill gave the government necessary tools to help heal the free market. Here’s hoping they’re used wisely and proactively.

On Iran: WWRD?

Posted on by | 1 Comment

Which is to say, what would Reagan do? It seems to me that the counsel he offered with regard to Khrushchev and the Soviet Union in his 1964 convention speech is well worth hearing today with regard to Ahmadinejad and Iran:

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”—Alexander HamiltonIt seems clear to me that we cannot afford to continue our appeasement of Iran; we need to stand up now and tell the ayatollahs that we will no longer enable them in their pursuit of their agenda. We need to stand up, assert ourselves, and take the opportunity to strangle their adventurism while they’re still economically vulnerable to such an approach; we can cut them off at the knees by doing everything possible to bring crude oil prices down, and then cutting off their supply of refined fuel (gasoline, diesel, kerosene), and we need to do just that. We cannot afford to keep selling them the rope with which they intend to hang us.“Where then is the road to peace? Well, it’s a simple answer after all: you and I have the courage to say to our enemies there is a price we will not pay—there is a point
beyond which they must not advance.”—Ronald Reagan

And another one bites the dust

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Another one of Barack Obama’s friends, that is, who was just raided by the FBI; this would be Larry Walsh, his poker buddy, a good friend from his days in Springfield, for whom he’s requested millions in earmarks. Given that Walsh’s use of federal grants appears to be at the heart of the federal investigation, this does not reflect well on Sen. Obama’s judgment. (It does, however, suggest a plausible reason why Sen. Obama didn’t have any of his friends involved at the convention in Denver: he doesn’t want the public to recognize their names when things like this happen.)