Apparently, I Believe in Dictatorship Now...

You are a Social Conservative (35% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (26% permissive) You are best described as a: Totalitarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Ceasingly in Search of a Name

Ever since deciding on the name "Christian Social Libertarian" for my hypothetical political party, I have felt increasingly compelled to recognize a certain incompatibility of the latter two terms, and to a certain extent an additional incompatibility between the first and last term. For the moment, I have decided to employ the word "Ordoliberal" in place of "Libertarian," but I am not sure this gets across any better the properly eudaemonistic and utilitarian connotation I'm hoping to inspire, as opposed to adherence to deontological, rights-based theorizing.

Appreciating the President's Acumen

President Obama made a brilliant move this evening with the announcement that American troop levels in Afghanistan will be increased by 30,000 over the next six months. He came into office as the “opposition” President who did not endorse the policies of the previous administration, including numerous aspects of its so-called “War on Terror.” It seemed at the time that, paradoxically, both his success and that of his opponents was to be indicated by the failure of the war effort. Today it is different. By allowing the counsel of his military advisers to carry the day, he is also allowing the forces first given their impetus under the previous administration to “give their best shot,” thus strengthening the link between his success and that of his troops. Unlike the previous administration, this one has a clear objective: for American troops to leave Afghanistan (and hopefully Iraq also). If the war effort succeeds and the insurrection in Afghanistan is crushed, American troops will be able to leave. If the war effort fails, American forces will have no alternative but to leave. Either way, America will leave. His policy will be deemed a success insofar as it fulfills its stated objective. Because the objections of the President’s detractors have been absorbed into his own policy, their potential failure is now tied to the potential failure of the “War on Terror,” and not to his personal success as a President. This move indicates – in my mind at least – that the President can play the political game and come out ahead, and that he is a survivor, a desirable attribute in any President. Furthermore, it is arguable this is simply the right thing to do. I have not been a big fan of President Obama, but this is one instance where I think he should be applauded for his leadership.

If I Started My Own Political Party

Labels have always escaped me. They so rarely seem to capture the full force of the ideas they represent. Nevertheless, it is very important that the names of political parties bear a resemblance to the policies they intend to implement. Some may say that the case for being an Independent is similar to the case for leaving organized religion: a few bad apples (hypocrites) spoil the whole barrel. Religions, though (and the Christian religion in particular) are primarily concerned with the next world, and helping the individual to achieve union with God. It is possible for an individual to achieve this kind of inward virtue, even if those around them are corrupt and degenerate. The case of political power is different, because it involves the treatment of very practical issues like property, public discourse, and the like. If a party does not deliver what it promises, there is little reason to vote for it. This may seem to be so obvious as to be not worth mentioning, but it is nonetheless a fact that Americans seem to think one way during election years and another during non-election years. Paradoxically, Americans are very ideologically-minded voters with only two very non-ideologically-minded parties to choose from. When we contrast this to Europe or the U.K., the situation looks very different. In Europe, many of the political parties have specific "party principles" that they adhere to across – and between – election years. If there were such a party in America (and if I founded it), what would look like?

First, a name. My party would be known as the Christian Social Libertarian Party.

Christian – This does not imply that members of the party would be expected to be Christian in the sense of observant churchgoers (though this writer is). It means that the insights of the Christian Tradition would be encouraged as possible sources for policy proposals. My thinking is influenced by Catholic Social Teaching, but more on that in a moment. A fundamental axiom for me is that there can be no such thing as a liberal, enlightened society that is also post-Christian. Historically, what we call the "freedom of speech" is founded upon the freedom – not of "religion" – but of the Church. The organization of the Church during the Middle Ages allowed the Popes to oppose the secular rulers, thereby securing a measure of religious freedom as well the freedom to criticize the magistrates, which would not have been possible in a "social contract." In its historical setting, the Separation of Church and State does not mean that the two participants must be cast in an adversarial fashion. In the political theory emanating from the High Middle Ages, it is one of the roles of the State to safeguard the Church's proper sphere of influence without interfering in its internal affairs. It is likewise not the role of the Church to take over the duties of the State, but rather to recognize the authority of the State in its proper sphere as well. One may recall the Lutheran notion of the "Two Kingdoms" here.

Social – Man is not only a rational animal; he is also a social animal. Society will thus reflect the intellectual and moral virtues of its citizens, and should be a place where both are allowed and encouraged to develop and blossom.

Libertarian – Here I adopt Hayek's thesis (going back to John Stuart Mill), that the only legitimate ground of coercive action by the government is in the interest of preventing coercion of some individuals by others. This will inevitably take the form of a balance between private interests and the public good. In other words, people should be free to do as they wish so long as they are not harming other individuals.

So, how do all these elements fit together? Well, I cannot hope to put together anything like a complete and systematic treatise of political theory here. I can only make a few suggestions of a practical nature. The libertarian "pole" would lead us toward a market-based economy, but not without denying the social "pole" that justifies non-coercive measures taken by the government in the interest of "promoting the general welfare." There is nothing inherently illiberal in the idea of providing a broad safety net to those portions of the population who experience times of hardship. Likewise, one can also envision on this model a situation in which organized religion would play a more prominent role in public education, but without coercing the students to adopt a faith in which they are not being raised. Foreign policy should also be determined by adherence to traditional principles and international law, rather than militarism, colonialism, and unilateralism. One area that is need of massive reform is our prison system, a reform that should begin with the question whether we ought to have a prison system. I seriously have to wonder if our society would be a lot less crime-ridden if we employed corporal punishment far more often and used imprisonment (or capital punishment) as a last resort, with exile as an intermediate option. It is probable that the Christian Tradition, classical liberalism, and the utilitarian thinkers of the nineteenth century have something fresh to teach us here. Such a theory as I am suggesting should also support a more thoroughgoing approach to the "freedom of speech" than is currently maintained in the area of scientific research. It is no secret that some "scientific" positions are more politically correct than others, with the effect that, although the government does not forbid the discussion of these issues, the nature of the funding involved means that those scientists who speak out against the politically "acceptable" position will not get funding for their research. In a free society that is based on invention, technologically, and information, with citizens acting without direction according to the knowledge that they obtain, the accuracy and reliability of that information becomes a matter of public safety, and the government does have an interest in regulating what standards should be in place for the regulation of public information.

I realize this presentation is somewhat haphazard and disjointed, but it is the best I can do as I am having a spell of writer's block at the moment. I hope that whoever reads will find it to be provocative, if only in its suggestiveness and not necessarily its proposals.

Is "Terrorism" the New "Treason"?

If I were ever in any doubt whether my decision to leave the Republican Party was sound, I was given three reasons this week to rest assured that my decision was the right one, and also the smart one.

First, there is the so-called coverage of the Fort Hood shootings on 5 November that has continued throughout this week. There are a lot of things about this that bug me, and I’m not really sure where to start, but here goes. Almost immediately after the shooting (and just as predictably and transparently), the “conservative” media began calling Maj. Hasan a “terrorist” and what happened at Fort Hood an act of “terrorism.” Now, I’m not the first one to point this out,[1] but what happened at Fort Hood was simply not terrorism. There is no evidence that he was part of any organized group whose aim was to influence the civilian population of the United States to pressure the government to change its policy, his (possible) communication with suspected radicals for overtly religious purposes notwithstanding. Refusing to label Maj. Hasan a “terrorist” does not in any way diminish his crime, nor does calling what he did “terrorism” make the deaths of his victims[2] any less senseless. This is not the first time this year a shooting occurred on an Army base. But nobody was calling “terrorism” when it happened the first time. Apparently it is only “terrorism” when a Muslim is involved, at least according to the conservative media and the talk shows. Others, however, are focusing on the more pertinent issues. A British commentator living in Europe aptly remarked that,

“What Hasan knew -- as everyone in Texas knows -- is that Texas has sane laws concerning the carrying of concealed weapons. Texans are free to be well-armed, that is to say, well-defended. If Hasan had tried to shoot soldiers at a Pizza Hut or McDonald's, he would have been taken out as soon as he'd got off his first shot, maybe not by a soldier, but certainly by a civilian.”[3]

Reading this comment by a British citizen caused me to reflect for a moment on the sheer insanity of the current state of firearms legislation in the U.K., and inspired me to study the British political system generally. Aside from the gun laws themselves, there is a lot to be said for the British system. So many aspects of our own political system that we take for granted, are still taken for what they really are, in the U.K. For example, the two-party system. In Britain, the two-party system evolved by gradually understanding those who were not in power, and who disagreed with the government’s policies, as the Loyal Opposition. The recognition that “parties” could exist who disagreed with the policies of the various ministries of Parliament (who represent the Monarch), but who nevertheless could be counted as loyal to the Sovereign, was the basis of what later became the two-party system. Likewise, our own custom of having the President sign bills into law is a carry-over of the doctrine of “Royal Assent,” i.e., that the Parliament could not make law without the agreement of the Sovereign. On the other hand, two areas where our Founding Fathers sought to distance themselves from the English tradition was in their extremely restricted use of the word “treason,” and in their understanding of military power (which directly bears on their understanding of what it means to “bear arms”). Let me deal with the second point first. George Washington is as good an example of any here:

“Hence likewise they [‘every part of the Country’] will avoid the necessity of those overgrown Military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop to your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”[4]

For Washington, and for the Founding Fathers in general, the right of citizens to bear arms was the surest means of protecting themselves against tyranny, as their own recent experience during the Revolution had proven. The Second Amendment itself is based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which acknowledged the right of every Protestant subject to “have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”[5] If anyone doubts that the intent of this legislation was to allow citizens to protect themselves against a government gone tyrannical, provided of course that they had already gone through the other proper channels of appeal, i.e., the courts, then appeal to Parliament, then petitioning the Monarch, let us remember that this legislation was adopted one year after English Protestants forcefully overthrew a Roman Catholic king (James II) who had acted tyrannically against his subjects. The meaning couldn’t be clearer.

The Founding Fathers did not like standing armies because they believed they could be used as supports for – or means of establishing – tyranny. A “right to bear arms” was necessary in part because it allowed citizen militias to be formed during a time of crisis that would in turn make the creation of a standing army “for the common defense” unnecessary.[6] In fact, Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution actually forbids the prolonged maintenance of a standing army in peacetime, but I guess conservatives don't think that part of the Constitution is worth "conserving." In light of this history, it is surely ironic that the denial of Second Amendment rights to soldiers living on a U.S. military base has resulted in a situation that not once, but twice this year has allowed a crazed gunman free reign to commit brutal and murderous acts against our troops.

Now, on to the word “treason.” The Founding Fathers didn’t like the word, and they liked the idea even less. Article 3 of our Constitution makes it about as difficult to convict a person of Treason against the United States as it is to convict a person of a capital crime in Jewish law. And the Founding Fathers wanted it that way. In the British system, “treason” constituted an act of disloyalty to the Sovereign, and the Founding Fathers did not want to create a government that would allow for American citizens to be executed for opposing the government after they had just won a hard-fought war against a government that wanted to carry out that very punishment against the Patriots. And it seems to me, that in practice, the only thing required to convict one of treason was the mere accusation of it. Or at least that is how it has been portrayed. One phenomenon that is well understood in sociology is that when certain social structures or ideas get suppressed over a period of time, they tend to reemerge later in another, more insidious form. Is it possible that the word “terrorism” has replaced the word “treason” and taken over its functions and characteristics? If Maj. Hasan had opened fire on the same group of people, only this time not on a military base, but in a civilian marketplace, would that have been terrorism? And what if, instead of military personnel, Maj. Hasan had shot civilians in said marketplace? Would that have been terrorism? What if Maj. Hasan had robbed the grocer in the marketplace, rather than killing the people in it? Would that have been terrorism? Taking the word “terrorism” and trying to apply it to every crime in which a Muslim is involved, whether or not that particular Muslim has anything to do with a known terrorist organization, is the first step down the road toward institutionalized prejudice. If we keep thinking of the issue like this, ten years from now a guy who robs a gas station will go on trial for treason just because he happened to be Muslim. That is not the kind of country we were supposed to have. We need to get away from umbrella words like “terrorism” or “Al-Qaeda,”[7] and start thinking about these issues more critically and less emotionally. Now, in theological terms, as a Christian I have very little sympathy with Islam. The one they call a "great prophet" is the one we recognize to be God Incarnate. That being said, I have no doubt that there are many Muslims whose righteousness would put that of numerous Christians to shame. I am also frequently appalled at the abysmal ignorance of Islam displayed by both the Right and the Left in this country. Islam is every bit as diverse as Christianity is, and the two main sects in Islam, the Sunni and the Shi'a, are as different from each other as Protestants are from Roman Catholics. So one cannot take the mere fact that Maj. Hasan is Muslim, and then try to judge his character on that basis. Such arguments are circular (because they assume the very thing they attempt to prove), and they miss the point. Attempts to cast Maj. Hasan as the victim instead miss the point as well, and quite badly. Maj. Hasan is of course responsible for his actions, and the blame for them lie first of all with him. But there is a larger issue to consider here, and it has nothing to do with religion or terrorism. The real point of all this is not that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim; the point is that in all probability the Army royally screwed up here,[8] and nothing could dishonor the memory of the victims at Fort Hood more than for the military to make no changes to its policies concerning the mental health of American solders, or the maintenance of safety on U.S. bases here and abroad. This also takes us back to George Washington's fears about the maintenance of a permanent military establishment (and this is not intended disrespectfully toward the individuals who happen to serving in the military at the present time): we should hardly be surprised after having spent billions upon billions of dollars for decades on end maintaining an organization whose sole purpose is to be a killing machine, that such a machine can and often does produce psychopaths who are capable of killing without remorse. If they can murder their fellow soldiers without batting an eye, they can murder the very civilians they've sworn to protect, too, and that is exactly the kind of situation (albeit on a larger scale) that the Founding Fathers feared. This is not to say that there are not many fine and respectable men and women currently serving in our armed forces by any means, but only to point out that these kinds of problems are intrinsic to such institutions and can never be divorced from them.

Second, it turns out that the RNC's health plan includes provisions to fund abortions.[9] This is yet another example of the fact that Republicans get elected by support from pro-life conservatives, who in turn get stabbed in the back almost immediately once said Republicans get in office. (A partial exception to this trend was George W. Bush, as far as the abortion issue is concerned, though not much else.)

Third, Fox News outright lied about the size of rally held in opposition to the pending health care legislation, a fact that we now know about thanks to Jon Stewart.[10]

So, since these three events have unfolded toward the end of last week and into this week, the feeling that I have done the right thing by being political nonaligned has only been strengthened and confirmed.

---

[1] Steven L. Taylor, Was Hasan a Terrorist?; James Joyner, Was Fort Hood Massacre ‘Terrorism’?

[2] James Joyner, Fort Hood Fallen: Victims, Not Heroes

[3] Mary Ellen Synon, It never pays to go anywhere less than well-armed

[4] George Washington, Farewell Address

[5] English Bill of Rights (1689)

[6] Cf. Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed

[7] Peter Hitchens, The fake threat from Afghanistan, and do eagles really drop tortoises on people’s heads?

[8] Steven L. Taylor, The Most Important Element in the Hasan Story

[9] Meredith Shiner & Jonathan Allen, RNC insurance plan covers abortion

[10] Daniel Nasaw, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart exposes Fox News’ shoddy protest coverage

To Wipe Away Every Tear at Fort Hood

I feel the need to give my two cents’ worth regarding the tragedy at Fort Hood on Thursday. I haven’t had very much time to read a significant portion of what has been published so far, so I am open to constructive correction insofar as the facts as concerned. It seems like a lot of people – around here, in any case – are making a big deal of the fact that Maj. Hasan is Muslim. Aside from the usual – and often unstated – myths that abound in this country about Islam in general, such as, (1) that most Muslims are Arabs (they aren’t), or (2) that most Arabs in this country are Muslim (they aren’t; most are Christians of either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox variety, though Edward Said was actually Protestant), or finally, (3) that Islam is inherently violent because the Qur’an supposedly teaches that all non-Muslims should be put to the sword (it doesn’t), it is often not realized that religions involve truth claims on behalf of a deity who is supposed to be the rightful ruler of the world, so it would make a great deal of a sense for the partisans of those claims to feel the need to take up arms on occasions where it was felt that such rightful rule was being resisted, if a clear distinction is not made between the “kingdom of this world” and the kingdom (of God) belonging to the next one. On the other hand, religion is also inherently a check on violence, and this fact has been well known since the days of the Roman Republic: there have to be set times, holidays, fastings, etc., during which solemnities can be observed, sacrifices offered, prayers and blessings pronounced, and so on; activities which are simply incompatible with violence and chaos. So, to take the religions of the world and categorize them neatly into “religions of peace” on one side, and “religions of hate” or “violence” on the other, is simply absurd. Every religion carries within itself the seeds of both extremes. Now, I don’t know what Maj. Hasan’s motive was, and frankly, that is irrelevant to me, for reasons I will explain in a moment. He may very well have been motivated by his religious beliefs to do what he did (and though I find this unlikely, I am willing to be proven wrong here), but we just don’t know that right now. Yet, almost immediately after this happened, “conservative” talk show hosts were jumping all over this, claiming it was an instance of a “radical Muslim” (words which these people take to be synonyms) committing an act of “terrorism” inside the military. I am opposed to jumping to this kind of characterization of this event for two reasons. First, it’s cheap, and it’s opportunistic. Using these people’s deaths as a talking point against Muslims in general dishonors their memories. Their deaths weren’t less tragic because their killer happened to be Muslim. Second, their deaths aren’t more understandable because their killer was Muslim, either. People always feel like they need to know the “reasons” why bad things happen. If only they could know the reasons, they say, then maybe so many of the horrible things that happen would finally make some sense. And this is why people should study philosophy. Not modern philosophy, mind you, but the medieval philosophy that stemmed from St. Augustine. One of the fundamental axioms of ancient Christian ethics was that all evil acts tend toward nothingness. Does “nothing” make sense? Of course not. It’s nothing. Evil is inherently irrational because it tends toward its own destruction along with that of the good which it assaults (and indeed, Maj. Hasan was nearly killed himself during his own act of killing). There is thus no ultimate “reason” why these innocent people died, and certainly no “reasonable” explanation for it that would allow it to “make sense.” It doesn’t make any sense at all, and no amount of circumstantial details can alter that fact. It was a terrible, horrible act that merits only sorrow, not rationalization, and certainly not cheap talking points by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Victims of the massacre at Ft. Hood on 5 November 2009, we pray for your souls, and the souls of your families, and hope that we, with you, may find peace and eternal rest, in the kingdom that is to come, where all that is wrong will be made right again, through Christ our Lord. 

Amen