Conservatives and immigration: a glimmer of hope?

Since Obama won the recent presidential election, much of the commentary has been on how much the outcome was influenced by changes in demographics. Such is the opinion, for example, of Jose Antonio Vargas, the one-man crusade for immigration reform in America. For example, there's this from his facebook page:

According to exit polls, and the role of the Latino vote (and other immigrant groups and our allies), it looks like Mitt Romney may be 'self-deporting" himself from this presidential election. 

What will the GOP do?

Apparently there is an answer to this question already in the works:

Two prominent conservatives -- radio host Sean Hannity and columnist Charles Krauthammer -- advocate an immigration bill that would include both tighter border security and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here -- i.e., something close to Obama's position.

Note that ths consitutes a genuine change of thought on the conservative side. As a libertarian, I would say this solution is not enough--open the borders, I say!--but it represents one way in which democracy can force change among politicians. It's a good thing that Americans may after all become more liberal on this issue.

Conservative opposition to freer immigration laws frustrates me on multiple levels. First, there's the economic argument. The myth that illegal immigrants are a net drain on our entitlement system is far too often perpetuated on the right. In reality, many illegal immigrants actually pay taxes each year. The economic reality of immigration is that it happens precisely for the reasons economists expect--people are guided by market forces to seek opportunities where they can find them. Thus when there are jobs that need to be filled, people come to fill them. Limits on immigration are, economically speaking, one of the worst anti-free market measures we can take.

Second, there's the national sovereignty argument. This is very old and perhaps very natural. For some reason we humans like to claim land for ourselves, even when we just arrived on said land quite recently. Such is the history of America. It's worth reminding ourselves that--yes, here it comes, prepare yourself for eyes rolling--we are nation of immigrants. It should be well embedded in our culture by now that new-comers are normal, that being American does not mean looking or thinking or acting a particular way. All we ought to ask is that people be peaceful. The fear that our "culture" will be fundamentally changed is shown to be quite silly when one remembers how easy it is to share the spirit of basic human decency: "don't harm me and I won't harm you." This is a libertarian ideal, yes, but it also happens to conform with the distinctly American traditions of liberty, a pioneering spirit, and the idea that ours is a land of opportunity. I have trouble understanding why more conservatives don't go for this.

Most of all, however, I simply cannot understand why so many conservatives are able to argue passionately against abortion as a violation of basic human rights, all the while using essentially "pro-choice" arguments (applied to a different political entity, of course) against immigration. What are the arguments in favor of tolerating abortion? Well, the fetus is not like other human beings: she doesn't look like us, she doesn't have the same attachments to our world of culture and language, and she is in many cases not wanted. Keeping her alive could cost enormous amounts of resources, not to mention the many other emotional and social reasons why her existence could be a terrible burden. Thus, abortion is sometimes the only logical option.

Now substitute "fetus" with "immigrant" and "abortion" with "deportation" and see what happens. It's pretty amazing, isn't it? I am not impressed by the objection that abortion is killing while deporation is not. Deportation, though it is not the worst form of violence possible, is still violence (except in Mitt Romney's imaginary world in which immigrants will happily pick up and leave because we ask). It can be extremely damaging to families, particularly to children who grow up knowing nothing but this country and then are asked to leave. If you think that is consistent with freedom, I beg you to think it over again.

So, particularly if the Republicans are going to keep the pro-life position on abortion as part of their platform (and yes, I am one of those who think they should), I submit they should also adopt a more liberal immigration policy. This does not mean we stop caring about who crosses our borders. On the contrary, it means we can improve our border security by focusing on the people who are actually criminals, such as those people who, you know, kill people.

Why I will not be voting for "the" pro-life candidate

On occasion, it becomes painfully obvious that large segments of the pro-life movement have been completely co-opted by the Republican party.

Consider a the recent article from LifeNews.com, entitled "You Can't be Pro-Life and Not Vote for Mitt Romney." It's exactly what it sounds like.

This extraordinarily poorly thought out diatribe against those of us who would rather not vote for a man has flip-flopped on just about every question imaginable, including abortion, actually makes no positive arguments for Mitt Romney. The presumptive Republican nominee is simply the negation of Barack Obama:

How can someone who believes in the sanctity of life belittle, deride and not support the only chance we have of removing him from office? It’s sheer life-endangering folly.

I admit, there can be little doubt that Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president we've ever had. But does that make Mitt Romney pro-life? And does it really mean electing him will make any difference for the plight of the unborn?

Let's consider the following argument:

The next president of the United States will also fill between two and four seats on the Supreme Court. As a people who believe abortion is wrong, who do we think will fill those seats with strict-constructionist jurors who will interpret the Constitution and not reinvent and rewrite it?

A curious argument, completely devoid of any basis in historical fact. Consider Ronald Reagan, one of the cherished heroes of pro-life conservatives. His Supreme Court nominees were

• Sandra Day O'Connor
• William Rehnquist (only an elevation)
• Antonin Scalia
• Anthony Kennedy

Two out of the three justices added to the Supreme Court by Reagan sided with Planned Parenthood in the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v Casey. How's that for a pro-life record!

And take a look at George H. W. Bush's nominees:

• David Souter
• Clarence Thomas

I'll give you a hint: one of these justices is not a "strict constitutionalist."

One could argue, I suppose, that George W. Bush had more success in that area. One could object that Ronald Reagan got "Borked." One could say a lot of things. None of these objections change the fact that voting a conservative into the White House won't ultimately change the fate of unborn children.

Besides, who says being pro-life somehow goes hand in hand with being a "strict constitutionalist"? In most states, abortion was legal up to the moment of quickening, up until the late 1800s. I guess the Founding Fathers weren't strict constitutionalists. (Then again, they didn't outlaw slavery, either.)

"Strict constitutionalism" is nothing more than conservative-speak. This means, in particular, that it has very little meaning beyond, "Whatever the left is doing is probably wrong." There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of the left. But let's not borrow meaningless terminology in order to express our reasons why.

Bottom line: if pro-lifers really believe that faithful adherence to the Republican party has any long-term benefits for our cause, just look at the facts: it hasn't worked so far.

There is a deeper why it hasn't worked, and why I won't be voting for Mitt Romney. The more our pro-life position on abortion is coupled with other positions that people find deeply troubling, the less likely it is that we will gain more support from the general public. When people look at Mitt Romney, it should not surprise us if they see a friend of corporate greed, a man distanced from the plight of ordinary Americans.

And for us pro-lifers, why should we not be deeply troubled by the Republican party's platform on foreign policy? If our core issue is protecting innocent human life from unjustified killing, should we not oppose the idea of preemptive war? Should we not oppose the use of drone strikes over countries with whom we are not even at war? Especially when they kill innocent people, including children!

As if Obama's support of fetal abortion were not enough, it also appears he has no problem aborting his enemies overseas. All the more reason why I oppose Obama. But is Romney any better on this issue? In all of the Republican debates, Romney has constantly tried to make Obama out to be weak on foreign policy. It sounds to me that Romney, if he changes anything about Obama's tactics of drone strikes and military occupation, will only make it more aggressive, more reminiscent of the George W. Bush era, and ultimately more dangerous for innocent human life and for our moral reputation abroad.

Let me be clear: I do not want Obama to be president, and therefore I will not vote for Obama. That is all anyone has any right to ask of me, since I do profess to be pro-life and against any politician who will not defend those most vulnerable in society. Insisting that I vote for "the other guy" solely in order to oust Obama from power is incredibly short-sighted, and for that reason I find it morally repugnant.

One has to think for a moment to understand why it is so short-sighted. Elections are winner-take-all. This means our government will tend to merely oscillate back and forth between two more or less arbitrary but evolving political poles. If both sides have become odious to me because of my conscience on crucial matters involving the dignity of human life, then what gain is there in me participating in this tug of war? Should I not rather vote my conscience? In a free society, liberty of conscience is all we have to stem the rising tide of tyranny.

The author of the aforementioned article would like to play (somewhat hypocritically) the moral superiority card. He seems to suggest that because he has been the recipient of persecution in the name of the pro-life cause, he is entitled to proclaim that "it is a requirement for any pro-life American" that we vote for Mitt Romney. Let's call this the moralist's fatal conceit. Dedication to a cause by no means makes one rational. Sometimes one's dedication can cause a person to do things which are, in the long run, quite counter-productive to the cause.

Ultimately, it is not the presidential election of this year or any year which decides the issue of abortion in the long run. What decides the issue is our ability to persuade thoughtful people to come to our side. How will we ever be successful in persuading thoughtful people if we ourselves throw our blind adherence to a political party with countless other agendas than our own? The world is watching, and it will not judge kindly.

Conservative contradictions on immigration

My position on immigration is simple, and in line with classical liberal tradition: anyone who wants to immigrate into the United States for the purpose of pursuing a legitimate line of work and making a living should be welcome. In a free society, the immigration process would simply involve passing through a checkpoint, verifying your id, and allowing the government to keep some documentation of your presence here. (Probably there should be some fee to be paid for these government services.) There would be no restrictions on the number of immigrants allowed to come into the country.

Current law is very different, of course. We have restrictions on the number of immigrants allowed to enter legally on any given year. Conservatives applaud this, and in debates I've heard the likes of Mitt Romney say that would-be immigrants ought to "get in line" and wait their turn.

Whatever their arguments may be (they are probably based on myths) I think it's fair to simply point out the bold contradictions between the conservative position on immigration and other supposedly "conservative" ideas. Here are two big ones.

First, restricting the number of immigrants is an inherently socialist idea, in the true, original sense of the word. "Socialism" in its classical sense means allowing the government to have control of the means of production in a society. Very few people believe in this anymore as a consistent political philosophy, yet on particular issues we sometimes allow ourselves to move in a socialist direction almost without realizing it.

Such is the case on immigration. I hope it does not seem crass to think of people as a "means of production," but in fact people are the most essential means of production. We usually think of production being driven by technology, but the study of economics shows that even with technological advancement, we simply could not achieve the kind of market efficiency we now have without the proper division of labor among people. The most important kind of capital is human capital: the various skills, ideas, and ambitions that are dispersed throughout members of the global population.

So when conservatives argue that the government should be allowed to restrict the number of people who come into our country, they are in fact saying the same thing as a socialist who argues that the government should have control over capital investment.

(On the other hand, for all conservatives' talk about "free markets," conservative opposition to real free market policies is nothing new. See e.g. their historic opposition to ending corn subsidies, their support for trade barriers, and so on.)

Second, moving away from the economics, I propose to compare immigration with no less a controversial topic as abortion.

Just imagine if the government declared that it would set an annual limit on the number of children allowed to be born in America each year. Anyone, therefore, who failed to get a license to bear children would be forbidden to have children, and any woman who got pregnant without a license would be forced to abort.


Does that sound extreme? I don't see how it's any more extreme than a Republican saying that we should put up an electric fence on the Mexican border, or that we should be "shooting these immigrants like feral hogs."

But fine, let's say that these ideas really are too extreme for the average conservative. Let's consider instead the policy of deporting all illegal immigrants. To what may we compare this policy? It is like demanding that every woman who gets pregnant without a license be forced to send her child to be adopted in another country. Is this policy any more acceptable?

Consider the following arguments and try to tell whether they apply to immigration or to abortion: "What if we can't afford them? Shouldn't we take care of people who are already here? They're a lot different from us, after all." We cannot possibly expect people to take seriously the humanity of a child in the womb, when we are unwilling to take seriously the humanity of a person seeking a new life in this country.

(Let me add here a remark regarding those who are in favor of abortion rights. I hope none of what I said will be taken as saying that proponents of abortion rights are akin to monsters who want to slaughter immigrants. I am simply offering a comparison which I think should be particularly unnerving to conservatives, given their usual alignments. That said, I am pro-life, and I do think abortion is disturbing, even when left to a woman's "choice." But I think we can all agree that forced abortion would be a monstrous policy, and I think that many conservative proposals on immigration are similarly monstrous.)

Conservatives stress that this issue is about the rule of law, and that legal immigration should be applauded while illegal immigration is denounced. But the rule of law is not simply about people following laws. "An unjust law is no law at all." No, the rule of law is about treating all people equally according to the same moral standard. There is no moral reason to deny any individual access to a new life in this great country, provided they agree to live peaceably with their neighbors.

If conservatives care about preserving the traditions that have made us great, they ought to consider that the greatest of all such traditions is that of freedom and justice for all people. This tradition, sadly, is always in danger of being opposed by the very people who say they love it the most.

Why shouldn't government be big?

Conservatives and libertarians often complain that government is "too big." Part of what they mean by this is that the government is involved in too many things, and this is detrimental to society because the government is less efficient in doing these things than the private sector.

Stated in this way, this mantra is actually an empirical claim which may be false. How do we know the government is less efficient than the private sector in everything that it does? Very often I suspect it is, but sometimes perhaps it isn't. And even if it is less efficient, the underlying principle really has not been addressed: why does the government turn out to be inefficient?

More importantly the real question is, can the solution really be for the government to simply stop doing the things it is doing? This seems like a regressive step, an admission of defeat, a blithe acceptance that maybe some problems just can't be solved. This is the kind of thinking that makes progressives' blood boil.

And rightfully so. The most aggravating thing I've found about conservatives is that often they are in fact conservative in the negative sense: they often want to call "not problems" things that are problems, and rather than optimistically seeking solutions they simply wish to be left alone. I'll be the first to complain about Obama's health care plan, but where were the conservative Republicans when they had a chance to address the problems of health care themselves? Why did they not address immigration reform? And why is it that under their watch no one spotted any of the systemic economic problems that led to the current recession? If the Left has recently had many bad ideas, the Right has simply had no ideas, which is in fact worse during times of crisis, when some idea, even a bad one, will move to fill the vacuum.

So if we're to avoid this kind of "do nothing" attitude, what are we to do about big government? Is it a problem? What exactly is the reason we are so upset by it? How do we fix that?

Liberty and Interdependence

Anyone who glances at election results during political seasons knows that there seems to be no truth more incontrovertible than that the more people a concentrated in a geographical area, the more left-leaning they become. I'm sure there are significant exceptions to this, but on the whole urban areas are far more likely to vote for the left, while right-wingers are much more common in suburbs, small towns, and rural areas. These facts seem paradoxical at first. Small towns, where everyone knows everyone else's business and all of life is built around the community, seem to be populated by people who vote for an individualistic "get the government off my back" agenda; whereas large cities, where no one makes eye contact and countless people rush on by homeless beggars, are populated by people mostly voting for more collectivist policies.

This is probably not as paradoxical as it seems. Conservatives, at least, are not so hard to understand in this picture. It is probably just because people in small towns have already built up community and civic life that more or less works that they are skeptical of government intervention. Why should the federal government impose further mandates upon those who already take care of each other? In a small town or rural area, it is much easier to trust your neighbor, who is always close by, than the government, which is always far off. Since everyone generally knows each other, your neighbors are much less likely to be dangerous; in fact, they are likely to be quite helpful if you face an unexpected problem. Why depend on the state or federal government, which is made up of people you rarely see (if ever) and whom you have no reason to trust, when help is so close to home?

The Party of Life: the liberalism of F. A. Hayek

The postscript to Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty is entitled, "Why I Am Not a Conservative." For Americans aware of Hayek's influence on political developments of the past half-century or so, this title may be astonishing. Aren't conservatives the very people most influenced by and most appreciative of Hayek's work? How can he devote a whole essay to why he isn't one of them?

The whole essay is indeed confusing for Americans, and from the tone of the essay one senses that Hayek was exasperated at the confusion Americans have created over the terms "liberal" and "conservative." As I've written before, the two terms scarcely mean in American today what they have traditionally meant; the term "liberal" has probably suffered more distortion even than "conservative." For this reason most Americans reading the essay will probably experience a great deal of confusion over who exactly Hayek is talking about, excepting those who are very knowledgeable about the history of ideas. Nevertheless, this is precisely what makes the essay so relevant. It is, in some sense, Hayek's warning not to do exactly what we have done: we have so closely associated his ideas with American conservatism that we can't tell what he was actually saying.

Evangelicals exploring new ways to reduce abortions

A USA Today article describes a slight change in the National Association of Evangelicals' stance on abortion: "They've announced a willingness to partner with groups that offer contraceptive services and other programs aimed at reducing the number of abortions."

The article states that "More conservative evangelicals want a ban on legalized abortion and see talk about reducing demand as a dodge."

There are three reasons why I disagree with this conservative view:

1. It's politically unrealistic. I find it absurd that so many pro-lifers can't find it in themselves to think strategically on this issue. No, not every compromise on this issue is worth it, but some compromises will obviously be necessary. Despite the recent polls showing American opinion becoming more pro-life, we are very far from having enough political capital to significantly change abortion law in this country. We need to make political investments. Part of that is simply working with others, who may not share our principles.


2. It's uncharitable. Conservative Christians ought to remember that the Christian life is fundamentally about loving God and loving our neighbor. We forget that this often means seeing the good that others do, even when we disagree with them strongly on important issues. In fact, often other groups do better than us Christians on certain moral issues, even if they are dead wrong on others. For instance, I find it shameful that the most outspoken folks on college campuses against sexual assault are almost always led by pro-abortion feminists. Shouldn't Christians be the leaders in speaking out against such horrible things? If we approach the matter with a little more humility, we will see that working with other groups is not only strategic, but it is also good and loving.


3. Saving lives is the whole point. Working with others to prevent abortions is not a cop out. It's the whole point. We are not fighting for some abstract moral principle; we are fighting for human lives, innocent human lives which are brutally destroyed every day. Working with pro-choice groups for the sake of reducing abortions is not the most dangerous compromise we can make. The most dangerous compromise we can make is to allow more innocent human lives to die for the sake of a "pure" stance. How many more babies have to die before we start doing whatever it takes to end this?

The NAE is taking a step in the right direction, in my opinion. Of course there is no guaranteeing that pro-choice groups will be willing to work with evangelicals, anyway. But taking a willing step forward is the right thing to do.

Christianity and Progressive Economics

The only time I ever read anything on the Huffington Post is when I'm looking for something else--this evening it was a video of a baby anteater that never loaded. (Don't ask me how I got started looking at that.)

Anyway, I happened to stumble upon an article by a certain Mike Lux, who gave a classic argument why (evangelical) Christians ought to be politically progressive. (Perhaps "classic" here is just a nice way of saying "cliche.") I have no doubt that progressives are interested in spreading these kinds of arguments these days. From what I understand of the 2008 election, Barack Obama won in part due to support from evangelicals tired of conservatism. Given that evangelicals continue to make up a major portion of the American population, politicians will most likely attempt to sway them if they can.

Now, if Lux wants to argue that Christians should not be conservative, I will not argue against him. The kind of conservatism he bashes in his article is a pretty sad excuse for a political philosophy, not to speak of its biblical merits. However, Lux wants to argue more, that a biblical Christian ought to support progressive economic policies, because that's what Jesus would do. This is what I have to disagree with.

Lux's argument for progressive politics makes two fundamental errors that Leftists make repeatedly. The first is viewing economics as inherently zero sum. The second is that he creates a false dichotomy between favoring the rich and favoring the poor.

Let's look at this first mistake. Right at the beginning of the article Lux says,

When you are in the political world, you have decisions to make every single day about who you will try to help and who you won't.... Who you tax, who you give a tax break to, what programs you cut or add to, who you tighten regulations on, and who you loosen them on, what kind of contractors are eligible for government work, which school districts and non-profit groups get federal money, etc: these political decisions are generally not win-win. Instead, they mean that one group of people win, and one group of people loses. It is the nature of politics, and you can't take the politics out of politics.

Right away Lux would have us view economics as zero sum. This means that if one person is to gain something, someone else must lose. I believe this is the fundamental reasoning behind all leftist economic policies, and I believe this reasoning is utterly false.

The entire basis for a free market economy is that it is positive sum. That is, net value can actually be added to the entire economy. How can this be? We can't create new materials out of nothing; we aren't God. But the thing about value is that it isn't a material substance. Value is about how important something is to people. It's not about how much stuff is actually there; it's about how meaningful it is to human beings.

Walter Williams has a clever way of saying that the market is zero sum. If I spend a dollar on a newspaper at a newsstand, then that newspaper must have been more valuable to me than my dollar, and the dollar must have been more valuable to the newsstand than the newspaper--otherwise, one of us is a fool. In other words, every trade is supposed to add value to the economy, because you shouldn't be forced to trade something for something else you think is less valuable.

Unfortunately, this principle tends to get completely forgotten when we think about economic policy. We think that the only way to make life better for some is to make life worse for others. This is false. In fact, the best way to allow people to make everyone's life better is to create a free market economy.

This means that the government shouldn't be making any decisions about "who you tighten regulations on, and who you loosen them on." Regulations should apply to everyone equally. In fact, the kind of decisions Lux is here describing, as if it is a necessary part of politics, is antithetical to political liberty. The fact that Lux completely misses this suggests that our culture is generally uneducated about the basics of free market economics.

Let me anticipate one remark: I do not say that there should be no government regulations. I am simply saying government regulations should be blind: they should not target any specific groups of people. Far too many people today believe this is an unachievable and even undesirable goal. This is to the detriment of our economy and our political life.

The second mistake that Lux makes is that he creates a false dichotomy between favoring the rich and favoring the poor. He says,

The most fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is that question of which side you are on. Conservatives believe that the rich and powerful got that way because they deserve to be, that society owes its prosperity to the prosperous, and that government's job when they have to make choices is to side with those businesspeople who are doing well, because all good things trickle down from them. Progressives, on the other hand, believe it is the poor and those who are ill-treated who need the most help from their government, and that prosperity comes from all of us -- the worker as well as the employer, the consumer as well as the seller, the struggling entrepreneur trying to make it as well as the wealthy who already have.

Who could possibly deny that "prosperity comes from all of us"? Or that "those who are ill-treated ... need the most help from their government"? And who honestly believes that "society owes its prosperity to the prosperous"? Indeed, if conservatism and progressivism really are what Lux says they are, it's difficult to imagine how conservatives could win a single election.

The beauty of the free market is precisely that it allows prosperity to come from all of us. When given the freedom to do what we will with our own property, it turns out that we can do some surprising, innovative things. We can come up with solutions to complex problems that a centralized government never could. It's not possible to anticipate what free people will do when allowed to use their resources in the way they choose. Just imagine how shocked our Founding Fathers would be to see the kinds of innovation we've produced in the past century! But that is a testament to the power of freedom to bring out the unexpected greatness of human creativity.

Unfortunately, the policies of the Left provide incentives not to take risks and not to be productive. While I understand the desire to help the poor, I don't think the Left can claim to be more egalitarian than those of us who believe in the free market. If I believe that all people have the potential to provide some service to the economy and that we should give them incentives to do so, am I not siding with "the worker as well as the employer, the consumer as well as the seller, the struggling entrepreneur trying to make it as well as the wealthy who already have"? Indeed, I'd bet that most "struggling entrepreneurs" are more likely to vote for politicians who believe in the free market than those who believe in progressive economics!

A believer in the free market is in no way allied with the rich. Every great thinker who has argued for the free market (from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek) has lamented the way the rich and powerful are favored in society. The free market is actually about protecting the right of individuals not to be coerced by those who are more powerful. That includes, of course, the government itself!

Now let me be frank. This kind of choose-a-side mentality is what I find most absurd about the Left. In fact, I find it downright immoral. The most fundamental principle on which our nation is built is equal justice under law. This means, in no uncertain terms, that we simply must not take sides. The Bible does talk a lot about justice for the poor, but it does also mention this:

You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit. (Exodus 23:2-4)

I cannot think of a better verse to describe the inherent danger that democracy brings with it: the tyranny of the majority. It is clear that the public, whether out of envy or a misguided sense of justice, is capable of wrongly denying a person of his freedom.

Lux does make one good point:

Conservative Christians' primary argument regarding Jesus and politics is that all he cared about was spiritual matters and an individual's relationship with God. As a result, they say, all those references from Jesus about helping the poor relate only to private charity, not to society as a whole. Their belief is that Jesus, and the New Testament in general, is focused on one thing and one thing only: how do people get into heaven.

I can accept that this is the wrong way to view Jesus. But the certainty with which Lux makes the following statement is all too typical of the Left:

Jesus may not have been primarily concerned with politics, but for what politics he did have, it is virtually impossible to argue that he was anything but a progressive thinker.

The only way you can buy into the statement is if you make the same two errors Lux does, which really amount to a fundamental misunderstanding of free market economics.

Personally, I think it's impossible to derive the "correct" system of economics directly from Scripture. But here's a story about Jesus that inspires my economic thinking:

Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a desolate place by himself. But when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns. When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick. Now when it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves." But Jesus said, "They need not go away; you give them something to eat." They said to him, "We have only five loaves here and two fish." And he said, "Bring them here to me." Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children. (Mt. 14:13-21)

Progressives see this as supporting their own view, but I think it rather reinforces my point of view: God's economy is not zero sum.

I don't believe that God means for us to base our economic policies on fear, but rather on love. The ultimate economic value is the value of the human person. It is human beings, not things, that add value to the economy. It is not a matter of redistributing wealth, but a matter of valuing life and liberty. Life is unpredictable, and liberty embraces that. But these are the greatest gifts of God, and I would be ashamed if I didn't embrace them.

And that's why, as a Christian, I still disagree with "progressive" economics.

Big business conservatism? No way.

I really appreciate this article written by Jonah Goldberg, which discusses why "big business" does not equal "conservative."

In fact, the interesting bit of information he opens up with is how much big business seems to support the Democrats: "It's worth remembering that Obama was the preferred candidate of Wall Street, and the industry gave to Democrats by a 2-1 margin at the beginning of last year."

Yet, as Goldberg points out, the generally left-leaning newspapers would rather focus on whatever support big businesses are giving Republicans. What they fail to highlight in stories with headlines like "Wall Street shifting toward Republicans" is that Wall Street is still giving a majority of their political contributions to Democrats, despite whatever gains Republicans have made.

In casual political conversation, it's almost a given that Republicans are in line with big business while Democrats are trying to protect the little guy from those big evil corporations. Could it be that big evil corporations had a change of heart last year and decided to support the liberals in office?

I doubt it. Here's Goldberg's take on things:

The lesson here is fairly simple: Big business is not "right wing," it's vampiric. It will pursue any opportunity to make a big profit at little risk. Getting in bed with politicians is increasingly the safest investment for these "crony capitalists."

It's all about profit. Would anyone seriously be surprised to hear that?

The scary thing is that sometimes politics can actually feed the desires of powerful companies to maximize profit. And in our day, this is how "progressive" policies end up actually working. By being overly involved with which businesses are profitable or unprofitable, the government is actually favoring the powerful, not the little guy.

In a just system, powerful people should not be able to gain financially from laws passed by Congress. Markets should be driven by what consumers want, not by what politicians want, especially politicians who are driven by pressure from wealthy political supporters.

This is why it would be so wonderful to have genuine conservatives in government, who believed not in big business, but in free markets. That means restrained government--not "small" government, as many conservatives would put it, but simply disciplined government that didn't use its power to play favorites.

But chances of that appear dismal, as even Goldberg admits: "For years, the GOP defended big business in the spirit of free enterprise while businesses never showed much interest in the principle themselves."

It's no wonder Americans get so apathetic about politics. For all of our conversations about basic political ideology, neither party actually seems to represent the ideology to which is pays lip service.

Yet I do think our conversations about such things are important, because we do have power over politicians in this country. At some point they will listen, because they want votes. See? Politicians are just like businesses, really. Just as you can always count on businesses to desire maximum profit, so you can always count on politicians to want to win elections.

The question is whether the American people, consumers both of goods provided by business and of government provided by politicians, will be able to restrain these desires for profit and power. This means taking responsibility for what we value, both in what we buy and in what political opinions we hold.

Of course, it's easy to get cynical about that, too. Can we really expect Americans as a people to take more responsibility for our values as consumers and as voters? But we can't afford to ask that question. We really don't have an option; American democracy depends on taking this responsibility on ourselves.

To me, this is fundamentally what being a conservative is all about: I think that society should be structured so that people are capable of being independent--not independent from one another, but independent from ruling elites.

From that point of view, it's sheer nonsense to suppose that conservatism is anything like "pro-big business." Big businesses are powerful elites that need to be restrained from exercising too much authority over people. But on the other hand, it is natural to restrain big government for the same reason.

My only question is whether your average, everyday Democrat would disagree with me. Being surrounded by liberals in the academy, I know there are plenty of elitist liberals out there who genuinely believe in meritocracy--which of course means they should run the country because they're so smart.

But I'd like to think that most Americans do value independence from any sort of aristocracy, whether it's based on how rich you are or how smart you are. I just wonder, then, what leads people to vote for such flaming liberals like Barack Obama.

Oh well. Some things I will never understand. At least I have enough freedom to blog about them.

That's what I call "bias"

A friend posted this article on facebook:

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

This article is a classic example of headlines being completely misleading. First, the difference in average IQ was hardly astronomical, as the article admits:

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.

What would we do without experts? We'd never be able to tell that not all religious people are idiots!

Second, the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" used in the study had almost nothing to do with the actual meanings of those words in common American political discourse.

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

In other words, the study doesn't take into account what it actually means to be, you know, conservative. Or liberal, for that matter.

Also, I don't see any evidence from the article that atheism, more than religion, could be at all connected with caring about strangers, which is supposedly a "liberal" trait. There doesn't seem to be any comparison between intelligent religious people and intelligent atheists.

Isn't it possible that among people with higher IQs, the religious people are actually more "liberal" than the atheists? I mean, of course, that they would care more about providing resources to perfect strangers. I don't think this is an unreasonable hypothesis; church-goers give on average a higher percentage of their income to charity (though still not enough).

Similarly, no comparison was made between intelligent atheist men and intelligent religious men on the subject of sexual exclusivity. Even though intelligence might curb sexual promiscuity among men, who says atheism does? Everyday experience would suggest quite the opposite.

The conflation of these three concepts, atheism, "liberalism," and male sexual exclusivity, together with the attribute of intelligence, is simply an editorial decision made by CNN in choosing a headline. It appears to have little or no grounding in reality.

So does anyone still wonder why people complain about media bias in reporting? You can talk all you want about how objectively the facts were laid out in your article, but that's not all there is to journalism. Presentation matters.

Headlines especially are crucial in shaping people's opinions. Even when people actually read the article (which is by no means 100% of the time!) the headline always leaves a certain impression, and perhaps even skews one's interpretation of the facts laid out in the article.

I can hardly believe that journalists for a network like CNN are so oblivious as to not realize this. Thus I can only conclude that they are intentionally naming their headlines in a manipulative way, and that is what makes me cynical about news media.

Besides this, I get really tired of interpretations of religion like the one presented in this article:

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

Yeah, you know, it's really the paranoia that keeps me going to church every Sunday. It's as if researchers like this have never actually met anyone who's religious.

In fact, for 2000 years Christianity has in many ways been dispelling this kind of primitive paranoia Kanazawa is describing. By proclaiming that the One True God is not only sovereign but also loving and rational, Christianity practically paved the way for the modern era, one in which people don't have an inherent fear of nature but rather faith that nature can be mastered.

One might refer to this article for more insight on that topic.

Anyway, as a conservative religious man who also happens to be a PhD student in mathematics, I can assure you, you shouldn't believe every headline you read.

Thomas Sowell on Fairness

Thomas Sowell recently wrote a four-part series on "The Fallacy of 'Fairness,'" which you can read here, here, here, and here.

Being already quite familiar with much of Sowell's work, nothing I read was that surprising. I have always enjoyed Sowell's contrarian nature, his common-sense debunking of starry-eyed liberal optimism, and his extensive knowledge of economics that he brings to bear on current issues.

However, Sowell deserves a good critique, coming not from the Left but from someone who is at least moderately conservative in outlook. He certainly has his points, which I don't mind agreeing with, but what ties all of his arguments together is a philosophy of individualism that I fundamentally disagree with.

First, the points I don't mind agreeing with. Sowell is right to point out that equality of treatment does not necessarily lead to equality of results, and probably never could:

Some years ago, for example, there was a big outcry that various mental tests used for college admissions or for employment were biased and "unfair" to many individuals or groups. Fortunately there was one voice of sanity-- David Riesman, I believe-- who said: "The tests are not unfair. LIFE is unfair and the tests measure the results."

This is absolutely correct, and Sowell is extremely good at conjuring up numerous examples along these same lines to demonstrate his point.

Sowell is right to criticize the overeager Left for wanting to pull the "discrimination card" all too often.

Creating a difference that would not exist otherwise is discrimination, and something can be done about that. But, in recent times, virtually any disparity in outcomes is almost automatically blamed on discrimination, despite the incredible range of other reasons for disparities between individuals and groups.

Perhaps the best thing about Sowell is that he really is firm on saying it isn't your fault if you were raised in a poor neighborhood or a broken home; likewise it isn't your virtue if you were raised in a rich family with two parents. Circumstances are inherited, and there's nothing you can do about that. And the same goes for natural ability.

Mixed up with the question of fairness to individuals and groups has been the explosive question of whether individuals and groups have the innate ability to perform at the same levels, if they are all treated alike or even given the same objective opportunities.

Intellectuals have swung from one side of this question at the beginning of the 20th century to the opposite side at the end. Both those who said that achievement differences among races and classes were due to genes, in the early years of the 20th century, and those who said that these differences were due to discrimination, in the later years, ignored the old statisticians' warnings that correlation is not causation.

So before one makes a shallow argument against Sowell as just another conservative with prejudices against people he thinks are lazy, one should really look carefully at what he is saying. He is not saying that a person's misfortunes are all his own fault; far from it. He simply objects to innocent people having to pay to correct misfortunes they had no part in causing.

Finally, Sowell gets to the heart of the matter, which is the problem of misdiagnosing society's condition:

It is certainly a great misfortune to be born into families or communities whose values make educational or economic success less likely. But to have intellectuals and others come along and misstate the problem does not help to produce better results, even if it produces a better image.

Here I still very much agree with Sowell. For instance, I have seen first hand how many students in lower income neighborhoods are unable to succeed, not simply because they are poor, but because studying is not a cultural good for them. I suppose innate ability might occasionally have something to do with it, but as there is absolutely nothing we can do about innate ability, we ought to focus on what we can do, which is try to teach the value of learning. But to do this is to admit that there's something wrong with the culture in which these kids have grown up, which is potentially a difficult admission in today's politically correct climate.

However, here's where I part with Sowell. He says,

Political correctness may make it hard for anyone to challenge the image of helpless victims of an evil society. But those who are lagging do not need a better public relations image. They need the ability to produce better results for themselves-- and a romantic image is an obstacle to directing their efforts toward developing that ability.

I've added emphasis to this statement to clarify what I think is wrong with Sowell's philosophy. I do not think life is fundamentally about what each of us can do individually. Our collective identity also has meaning.

That's not to say I'm a "collectivist," which is what the Right often accuses the Left of being. No, indeed, I think the false rhetoric of the Left comes out of the same individualist mindset that plagues the Right.

Think about it. Instead of appealing to our sense of corporate identity as Americans to help less fortunate groups of people, the Left more often cries "injustice" as if certain individuals had been personally wronged. As Americans, we can't help but be outraged at personal injustice. So the Left basically keeps lying to us and telling us it's still all our fault--we're still discriminating against minorities, etc.

The tragedy is that there would be no need for this kind of rhetoric if we had more of a collective sense of success and failure. This is a fundamental question we should ask ourselves: How do we measure the success of our culture? Is it in the ability of individuals to have upward social mobility? Despite what many on the Left seem to say, I do believe America wins in that category.

Yet where we fail is to deal with the philosophical question of how we ought to truly measure success, and I'm not sure it should be limited to the success of individuals. Anyone who has ever been on a sports team or something similar (for me it was drum line in high school) knows what it means to succeed or fail as a team. "You're only as strong as your weakest link" was what I always heard. It doesn't matter how good your best player is; what matters is whether the group as a whole succeeds.

Along with this question of how we measure success comes the question, who is "we"? We know to be responsible for certain people in our lives--our family, our close friends, and if we are Christians, members of the church (many equivalents exist for other faiths). But what does it mean that we're all Americans? Does that mean we're responsible for one another? Are we in any sense a family? These are tricky questions.

I am certainly far from suggesting that we all ought to be by law responsible for one another in every way. Certainly there are limits to this idea. But I think conservatives do wrong to keep insisting that America is strong because it lets every man be an island.

Doubtless conservatives will tell me yes, we agree that it is good and right to care about others, but we believe that should left up to the individual, you see, for it is a greater moral good when it is not coerced by the government. There is a certain ring of moral truth in that, but on the other hand, at some point shouldn't all societies have ways of enforcing some sort of moral standard of caring about other people?

To be sure, no one is so omniscient as to know how to balance individual freedom with collective identity. Maybe in the Kingdom of God we somehow see both perfectly. After all, God is Trinity, and while each person in the Trinity is genuinely individual, yet the Trinity is a perfect collective, since the Trinity is One God. Maybe our failure to understand that paradox also leads to our failure to have a just political order.

But my point is that conservatives can't make a coherent political ideology out of pure individualism. It doesn't work, and it's immoral. Sowell's purist version of fairness as treating everyone exactly equally is not the ideal. When someone in your family is in trouble, you don't treat that person the same as everyone else; you go out of your way to help him.

Likewise, in any society that views itself in at least somewhat familial terms, certain people will be treated "unfairly" precisely because they are in need. Of course there are limits to this, but that doesn't mean we just throw out the whole idea of collective responsibility.

And if Sowell insists on throwing out the idea of collective responsibility, then I wonder if he is all that different from the intellectuals he is always criticizing. After all, like them, he seems willing to put abstract ideas before flesh and blood human beings.

Moral and political conservatism

I spent some time this Christmas break with my relatives from the Midwest, most of whom are very conservative in both their Christian faith and in their politics.

There have been times when I've wondered, why are so many Christians so conservative in their politics? Conservatism historically is based largely on a secular point of view. As N. T. Wright points out on occasion, those who reject Darwinism most vehemently in America seem the most likely to support Darwinist economic policies, leaving it all to the "survival of the fittest."

Indeed, the idea that you can just do whatever you want with your money is not exactly a Christian idea. In Acts the Christians "had everything in common." There were pretty severe consequences for withholding money from the group (though to be fair, conservatives correctly point out that all giving was voluntary).

If you look at the way Catholics view politics, you often find very left-leaning economic ideas alongside conservative moral opinions (I've blogged about this here). And isn't this because at the heart of Christianity is a concern for the poor and the oppressed? Why wouldn't all Christians share this outlook on politics?

I'm sure there are some bad reasons why many Christians hold conservative economic and political views, but I think there are some good ones, as well. One thing to consider is demographics. Are most conservative Christians rich? I guess it all depends on your point of view, but the reality is that most of them aren't extravagantly wealthy.

You can see for yourself that the Democrats are actually the party of the extravagantly wealthy. In the last election, Obama got most of the votes of those in the $200,000+ income bracket. It's no longer the rich who are opposing big government and supporting keeping our markets free.

I've heard several people mention something like how it's a puzzle that voters in Kansas vote against their own economic interests. And it's really true, from a certain point of view. Many of these conservative voters would actually stand to gain from big government policies.

At one time I thought maybe it's just the fact that Democrats are so liberal on moral issues like abortion. (Honestly, that's distraction enough for me, even as I bounce around on my opinions about economics.) But I think it's much deeper than that.

There is a strong case to be made that it is morally wrong for the government to take control of industry, to over-regulate markets, and even to hand out benefits to the poor. Let's look at the politics of the bail-out packages that our government approved this year. The whole notion that a business can be "too big to fail" is a corrupt idea. Maybe the idea is that we're trying to save the little guy by saving a business, but this attitude is elitist. It implies that the "little guy" necessarily depends on some corporate giants.

From the conservative perspective, no business should be "too big to fail" precisely because no human is more valuable than another. In a free market, everyone has to compete according to the same rules; no one is favored because of special status. But when it comes to big government bail-outs, the rich receive special status because the poor depend on them. This is antithetical to the conservative idea of freedom.

Fundamentally, from a conservative point of view, government handouts tend to stunt people's moral growth. This is because personal responsibility is a high moral good, and hard work leads to moral growth. Whereas the liberal might feel a person can still be good without being productive, the conservative views productivity as a moral good, not just an economic good.

On the issue of giving to the poor, all Christians believe it is right for individuals to give charitably, but there is a good argument to be made that it is wrong for the government to do so. The reason is simple: it is wrong to buy votes. In protecting their self-interest, it is natural for people to vote for politicians that give them benefits. So government welfare can act like a political transaction, and what seems morally good becomes morally wrong. Charitable giving is charitable precisely because the giver doesn't receive any material benefits from it.

Conservatives who vote against their own economic self-interest are saying two things. One, they don't want to be a charity case, at least not the government's charity case. Two, they are willing to vote on higher principles than self-interest. And this is certainly a good thing, even if you don't agree with the result.

I don't think conservatives are right on every issue, but I do think there is a certain moral consistency in their social and economic views. There is a very bad assumption often made when liberals attack the moral credibility of conservatives--if something is a moral good, then you should want the government to provide it. So if you think giving money to the poor is good, then you should want the government to provide welfare.

But conservatives reject this assumption and insist that what I think is good and what I think the government should do are not equal. So I'm free to give money to the poor without believing the government should do so. This position can be difficult to defend. A lot of people have a gut reaction to it without even realizing they are making the assumption described above.

This remains a pretty tricky issue for me, one that I'll continue to think about. For now, I need to cut this off and go enjoy some more of my vacation.

Social Conservatism and Power

Yesterday I read an interesting (but long) article about Robert P. George, a Princeton professor of jurisprudence and an influential conservative Christian thinker. The article got me thinking about the various ways in which Christians try to engage the culture in matters of morality.

George's approach is of the "Thomist" tradition (i.e. Thomas Aquinas), meaning that he thinks Christian moral principles can be argued on the basis of pure human reason, apart from divine revelation. This fits nicely into the secular age, in which religion is not the dominant political force.

However, even he acknowledges what other Christian thinkers say about human reason: that original sin has corrupted our ability to reason, so that we fail to see moral truths without divine revelation. Protestant tradition since Martin Luther has often stressed this.

What an interesting tension for Christians to deal with! On the one hand, if you believe in certain moral principles, you'd like to be able to convince others that those moral principles are true, hence you'd like to be able to derive those principles from pure reason.

On the other hand, the Bible does talk a lot about the "blindness" of man, the inability to see the truth without divine revelation. There is surely a lot of evidence for this in common experience, though many are stubbornly opposed to this idea as a matter of principle.

I wonder which attitude promotes a secular culture more. The second attitude encourages the separation of Church and State, does it not? If it religious truth is a matter of special revelation, then how can it be suitable for creating the laws of a nation? Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone, that kind of thing. On the other hand, the second attitude, while it does make Christian ethics universal in scope, also makes human reason the foundation for morality, which is a highly secular idea.

If Christians are interested in winning the "culture wars," I suppose the Thomist approach makes more sense--explain to people in non-Christian terms why Christian ethics make sense. Either that or convert everyone in sight...

But I wonder, why such an interest in winning the culture "wars"?

I've been thinking a lot lately about power. There are many reasons to want power. One reason is obvious--selfish, but obvious. Power means I can do what I want.

There is, of course, a slightly more sophisticated reason to want power. If only I were in charge, with all my infinite wisdom, the world would be a better place. If people did what I say, they'd be happier. I need to save people from themselves.

It's hard not to resent this mentality. It's exactly the kind of mentality conservatives hate in liberals, and liberals hate in conservatives. Every political ideology comes with a little bit of self-righteous power-hungry arrogance that says, "Our plan will make this country better."

Awkwardly, the Christian story doesn't sound very far from this. When Jesus finally comes in judgment, then the world will be made right. It's not hard to see how someone in a modern democratic Western nation would have a problem with this.

But there's something different about this story. Christmas is a time when we celebrate the King of the Jews being born in a stable under scandalous circumstances. We celebrate the Messiah who would die the death of a criminal. "Glory to God in the highest"--how does this triumphant announcement jive with the dark scenario actually depicted in the gospels?

If Christians truly seek to "win" the "culture wars," shouldn't we first know what it means to "win"? If our Savior's life is any model, winning comes through persecution, humiliation, and death... and then finally through new life.

New life. New creation. The power of God is not found through destruction, but creation. Nor is power found through control of what limited resources this world has to offer, but through the gfit of new life, new creation.

The culture wars are fought with the noblest of intentions, I'm sure. But after all, they are wars of conquering and taking, of controlling the world's laws and institutions.

The real power is not found in controlling the world with its finite resources, but in creating something new. Jesus turned water into wine; he fed 5000 people with a few loaves and some fish; he raised his dear friend from the dead.

I realize there are battles that a Christian conservative must fight, as conscience demands. But conservatism often seems antithetical to the true meaning of Christ's birth--something new has come into this world. The kingdom of God is not about clinging to the old, but creating something new.

My heart desires something greater than winning political battles over issues like abortion or homosexuality. Oh, to actually change the world. It is creativity, not reason, that strikes me as more attractive these days. It won't do to simply be a conservative.

(Maybe this desire will lead me to do something new with this blog. I've had the same format for a long time now. I think it's time for something new. I don't know what exactly, but I can feel it.)

My prayer for Christian conservatives is that they will realize that the Kingdom of God is not about convincing the world that we have the Truth. It is about creativity, beauty, and power--perfect power expressed through love.

Instead of simply arguing that we shouldn't depend on the government for social welfare, shouldn't we instead find new creative solutions to social problems that can be implemented through local organizations?

Instead of simply arguing against abortion, shouldn't we instead find new creative ways to help mothers in need, and to celebrate life in all of its forms?

I don't know how to do these things myself; I'm just thinking out loud, as it were. And I have a feeling that my imagination is pathetically limited by my own human experiences. But imagination--that's what I think is at the core of true spirituality.

Imagine... what would it look like to truly live the way Jesus intended us to live? What did Jesus really mean when He said we would do "greater works than these"?

I guess that's a good Christmas thought to end on. Imagine... the little child of Bethlehem, actually a King. Imagine what that could really mean...

Two can play that game...

So MoveOn.org did a video with a bunch of celebrities attempting to make fun of conservative critiques of the public health insurance option.

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

But conservatives can play that game, too, it seems. Here's a video from Catholic Vote Action:



I don't know where this one is from, but I might as well throw it in the mix:



A lot of times I wince when conservatives try to outwit liberal satire, but in this case, the liberal video was so bad it made the conservative videos hilarious. Thanks, Alexa.

I'm most disappointed in Will Ferrell's performances. At least when he impersonates Bush, it's funny.

Compassionless Conservatism?

I just read an article by John Stossel (pictured on the right) that reminded me why good old-fashioned free market conservatism doesn't appeal to me so much these days.

The worst part of the article is probably the title: "Pregnant Women Have No Right To Their Jobs." Good one, John.

Of course, he's trying to make a classic free market ideological statement, which is that usually when the government tries to intervene on behalf of a group of people with some sort of disadvantage, those people end up worse off than they were.

Sure, conservatives have lots of data to support this claim. Still, they don't even come close to sounding as if they want to really do something about the problem. Their solution is always something like this:

"If my employer decides they no longer want me as an employee, then it should be their right to fire me."

This quote actually comes from Carrie Lukas, the director of the Independent Women's Forum. Okay, so, fine, Stossel found a woman willing to say this. And it's a nice little purist capitalist thing to say, but it doesn't really solve any problems, nor does it get at the moral issues.

People in the real world deal with problems like these:

• Many couples need two incomes to maintain a healthy lifestyle for their children.
• Many women need incomes because men aren't around to support them.
• Many women would like to work because, well, it's fulfilling and they have skills they would like to use. It's healthier if our culture respects that.

How does a purist capitalist "solution" resolve any of these issues?

Conservatives are free to point out the failures of our system as we have it, but I feel there must be some lack of moral sense that drives them to reason that government should therefore do nothing. Frankly I find it disturbing that Stossel's article has a four-star rating by readers on Townhall.com.

Perhaps the way to deal with these real-world issues in both a moral and practical way would be to try to work around businesses. It might be better if society as a whole shouldered some of the burden for supporting women through pregnancy, rather than insisting that businesses provide for pregnant employees. Yes, this would mean another tax, but at some point our moral fiber ought to encourage us to go this direction.

I agree that law suits are generally not the answer. I'm generally concerned that our society grows increasingly incapable of settling things out of court, which means establishing healthy relationships between people, not just appealing to the law every time something goes wrong.

But at the same time, there is nothing wrong with the law providing moral constraints on business practices. Such moral constraints don't make markets any less free. "Free Market" doesn't mean businesses just do whatever they want; it simply means they aren't run by the government. The government has every right to govern, that is, to enforce some base-level moral system agreed upon by the people. As long as our laws are clearly stated and comprehensible to all people, they by no means inhibit the free market; they actually make it better.

Finally, because I am concerned about bioethical issues, I am fretful about the implications of this conservative mentality for the abortion issue. The kind of ideology that Stossel espouses only encourages a culture of death, since it makes business transactions seem more important than families and human lives. Of course we all need business transactions to make our lives better, but at some level one or the other has to be held sacred. I choose human life over money, and I think society should, as well.

In any case, conservative politicians need to be careful when it comes to associating with folks like Stossel, since my bet would be that they're only going to alienate even more voters with an attitude like this. They're certainly starting to alienate me.

Chuck Norris can fight crime--when he's not even there

This is simply the best story you'll hear all year:

A Croatian bakery has a unique way of keeping away burglars - Chuck Norris.

The bakery suffered from regular break-ins until it put up a life-sized photo of the Hollywood tough-guy, well-known for B-movie action classics like Delta Force and Invasion USA, news.com.au reported.

The photo also has a sign, saying the shop is "under the protection of Chuck Norris".

Since putting up the photo one month ago, the bakery in the city of Split has had no burglaries.

A sales assistant at the bakery said the Chuck Norris photo started as a joke but "people seem to respect him", news.com.au reported.

"Thieves haven't been anywhere near us for ages."

Burglars aren't the only ones fooled either - several customers have asked whether they can get Norris' autograph, the assistant told media.

"They really believe he is sitting in our storeroom out the back ready to pounce on any burglars."

How many Chuck Norris facts can you think of? Here's one to add to your list--and it's a true story! (Note: I have not verified the credibility of this story.)

Also, since my blog is usually about ideas, I couldn't help but mention that these days Chuck Norris has gone from fighting bad guys in movies to fighting liberalism with opinion columns. That might be one reason for me to still vote Republican--I mean, if Chuck Norris says so, what you can say to that?

A kink in the first amendment

Fox News reports on the case of a student from Capistrano Valley High School (California) suing a history teacher for making such comments as these:

"[W]hen you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

"Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work."

"When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

The comment that finally got the judge to rule in favor of the student was referring to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense." The court ruled that this, at last, was favoring irreligion over religion, which by recent judicial precedent is considered a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

According to the article, the judge tried to "balance" between the rights of the teacher and the student given to them by the 1st amendment. Which brings up an important question: what is this whole debate really about? One thing it's not about in this case or perhaps in any case is whether science and religion are compatible. This case is about power--power over intellectual discussion and over how ideas are presented.

What I'm wondering about is how the first amendment can seriously be applied one way or another in these cases. Conservatives will surely applaud the outcome of this case, but the reasoning used by the courts in these cases is fundamentally inconsistent with the conservative notion of "strict constructionist" interpretation.

That is, a literal interpretation of the first amendment by no means implies that this teacher was in the wrong. One teacher acting out of order does not establish a state religion. Only by extending the establishment clause to provide more general protection could the judge make his decision.

It just seems to me that a "government of laws and not of men" is not going to hold up in these cases, because we're dealing with complicated power struggles. We've created a system in which teachers hired by the government have power over students who may or may not agree with their philosophy. Someone's freedom is going to have to give--there's no way the teacher's right to free speech can be absolutely sacrosanct when students are placed in submission under them.

This power struggle over issues like creation vs. evolution is complicated because the dynamics are different depending on where you are in the country. Many people would like to see this struggle in purely dualistic terms--"us" and "them." In reality, the lines are squiggly, blurry, and otherwise so ill-defined so as to be useless in particular cases such as the one in Capistrano Valley.

Wisdom is what's needed in these cases. I applaud the court's decision in this case. I don't think it was a conservative decision at all. I just think it was a wise decision. (Note that the student didn't demand monetary damages, just that teachers not be allowed to make such comments in the future.) In this case the power seemed too heavy in favor of this rather insensitive teacher, and it needed to be tilted back. In a different case that might not have been true.

As a Christian I think this country needs actions on the part of individuals that promote love. In particular, I think we need court decisions that promote free discussion and remove hostility from the classroom. Frankly, a line by line reading of the constitution will not bring this about. Only wisdom that is borne out through experience with real people will work.

Oh, the horror

Here's CNN whining about how not every radical is a left-wing radical:

*sniff* *sob* Poor little CNN reporter. The evil right-wingers are so mean.

What's incredible to me is how liberals utterly fail to remember anything about American history (not to mention consider the feelings of many Americans today) when they can't see how taxes have anything to do with liberty.

There may be a lot wrong with Republicans these days, but these conservatives have guts, you know? They may not be the kind of sophisticated intelligentsia that liberals drool over, but there's something about them that uniquely captures the American spirit.

Happy Tax Day, everyone.

George W. Bush and Conservatives

George W. Bush is about to leave office. I've read several opinion pieces recently evaluating his presidency. You might be surprised how divided conservative opinion is on the subject. Personally, I'm divided within myself.

Just take a look at Townhall.com's opinion pieces, and you'll find at least two rather scathing reviews of Bush's presidency, one by Pat Buchanan, and another by Steve Chapman, which you can read here and here. On both of their lists for Bush screw-ups: the war and the economy. These are conservatives talking.

The reality is that arguably Bush isnot a conservative, nor ever was. His policy on the economy is conservative only in the sense that he has a strangely unwavering commitment to tax cuts. In every other respect, he has abandoned conservative principles by continuing to spend more and more while accumulating more and more executive power for the sake of his war on terror.

Conservatives can even wonder about his foreign policy. While conservatives are all about national defense, and traditionally believe that a strong military is the only way to deter our opponents from attacking us, Bush's war in Iraq was in many ways an innovation. The concept of "pre-emptive strike" is anything but traditional.

In the end, I think Bush is his own person--he acted according to his own particular vision in response to very unique circumstances (9/11 and so on). Call him arrogant or call him principled; in either case, he's really not traditional.

Where does that leave conservatism, I wonder? I used to consider myself a conservative, but these days I feel that the word "conservative" utterly fails to name any one particular worldview. Of course, I suppose that's what politics is all about, anyway--gathering coalitions of various interests into one party or another. Still, I used to think there was such a logical coherence tying together fiscal conservatism, pragmatic foreign policy, and traditional moral values.

That coherence has all but evaporated in my mind. Perhaps it was enough for me just to discover the diversity of conservative/libertarian thought, but the presidency of George Bush was certainly a catalyst for making me rethink the system I was used to. Bush is an enigma, a radical conservative who is not conservative, a visionary who is not progressive, and for those of us who are generous enough not to just hate him, he is quite a mystery to ponder.

Bush's character is indeed mysterious. I read a transcript of his final press conference. He does seem to have this odd contentment about him, like he's completely satisfied with what he did in office because he thought it was the right thing. You know, for most people we consider that okay, but for the President of the United States there does seem to be something wrong with it. I mean, a whole country's fate was on the line. Still, the man followed his conscience from start to finish. Such people are usually called visionaries when the majority actually agrees with them.

But Bush's approval ratings are just about the lowest they've ever been for an American president, so rather than seeing him as a visionary, many Americans have outright hatred for him. I suppose that's the risk he was willing to take, and he's paying for it. I wonder if, behind the face he wears in public, any of that hatred matters to him.

In any case, he acted on what he thought was right in a time when something had to be done. A new era of global terror has come upon us, and George Bush was the one given the task of deciding how we should approach it. Like it or not, we have to live with the consequences of his bold agenda. I'm not sure I like it.

In the meantime, Democrats will soon gain full control of the government, and conservatives are left wondering what to do next. Personally, I think this is a good thing for conservatives. Maybe this will cause them to think more about political philosophy than about retaining power. Probably not, but hey, it could happen.

As for me, I feel I'm looking at the political landscape from a bit of a distance. I wonder if there's something better on the horizon, perhaps a visionary who has all the idealism of Barack Obama with none of the gross moral errors (such as his views on abortion). I wonder if there is someone who combines a passion for justice with keen economic wisdom and political restraint.

(See, I think I'm too idealistic these days to be truly conservative.)

Anyway, goodbye George W. Bush. You've certainly made your mark.

Thankfulness -- examining the conservative perspective

With the current financial and economic problems in our country, there's something poignant about the Thanksgiving holiday. It is supposed to be a time that celebrates the abundant blessings that America has received. When that abundance dwindles, maybe it's a little harder to celebrate than usual.

I have been fascinated to read conservative opinion this week on the very topic of thankfulness. Conservatives are just as much affected by the current economy as liberals, and the recent election perhaps adds insult to injury to those truly opposed to Obama's ideology. Yet reading conservative reactions to the current situation is almost downright touching to me.

For instance, while conservatism is often thought of as a defense of laissez-faire capitalism, it is significant that many conservatives are saying we need to focus on correcting the moral problems that led to the current financial crisis--the greed, corruption, and irresponsible decision-making. Ross Mackenzie writes that it is "time to refocus on less materialism" and on a "simpler life" (from the title of his article). Essentially what he is saying is that when the market goes bad, it is time for us to accept the consequences, and not beg for bailouts.

We are all actors in the market. That's what the word "market" implies. As Ken Connor reminds us, whatever happens in the market is merely a sum total of all of our individual decisions. This kind of system gives us great freedom as Americans, but it also gives us great responsibility. And, as Connor argues, there must be some form of regulation if it is all going to work. For a conservative, the ideal is that Americans would regulate ourselves through the transmission of moral values from one generation to the next, values like self-discipline and personal responsbility. It is encouraging to me that many conservatives remain consistent in their ideals, calling on the American people not to ask for hand-outs, but rather to look at our own moral fiber to see where we went wrong in the market.

Michelle Malkin writes an inspiring article about a family who lost half their income when the husband was severely injured in a car accident. This family sold their nice home in suburbia and made a new life for themselves in rural New Mexico, where the cost of living was much lower. It's inspiring to think that, in spite of having lost so much, this family is still thankful. That's why it's good to have a Thanksgiving holiday. It is a good chance to remind ourselves that we really do have a lot, even when it looks like not as much.

Despite the way conservatives are sometimes made out to be apologists for the rich, the truth is, most conservatives are not rich (these days Democrats may actually be wealthier on average than Republicans). In fact, conservatives these days are doing the opposite of standing up for big business. Many (including me) would criticize the bail-outs of GM, Ford, and Chevy precisely on the grounds that these companies have failed the free market test. You can't be in favor of the free market when it's working for you and then ask for hand-outs when it isn't. (I'm not so heartless as to say that we should just let all the workers in the auto industry and related industries suffer, but wouldn't it make more sense to focus our compassion on those workers rather than CEOs who fly in to lobby Congress in their private jets?)

Personal responsibility is just one of many values. Certainly it is right and good for us to help those who cannot help themselves, so that perhaps one day they can stand on their own two feet. My own personal critique of American conservatism is that we are sometimes too afraid of "collectivism" to realize that we do have the capacity to help a lot of people in need in effective ways.

Nevertheless, it's undeniably refreshing to see conservatives stand up for personal responsibility and freedom, not just when it leads to personal prosperity, but also when it hurts. And the result of this integrity is not self-pity, but rather increased thankfulness for what we do have. As Americans who believe in this ideal, even when our prosperity declines, we will always be able to think of ourselves as the richest country in the world.