Neocons, Libertarians, and other political movements
Andrew Sullivan has provided an interesting link to this site that gives a theory on who the father of the Neo-Conservative movement is. The verdict? Jimmy Carter. Essentially the case is that as necessity is the mother of invention so was Jimmy Carter the drive that caused the rise of the Neo-Conservative.
This is really not a bad premise. In fact, political leaders of today should consider the lesson carefully. It really can be argued that politics is simply a history of reactions. Why did Republicans flock to George W Bush? After Clinton's Oval Office escapades they hoped that Bush 2 would learn from his father to reverance the office. Why did Democrats elect Clinton, a Southern Democrat? Because the solid South was trending away and the only moderate voices in the party came from the South. Why did they need a moderate voice? Because Reagan had successfully made the case for Conservative principles. Clinton has few achievements, but NAFTA and welfare reform were clearly Conservative approaches that he took in order to capture the middle. And how about Reagan? Yes, he would likely not have been possible had Carter not been such a fool. Reagan essentially ran on the platform of Barry Goldwater. Granted Reagan was a much better public speaker and came from an important state, but there was nothing new to WHAT he said. Reagan was not possible until the Democrats had lost the vision of JFK and old school Republicans like Nixon had ruined the Rockefeller wing of the party. I am generalizing, but the connection is there.
What does this mean for today? I am of the opinion that people choose political inclinations in part as a reaction to the world they come of political age in. How many old people from the Great Depression insisted on being Democrats long after the Democratic party represented their world view? How many liberals gritted their teeth through Bill Clinton? Is it possible that Republicans could make similar misteps? After Bush 1 there was a reaction. How else do you explain the success of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot who are both personality dumb bells? Conservatives of one stripe or another were disappointed in the direction of the Republican party. Today the reaction is in favor of the Libertarian movement. Conservatives who really have no reason to support ideas like the Libertarian view on abortion are driven to the general philosophy in search of something untainted by the political corruption of power which inevitably taints original principles. This is not a bad thing, but it is the reality that faces a politician like George W. Bush. The smart politicians seem to react. So you see Bill Clinton as a reaction to the realization by Democrats that a Liberal first agenda sunk Modale and Dukakis. The Democrats suffer as well--why else did Ralph Nader get so much attention? In fact, George W Bush was supposed to be the answer to Republican slipping in Congress and recent Presidential stumbles. He was commited to the Reagan pillars of tax cuts, less government, a strong defense, and simple moral issues like the right-to-life for the unborn. Sure, he campaigned with a few other messages in order to counter Gore. He has held true to 3 of the 4 issues--really the same way Reagan did. They both fail on the mark of smaller government. They both use the excuse of winning a war and a recession, but where Bush will find himself in trouble is that he can not blame a tax and spend Democratic Congress. I think young Neo-Conservatives forgave Reagan for government growth since most of it was in defense and the rest was part of the political trade-off required with the opposing party controlling congress. But who can Bush blame? Young people of today who are choosing political ideologies will make a tough choice. Do they go Libertarian and abandon social issues that matter or go Conservative and accept larger government than they want? Some make a third choice. They say: "I am a Conservative, not a Republican." While I agree with the sentiment that is expressed by this statement (and actually say this myself), I do sometimes think it is a weak choice. What are we really saying? I think it translates to the same answer any boy gives after kissing an ugly girl: "I don't like her, I was just kissing her." The problem is that for a neo-conservative, in the tradition of what Goldwater and Reagan campaigned for, there are no pretty girls to kiss. When it comes to election time we are Republicans whether we like it or not. If George W Bush wants a lot of kisses he better stop the growth of government or he will lose not because the Democrats offer a compelling choice, but because enough Neo-Conservatives will conclude that they are willing to trade moral conservative issues for less government and make statement votes for Libertarian candidates.
Jun 19, 2003
Hillary
Conservatives: be afraid, be very afraid.
First let's talk about my Mom. My Mom is an immigrant. She didn't steal across any border in the dark of night, but she nevertheless carried a green card around for years (actually I think it was lost somewhere in her filing cabinet, but you know what I mean). She married the cute American we call Dad and got on some ship to America. She came from Australia, though actually a British Subject by birth. While not my topic for the day, she is now a US citizen and it was a very emotional event to see her become a citizen. Anyway, Mom (or as the Aussies would say: Mum) is essentially a moderate Republican. She is more moderate than Dad or me. I don't think she is so much a liberal as she is just not as conservative as we are. She just feels bad for the little guys in the world and thinks that someone needs to help them out. As long as I have cared to know her political choices she has indicated a preference for the Republican candidate for President--granted until a year ago she couldn't vote so it mattered little. Apparently Mom reads my blog because I got a comment from her on my recent post about Hillary Clinton's book. My Mom had this to say:
I was interested in what you had to say about Hillary. You are probably right, and yes she is a smart cookie. Can you believe it dad bought me her book? It is interesting so far, I have only read the part about her childhood. The thing is I identify well with that time period so I find it interesting to read. I used to think of her as stuck up and snotty but now I am changing my mind. I can see where she is coming from.
Conservatives command at most 40% of the vote. We can't stand Hillary. In polls only the 40% of hard core liberal democrats like Hillary. Right now, the remaining 20% essentially dislike her but are not sure why. I would propose that Mom fits into that category--"but now I am changing my mind"...
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Michael Barone mistakenly thinks that Hillary has an electoral ceiling. Republicans would be mistaken to take current polls to the bank. As I said before, Hillary is putting together one of the best long term campaign plans ever devised. She may not act on it (sort of like a Colin Powell), but she will be able to choose. The 20% in the middle are the target of the book. The shrill attacks by conservatives about her dishonesty make her look the victim while helping to promote her book. Then when the reader reads the book they are impressed and start to see her just the way she wants to be seen.
I think Hillary is very able. If ever there was a woman who had the personal qualifications Hillary is that woman. If we are going to beat her we need to confront her on the political issues of the day and simply accept her account of how she found out the truth about Monica. We need to show the 20% that even though Hillary is a smart, even likable, person that she is on the wrong side of issues that matter.
Conservatives: be afraid, be very afraid.
First let's talk about my Mom. My Mom is an immigrant. She didn't steal across any border in the dark of night, but she nevertheless carried a green card around for years (actually I think it was lost somewhere in her filing cabinet, but you know what I mean). She married the cute American we call Dad and got on some ship to America. She came from Australia, though actually a British Subject by birth. While not my topic for the day, she is now a US citizen and it was a very emotional event to see her become a citizen. Anyway, Mom (or as the Aussies would say: Mum) is essentially a moderate Republican. She is more moderate than Dad or me. I don't think she is so much a liberal as she is just not as conservative as we are. She just feels bad for the little guys in the world and thinks that someone needs to help them out. As long as I have cared to know her political choices she has indicated a preference for the Republican candidate for President--granted until a year ago she couldn't vote so it mattered little. Apparently Mom reads my blog because I got a comment from her on my recent post about Hillary Clinton's book. My Mom had this to say:
I was interested in what you had to say about Hillary. You are probably right, and yes she is a smart cookie. Can you believe it dad bought me her book? It is interesting so far, I have only read the part about her childhood. The thing is I identify well with that time period so I find it interesting to read. I used to think of her as stuck up and snotty but now I am changing my mind. I can see where she is coming from.
Conservatives command at most 40% of the vote. We can't stand Hillary. In polls only the 40% of hard core liberal democrats like Hillary. Right now, the remaining 20% essentially dislike her but are not sure why. I would propose that Mom fits into that category--"but now I am changing my mind"...
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Michael Barone mistakenly thinks that Hillary has an electoral ceiling. Republicans would be mistaken to take current polls to the bank. As I said before, Hillary is putting together one of the best long term campaign plans ever devised. She may not act on it (sort of like a Colin Powell), but she will be able to choose. The 20% in the middle are the target of the book. The shrill attacks by conservatives about her dishonesty make her look the victim while helping to promote her book. Then when the reader reads the book they are impressed and start to see her just the way she wants to be seen.
I think Hillary is very able. If ever there was a woman who had the personal qualifications Hillary is that woman. If we are going to beat her we need to confront her on the political issues of the day and simply accept her account of how she found out the truth about Monica. We need to show the 20% that even though Hillary is a smart, even likable, person that she is on the wrong side of issues that matter.
Jun 18, 2003
Public Transit
A few months ago a friend asked me for my take on public transit. I have cleaned up my response to him and am making it available to you. Which by the way prompts me to point out that most of my long posts can be found by topic by following this link. As always, I welcome feedback on this and other topics.
A few months ago a friend asked me for my take on public transit. I have cleaned up my response to him and am making it available to you. Which by the way prompts me to point out that most of my long posts can be found by topic by following this link. As always, I welcome feedback on this and other topics.
Jun 17, 2003
More on Conservatives
Interesting reaction to Jonah Goldberg from his National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru.
Interesting reaction to Jonah Goldberg from his National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru.
Are Conservatives Still Conservative?
Interesting piece by Jonah Goldberg. It is in response to a piece by Chris Caldwell on spam (not the canned variety).
To begin with, I was puzzled that Chris Caldwell could get that piece published in a conservative magazine. I suppose he and his editors thought it would be a broadside against information system libertarians that would inspire conservatives to unite against libertarians. While I do intend some day to make my argument about why libertarians and modern conservatives will one day wake up and realize that they are very different (I know some libertarians already have), I was not taken in. In the interest of full disclosure I am an information system conservative--I have written more than a few lines of code. With that out of the way, let me state that Caldwell is wrong for the policy he proposes. Goldberg is right that Caldwell and the libertarians are each taking fairly extreme views and that conservatives need to reconsider what it means to be conservative.
Is spam a problem? I suppose there can be an economic argument made for the externalities that spam creates. Inboxes are just the beginning. Email servers require much more ability than would be required without it. Not to mention the opportunity cost of computer programmers developing anti-spam software when they could be coding the next generation of artificial intelligence or palm pilots that read your mind. This is all calculable stuff that I am sure some serious PhD in Economics has studied and published. So, the case could be made that somehow the spammer needs to be made to pay for the cost he or she imposes on the efficiency of the internet as a whole. But, that does not mean there is a need for government regulation.
I use a free email service provided by Yahoo!. From time to time my email inbox is inundated. Yet, Yahoo! has provided me with tools whereby I can fight spam. To some extent they do work. Sure, it is irritating. And, more importantly, Yahoo! could likely provide even better free services if they were not screening spam for me. But so what? Has government regulation stopped telemarketers from calling me and wasting valuable telephone bandwidth? Has government regulation stopped junk snail mail from filling my mail box and slowing down normal mail delivery? No. It simply changes the environment for mass marketing and forces the marketer to devise a new strategy. In spite of the externalities which I agree exist, I would prefer that Yahoo! continue to help me screen rather than the government. And since Yahoo! is big enough to feel the financial impact why don't they simply sue the spammers? I know enough to know it is hard to track spammers, but I am sure there are smart programmers figuring out how to overcome that right now. I could point out that the free market is not solving the problem perfectly, but on the other hand maybe we should allow it a chance just to see how it turns out.
Caldwell is a breed of conservative that concerns me. 25 years ago Conservatives were desperately fighting a battle to stop the growth of the liberal-social state. With the election of Reagan we put our views in the driver seat. We have yet to be forcefully removed. One might logically see that Clinton was a Democratic reaction to the reality that only a Southern Democrat with the appearance of moderate views on issues could win against the conservative movement, but that would be a tangent. My point is that we are approaching a time where there are young conservatives who are unaware of what the real Reagan vision was. Either that or they are becoming intoxicated with the political power of Republicans running the government. Regardless they have somehow come to forget that government is not the answer to all our problems. They miss the vision that Reagan had and will end up alienating true conservatives should it continue. In essence, they forget to be conservative.
Interesting piece by Jonah Goldberg. It is in response to a piece by Chris Caldwell on spam (not the canned variety).
To begin with, I was puzzled that Chris Caldwell could get that piece published in a conservative magazine. I suppose he and his editors thought it would be a broadside against information system libertarians that would inspire conservatives to unite against libertarians. While I do intend some day to make my argument about why libertarians and modern conservatives will one day wake up and realize that they are very different (I know some libertarians already have), I was not taken in. In the interest of full disclosure I am an information system conservative--I have written more than a few lines of code. With that out of the way, let me state that Caldwell is wrong for the policy he proposes. Goldberg is right that Caldwell and the libertarians are each taking fairly extreme views and that conservatives need to reconsider what it means to be conservative.
Is spam a problem? I suppose there can be an economic argument made for the externalities that spam creates. Inboxes are just the beginning. Email servers require much more ability than would be required without it. Not to mention the opportunity cost of computer programmers developing anti-spam software when they could be coding the next generation of artificial intelligence or palm pilots that read your mind. This is all calculable stuff that I am sure some serious PhD in Economics has studied and published. So, the case could be made that somehow the spammer needs to be made to pay for the cost he or she imposes on the efficiency of the internet as a whole. But, that does not mean there is a need for government regulation.
I use a free email service provided by Yahoo!. From time to time my email inbox is inundated. Yet, Yahoo! has provided me with tools whereby I can fight spam. To some extent they do work. Sure, it is irritating. And, more importantly, Yahoo! could likely provide even better free services if they were not screening spam for me. But so what? Has government regulation stopped telemarketers from calling me and wasting valuable telephone bandwidth? Has government regulation stopped junk snail mail from filling my mail box and slowing down normal mail delivery? No. It simply changes the environment for mass marketing and forces the marketer to devise a new strategy. In spite of the externalities which I agree exist, I would prefer that Yahoo! continue to help me screen rather than the government. And since Yahoo! is big enough to feel the financial impact why don't they simply sue the spammers? I know enough to know it is hard to track spammers, but I am sure there are smart programmers figuring out how to overcome that right now. I could point out that the free market is not solving the problem perfectly, but on the other hand maybe we should allow it a chance just to see how it turns out.
Caldwell is a breed of conservative that concerns me. 25 years ago Conservatives were desperately fighting a battle to stop the growth of the liberal-social state. With the election of Reagan we put our views in the driver seat. We have yet to be forcefully removed. One might logically see that Clinton was a Democratic reaction to the reality that only a Southern Democrat with the appearance of moderate views on issues could win against the conservative movement, but that would be a tangent. My point is that we are approaching a time where there are young conservatives who are unaware of what the real Reagan vision was. Either that or they are becoming intoxicated with the political power of Republicans running the government. Regardless they have somehow come to forget that government is not the answer to all our problems. They miss the vision that Reagan had and will end up alienating true conservatives should it continue. In essence, they forget to be conservative.
Paul Krugman Exposed
After reading the latest Paul Krugman whopper, I have a theory about Krugman. Really, a theory about Krugman and his fellow travellers. And let me state up front that this is probably very obvious to all other people out there. But, it finally occurred to me that Paul Krugman does not really care about honesty. Granted there are all kinds of spin masters on either side of the political divide who participate in similar dishonesty, but these days Krugman gets my attention.
Paul Krugman attacks Bush for not being serious about fighting terrorism. I initially started to think of ways to debate the points he made. I could have made my entire rebuttal focus on the liberal belief that dollars spent equals level of seriousness about an issue--a ludicrous view on many levels. I could have made this about how Afghanistan is really in no worse shape than Bosnia was after only 18 months of our involvement--proving that a Democrat would likely have done no better. I could have rehashed the debate about the war with Iraq and pointed out that there was much more to the war than WMD and a link to Al Qaeda. I could have gone down the path of why the lack of WMD does not mean that Iraq was not a threat on the issue of WMD.
As I pondered an appropriate response to Paul Krugman I recalled something I saw Saturday night. CNN replayed a February Larry King interview with former President Bill Clinton. Beyond Larry King's regular habits that annoy me, I enjoyed most of the interview. I don't want to dwell on the details (you may read them for yourself). I want to focus on the general sense that I got when Clinton was asked about Iraq. Clinton did not dispute the presence of WMD or the threat that Iraq was to the world. In fact, he even argued that the US did not need a further UN resolution to meet the requirements of international law for invading Iraq, but might want it for public opinion purposes. As I listened I realized that Clinton understood the case for war--Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the US and the world. There was no question about the objective in his mind, simply a desire to have Bush be patient in making the diplomatic effort. I am sure that we could dig up transcripts on many a Democrat who made similar points. In fact, some are now running for President. But, that is not my point.
I want to get back to what this means about Paul Krugman. Krugman is not trying to validate arguments he once made. In fact, he is not willing to debate important issues in a substantive way. At the end of the day he is trying to find anything to weaken voter confidence in George W. Bush. Krugman is looking for any mole hill that he can find so he might turn it into a mountain. Each week it is something new. Tax cut, deficit, WMD, terrorism, aircraft carrier landing, and later this week it will be Israel. This time it is management of the war on terror. Instead of lobbing accusations why not debate the issue? There is a fair discussion to be had about how best to fight terror. Is it a military fight or a police effort? Is it about starving terrorists of money, bases, or ideological support? Or like Clinton we can debate the mechanics of how best to gain the support of the world. These are debates that strengthen our country and help people think for themselves. It makes one wonder if Krugman is about anything more than attacking Bush. In a sense I guess I am doing the same thing to Krugman. I am looking for weakness in every piece that he writes. And that is why, for today, I instead have focused on confronting his general approach. Krugman is obviously an educated man who would likely contribute to a productive discourse on the direction of our country if he just chose to.
After reading the latest Paul Krugman whopper, I have a theory about Krugman. Really, a theory about Krugman and his fellow travellers. And let me state up front that this is probably very obvious to all other people out there. But, it finally occurred to me that Paul Krugman does not really care about honesty. Granted there are all kinds of spin masters on either side of the political divide who participate in similar dishonesty, but these days Krugman gets my attention.
Paul Krugman attacks Bush for not being serious about fighting terrorism. I initially started to think of ways to debate the points he made. I could have made my entire rebuttal focus on the liberal belief that dollars spent equals level of seriousness about an issue--a ludicrous view on many levels. I could have made this about how Afghanistan is really in no worse shape than Bosnia was after only 18 months of our involvement--proving that a Democrat would likely have done no better. I could have rehashed the debate about the war with Iraq and pointed out that there was much more to the war than WMD and a link to Al Qaeda. I could have gone down the path of why the lack of WMD does not mean that Iraq was not a threat on the issue of WMD.
As I pondered an appropriate response to Paul Krugman I recalled something I saw Saturday night. CNN replayed a February Larry King interview with former President Bill Clinton. Beyond Larry King's regular habits that annoy me, I enjoyed most of the interview. I don't want to dwell on the details (you may read them for yourself). I want to focus on the general sense that I got when Clinton was asked about Iraq. Clinton did not dispute the presence of WMD or the threat that Iraq was to the world. In fact, he even argued that the US did not need a further UN resolution to meet the requirements of international law for invading Iraq, but might want it for public opinion purposes. As I listened I realized that Clinton understood the case for war--Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the US and the world. There was no question about the objective in his mind, simply a desire to have Bush be patient in making the diplomatic effort. I am sure that we could dig up transcripts on many a Democrat who made similar points. In fact, some are now running for President. But, that is not my point.
I want to get back to what this means about Paul Krugman. Krugman is not trying to validate arguments he once made. In fact, he is not willing to debate important issues in a substantive way. At the end of the day he is trying to find anything to weaken voter confidence in George W. Bush. Krugman is looking for any mole hill that he can find so he might turn it into a mountain. Each week it is something new. Tax cut, deficit, WMD, terrorism, aircraft carrier landing, and later this week it will be Israel. This time it is management of the war on terror. Instead of lobbing accusations why not debate the issue? There is a fair discussion to be had about how best to fight terror. Is it a military fight or a police effort? Is it about starving terrorists of money, bases, or ideological support? Or like Clinton we can debate the mechanics of how best to gain the support of the world. These are debates that strengthen our country and help people think for themselves. It makes one wonder if Krugman is about anything more than attacking Bush. In a sense I guess I am doing the same thing to Krugman. I am looking for weakness in every piece that he writes. And that is why, for today, I instead have focused on confronting his general approach. Krugman is obviously an educated man who would likely contribute to a productive discourse on the direction of our country if he just chose to.
Jun 16, 2003
DeLay, Columbine, and Evolution
In response to my post on Friday about Paul Krugman I received the following observation by Jacob who provides his recollection of what Alan Keyes had to say about the same topic:
The theory of evolution teaches us that the natural order of things is the survival of the fittest. The strong are superior to the weak. This theory leads us to things like abortion, where the will of the strong must take precedent over the will of the weak. Couple that with the teachings of Dr. Kevorkian that sometimes life isn't worth living, that suicide is sometimes the best thing, even the noble thing. You've just concocted a recipe for Columbine. If the strong weren't better than the weak, there's no justification for the slayings. If suicide wasn't okay, there would be no easy way to avoid the consequences. If any of these pieces wasn't in place, Columbine wouldn't have taken place.
Thank you Jacob. This is one of the essential chains in the religious conservative view on evolution. My way of viewing the issue probably goes like this:
If we set up a scenario where we cause young people to seriously doubt that there could be anything like a God then what have we accomplished? Eventually they will come to the conclusion that everything that our society is foundationally based upon is illegitimate. Granted, as long as we keep all the young people dumb enough they will never figure it out anyway, but that is a discussion for another day. The point being that there may be a point where the majority of the culture wakes up and says: If no God, then why does a law against suicide exist? Why a law against murder, rape? And why a principle that all men and all women are created equally? Yes, I know religion has been used as an excuse to ignore these very concepts in certain settings, but why do we all look upon those historical uses as bad? Because there is a moral conception that helps most of us realize that bad people twisted moral principle to suit their own ends. Religious conservatives conclude that this is why we are in trouble on the issue of abortion. There are not enough people who conclude that there is something morally wrong with killing the unborn child. It is instructive to see all of the discussion about whether or not Scott Peterson murdered his unborn child (assuming he is guilty). The abortion rights people have to realize they are caught at a cross roads. On the one hand do they advocate for the protection of women and children from the apparent violence of a spouse? Or do they, for the sake of avoiding judicial precedence, advocate that the unborn child deserves no consideration? They have to realize that if Scott, or whomever, is found guilty of murdering an unborn child that the connection can be made that abortionists are doing the same.
All of that being said. While I think the logical connections can be fairly made, I don't think this requires us to no longer teach evolution in schools. A responsible citizenry is an educated citizenry and to be educated no one can fairly ignore evolution. I have no desire to leave young kids ignorant of science. Instead, the solution is to counteract this knowledge and cultural influence with equal or greater amounts of foundational strengthening.
I was personally baffled by Columbine for two reasons. First, that the school principle had the gall to seriously say that the perpertrators were "good" kids. Obviously he either lacked any willingness to make fair moral judgements or he was unwilling to admit it since he fears being sued by the families of victims. Either way he lacks a moral foundation. Second, that few focused on the obvious conclusion that parenting had failed. The real counterweight to the teaching of evolution in schools is for parents to do things like take their kids to church on Sunday and make them sit through Sunday School. A variation of this worked for me and has worked for many others. There is no need for a government program that enforces this, but we should start talking about it. Something is wrong in this country when it comes to religion--we are walking away from it in too great a number. The religion of faith in a God is being replaced by the religion of participation in Sunday soccer tournaments. Instead of taking our kids to hear the word of God, we take them to play in a game. Do we really think they learn more about how to treat their fellow men by kicking a ball around?
In response to my post on Friday about Paul Krugman I received the following observation by Jacob who provides his recollection of what Alan Keyes had to say about the same topic:
The theory of evolution teaches us that the natural order of things is the survival of the fittest. The strong are superior to the weak. This theory leads us to things like abortion, where the will of the strong must take precedent over the will of the weak. Couple that with the teachings of Dr. Kevorkian that sometimes life isn't worth living, that suicide is sometimes the best thing, even the noble thing. You've just concocted a recipe for Columbine. If the strong weren't better than the weak, there's no justification for the slayings. If suicide wasn't okay, there would be no easy way to avoid the consequences. If any of these pieces wasn't in place, Columbine wouldn't have taken place.
Thank you Jacob. This is one of the essential chains in the religious conservative view on evolution. My way of viewing the issue probably goes like this:
If we set up a scenario where we cause young people to seriously doubt that there could be anything like a God then what have we accomplished? Eventually they will come to the conclusion that everything that our society is foundationally based upon is illegitimate. Granted, as long as we keep all the young people dumb enough they will never figure it out anyway, but that is a discussion for another day. The point being that there may be a point where the majority of the culture wakes up and says: If no God, then why does a law against suicide exist? Why a law against murder, rape? And why a principle that all men and all women are created equally? Yes, I know religion has been used as an excuse to ignore these very concepts in certain settings, but why do we all look upon those historical uses as bad? Because there is a moral conception that helps most of us realize that bad people twisted moral principle to suit their own ends. Religious conservatives conclude that this is why we are in trouble on the issue of abortion. There are not enough people who conclude that there is something morally wrong with killing the unborn child. It is instructive to see all of the discussion about whether or not Scott Peterson murdered his unborn child (assuming he is guilty). The abortion rights people have to realize they are caught at a cross roads. On the one hand do they advocate for the protection of women and children from the apparent violence of a spouse? Or do they, for the sake of avoiding judicial precedence, advocate that the unborn child deserves no consideration? They have to realize that if Scott, or whomever, is found guilty of murdering an unborn child that the connection can be made that abortionists are doing the same.
All of that being said. While I think the logical connections can be fairly made, I don't think this requires us to no longer teach evolution in schools. A responsible citizenry is an educated citizenry and to be educated no one can fairly ignore evolution. I have no desire to leave young kids ignorant of science. Instead, the solution is to counteract this knowledge and cultural influence with equal or greater amounts of foundational strengthening.
I was personally baffled by Columbine for two reasons. First, that the school principle had the gall to seriously say that the perpertrators were "good" kids. Obviously he either lacked any willingness to make fair moral judgements or he was unwilling to admit it since he fears being sued by the families of victims. Either way he lacks a moral foundation. Second, that few focused on the obvious conclusion that parenting had failed. The real counterweight to the teaching of evolution in schools is for parents to do things like take their kids to church on Sunday and make them sit through Sunday School. A variation of this worked for me and has worked for many others. There is no need for a government program that enforces this, but we should start talking about it. Something is wrong in this country when it comes to religion--we are walking away from it in too great a number. The religion of faith in a God is being replaced by the religion of participation in Sunday soccer tournaments. Instead of taking our kids to hear the word of God, we take them to play in a game. Do we really think they learn more about how to treat their fellow men by kicking a ball around?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)