But when you look a little more, only 20% say that socialism is better than capitalism, and 27% “don’t know.” Rasumussen specifically notes that they didn’t define either term, which leads me to think that this poll might be a better indicator of Americans’ economic understanding than their ideological stance. Rasmussen cites another poll in which 70% of respondents prefer “free markets” over some alternative. Rasmussen interprets this as evidence that Americans aren’t convinced that are markets are free. It might just as well mean that people don’t know what capitalism is, and don’t know what free markets are¹.

It is also interesting that socialism is far more popular among younger people. Perhaps many of the older generations remember the Cold War better, and because they lived then, have a better handle on the differences between capitalism and socialism. It could also be that older people typically have more “skin in the game” and thus actually care enough about economic policies to know their preferences.

It seems that the headline tries to shock by suggesting that support for capitalism is weak. In fact, the details seem to suggest that economic understanding is weak. A comparison to an earlier poll with the same questions would help, but it looks like Rasmussen might be trying for a shock value without much backup.

1. The term “free” has a strong emotive appeal in America, and people often will gravitate toward things that are “free” regardless of whether the thing is actually “free”. One wonders how people would respond if the term were “liberal economics.” back↩

In particular, it seems that ICR is the intended beneficiary of this change, which apparently would allow them to grant the M.S. without state permission or regulation.

Some thoughts:

It is in a sense unfortunate that education has become such a political football. I have absolutely no problem with the state controlling education in a limited sense. It is in the interest of the state to do so. However, the politicization of education means that serious discussions about its goals and procedures will be heavily colored by political rhetoric. Again, the political rhetoric is necessary in the abstract, but modern American political rhetoric is simply too weak to substantively address the weight of a robust educational debate.

I don’t know that I would support this bill. On the one hand, I think it would be a good thing if ICR could issue an M.S. It sounds like much of the opposition is ideological — the education board doesn’t want to condone, or possibly even permit, creationism. But the bill would have far wider consequences. Basically it would allow non-profit, non-government-funded schools to invent and issue whatever degrees they wish. Eugenie Scott, quoted in the FoxNews article, makes this very point, and with good support.

It sounds like ICR is appealing to the state board for the right to issue the degree under the current statute. I think this is the route to take. I’m sure the state representative is well-meaning, but I fear that his approach is likely to further discredit schools like ICR.

In the news article, Scott claims that ICR’s offering is vastly inferior to UT’s or Baylor’s. According to his article, his primary concern is the ICR position that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. I fail to see how this point is relevant, except in the sense that it treats seriously a view that a fairly decent percentage of Americans actually hold.

I would be curious to see exactly how ICR is pursuing their court appeal with the state board — on what grounds to they claim the right to issue the degree?

So it seems there are actually two issues here. First, ICR claims the right to some sort of equal protection/fairness for their views, religious though they may be. I tend to side with them on this point, at least in a qualified, theoretical sense. Second, the bill at hand proposes to vastly expand the powers non-profit groups to award state-recognized degrees. I tend to oppose this point. It is not in the interest of the state or most of its citizens to devalue degrees. But it looks like several critics of the bill are conflating these two points. They recognize the impact of the bill, but they can’t seem to get away from their instinctive opposition to a creationist perspective. I think the best solution would be for the state to find a way to objectively assess the quality of ICR’s program, without any prejudice for or against a religious position and its implications, and then to grant or deny the degree based on the assessment. The bill is too much

October 21, 2008 (on TARP)

It’s an economic proposal that does nothing to rebuild our economy, but everything to continue the same failed policies of the past eight years – when speculators gamed the system, regulators looked the other way, and lobbyists bought their way into our government. It’s the same failed politics of decrying greed on Wall Street one minute, and then rewarding that greed the next minute with tax cuts for Wall Street corporations and CEOs.¹ It’s the same failed philosophy: give more and more to those with the most and hope prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

Note the shift from October to February. No longer does he decry the “failed policies.” Now he calls them “failed theories.” Nice shift. It lets him ignore what actually happened while attacking the Republicans’ stated philosophy. Thus, since his philosophy is different (so he says), he can claim to be breaking from the past.

Feb 9, 2009 (Press Conference)

“What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested and they have failed. And that’s part of what the election in November was all about. Okay?”

“When I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history….when they start characterizing this as pork without acknowledging that there are no earmarks² in this package — something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years — then you get a feeling that maybe we’re playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people.”

“When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I’m not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.”

The Republicans’ lack of discipline is coming back to bite them, but at this point, I suspect the American public is less interested in the errors of the past and more interested in the prospects of economic improvement. Isn’t that what this whole “looking forward” approach is all about?

1. At least he’s not doing this anymore. Wall Street execs are going to get slammed, even as he decries their greed. back↩
2. Definition, please? I don’t think many people really believe this line. back↩

Though the plausibility of her claim is suspect — there are only about 350 million Americans, and not all of them work — it actually illustrates a problem that this kind of bill creates.  At some point, the number becomes just a word. It no longer refers to a concept that people can get their minds around. Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, commented this week that if you started on the day Jesus was born and spent 1 million (that’s 1,000,000) dollars each day until now, you still wouldn’t have spent 1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) dollars. A trillion dollars is huge, but it’s hard to get your mind around how huge. The graph here tries to illustrate. The blue column represents 1 trillion. The column to the left is 1 billion. You can barely see it. The gray columns are the logarithm of the numbers across the bottom. I think people tend to think of big number more like the gray bars indicate. A trillion is bigger than a billion, but it’s not that much bigger.

How big is a trillion?

Will all of that, it’s easier to understand why Speaker Pelosi was having trouble. She’s throwing around all these numbers all the time, but like most people, she only half-way understand them. They’re just words now, so an extra billion here or there is just another digit. My thought is that we ought to be very cautious when those who want to spend our money aren’t careful to understand what they’re spending. But more than that, we ought to make sure that we understand ourselves, so that we don’t have to depend on politicians to explain what they’re doing.

Here’s my question, and the premise of her argument: Does conservatism need religion? In particular, does conservatism need Christianity?

I think there may be several relevant points here, but let me offer some clarifying (to me) observations. First, American conservatism is somewhat different than, say, European conservatism or Islamic conservatism. I don’t think too many people in the West think well of Islamic conservatism–certainly not many in the Republican party. American conservatism is, well, American. It gains much of its ethos from a relatively short history. But that history is profoundly religious–indeed, Christian–for better or worse.

Second, though there are some “conservatives” who claim to be atheistic (e.g. Christopher Hitchens), it’s hard to imagine how they aren’t somewhere being inconsistent. If the conservative “tent” is big enough to house a guy who’s most famous book is “god [sic] is not Great,” I wonder if shrinking the tent might be beneficial. Several commentators have noted that Hitchens–and others like him–are not merely atheistic, they’re anti-theistic.

I’m not sure what Parker is trying to do by marginalizing the Christian aspect of American conservatism. If she’s trying to appeal to those from other religions, fine. But it doesn’t follow that we should write off the Christian side of conservatism to do so.

Her example also doesn’t seem all that strong to me. She cites abortion as a conservative plank that doesn’t require Christianity. To her thinking, you can be an atheist who objects to any arbitrary killing, including killing the unborn. The argument has some merit, but it isn’t clear why arbitrary killing itself is bad. Her example is of a person who thinks of life as continuous in some sense, thereby validating the worth of any living person (?). This is true, but the continuity of life is a pretty vague concept that could be employed to make all sorts of very non-conservative arguments. Christianity offers a very good reason not to kill babies–they’re made in the image of God. But the moral government of God also permits the killing of murderers (by the state), and the ruler-ship of man gives him authority to use the Creation for his purposes since the rest of the world is made “for him.”

My tentative conclusion is that Ms. Parker’s fundamental premise is flawed. I have a number of other reasons for thinking that American conservatism needs religion, and her argument isn’t working as a credible counterargument for me.

1. Race was an issue in the campaign. As much as people try to say otherwise, it mattered. I am genuinely glad for black people that this is so. It affirms what they’ve been trying to say for over a hundred years–that their skin color doesn’t make them less important. But now that we’ve elected a black man into the White House, the “American is racist” argument will lose a lot of its clout. Of course, those who really believe it will find some way to keep it alive, but I don’t think it will be nearly as persuasive.

Further, Obama will ultimately prove the equality of the “races” when he makes a mistake and has to pay the consequences. Just as the media’s treatment of Hillary Clinton during the primaries proved that women have an equal right to criticism, a strong opposition to Obama’s policies will show that black people really do get treated the same way as white people.

2. Campaign finance whining might go away. Obama raised an enormous amount of money. If McCain had raised that much and won, the media would have accused him of buying the presidency (and in a sense, he would have). But they won’t criticize Obama for his financial success. In the future, Republicans should feel free to raise as much as they can (legally), since any media criticism of their success would be obviously disingenuous. I realize that the media’s ability to spin things to fit their narrative will still be powerful, but I think the “buying the election” epithet will lose some of its power.

3. Republicans should know how not to run a campaign. McCain’s campaign was pretty sorry. He survived on people’s hesitancy about Obama and a few spectacular successes — the “surge,” Gov. Palin (a mixed blessing, more below). His response to other issues, e.g. the economic “crisis,” was pretty bad. It took a plumber from Toledo and a slip from Obama to focus the message on the obvious. McCain and Co. were just flopping around, and it hurt them. In fact, McCain and Palin never really explained any of their positions very well.
Voters reminded the GOP that ideas do matter, and if you can’t express them cogently, you won’t win.

4. A young rising star in the GOP got national facetime. Gov. Palin has been a touchstone for the debate within the GOP about the party’s direction. She represents one vision of Republicanism (I think the more conservative side). It was nice that she could be introduced to the country to remind young conservatives that they can actually go places in politics, and that people really do care about conservative values. To be sure, certain aspects of her candidacy were badly handled, and she may not have been ready to be president (I’m not sure that Obama is either). But she could represent a future GOP that a lot of its younger members would like. She may not be a good candidate for president, even in the future, but her success should remind the movers and shakers that they can’t ignore the right.

5. Conservatives aren’t whining. When Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004, there was lots of griping about all the unfair things that happened. Most conservatives are pretty prosaic about this campaign. Many see it as a deserved punishment for a party that has behaved badly. Further, they think it proved that moderate Republicanism doesn’t work very well against “moderate” Democrat-ism. The introspection may be very healthy.

Some not-so-good things and observations:

1. Senator Obama ran on a campaign of “hope and change.” He never really bothered to be more specific about the kind of change or what we should hope for. His success in vagueness prompts a couple of points, any or all of which may be true.
a. Americans don’t care about the meaning of words. They think emotionally; which makes no sense, but I think it captures the sentiment. In reading the various analyses of the campaign, both during and after, I was struck by the freqency of aesthetic language and imagery. Obama’s campaign was (perhaps intentionally) cast as a artistic event. And people today generally think that art is something that you interact with emotionally–and without thought. They don’t care about the meaning of art; indeed, they may think that it has no meaning. Obama capitalized on this sentimentality to propel his campaign.
b. Americans were so sick of Washington that they were willing to “vote for change” regardless of the nature of the change. When people don’t trust the current government (and it was perceived as Republican), “change” is automatically a powerful idea. I think voters were so disillusioned with Republicans that they were willing to give nearly anything else a chance. Obama essentially said “I’ll do things differently.” And voters said “Go for it.” They may have thought they had nothing to lose. It couldn’t get that much worse. (It can, but it’s hard to convince people that it could be that much worse.)

2. The mainstream media might as well be an extension of the Democrat party. There are a few journalists who actually did a little journalism, but for the most part, reporters were incredibly lopsided. In this campaign, no one could accuse journalists of educating anyone, or even of being “fair and balanced.” The public’s ignorance of relevant issues (like economics, foreign policy, etc.) permitted Obama to run his vague campaign, but the media never tried to inform the American voter about the relevant points in the discussion. They vacillated between gross simplification and technical jargon/academia-ese. This certainly played in Obama’s favor, since he appeared to cater to many people’s rudimentary understanding. His unclear positions allowed voters to project their ideas onto his without damage, so his ideas looked like their own. This is not a good thing, and the media could have helped prevent it.

All said, an Obama presidency may be good for the country in a couple of ways. If he governs like Clinton, we’ll do all right. If he governs like Hoover, the economy probably won’t do well. But as Robert Bork has observed, one thing that would help restore religious sentiment to our culture would be deep depression. It’s just that economic depression isn’t likely to win many voters. Obama’s power is highly derivative. We would do well to remember that if he tries to make waves, that doesn’t mean he controls the oceans.

Over at least the last two generations, and particularly the last two decades, America has enjoyed, yea championed, the vices of Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, and Greed. Look at the news stories that tell what Americans are complaining about now. They resent the loss of their luxuries–those things that they had no right to but have pursued to excess. They dislike the fact that excess, combined with laziness, eventually leads to want.

Perhaps I should say “we.”

But now they have a savior. He promises them relief from the loss of their pleasures. He offers ease from the hardship that they have brought on themselves. He claims that they need not suffer for their own sins.

How does he do this? By telling us that our previous sins are not our responsibilty and by calling us to Pride in our own worthiness, Envy of those who have succeeded, and Wrath against people who expect us to take care of ourselves.

In short, he tells us that we have not sinned enough.

This is the job of a “community organizer” (probably better labeled “agitator”). Stanley Kurtz at National Review has documented Senator Obama’s positions and activities. Obama’s MO basically motivates sinning people to sin more so that they can keep sinning. He wants to remove the law of sowing and reaping. Unfortunately, his opponent doesn’t clearly disagree.

Speaking of sowing and reaping, the American public has long elected politicians who have stayed in power by appealing to the basest instincts of their constituents. It works to do so. But the state shapes the people, so as the politicians themselves are vicious, the people become so too. And then the people turn around and elect more vicious politicians. Many polls and news stories suggest that Americans have lost their faith in their government. Considering the kind of government we have, it’s about time they stopped believing.

Government is not our salvation. Usually it tends merely to delay the consequences of vice. Now, more than ever, our government is actively and unashamedly trying to absolve the sins of the people. And the people are poised to elect someone who will add more sins, not remove them.

Salvation requires repentance and faith. With a faithless government that doesn’t demand repentance, it’s hard to imagine how government could do anything but make things worse. But then, that might be a good thing. The sooner people remember the law of sowing and reaping, repent, and put their faith in something more substantial and transcendent, the better off we’ll be.

I have some pictures from the event. Hopefully they turned out ok. We were just behind the media section (a good spot), but it was still pretty far away, and my camera isn’t nearly as nice as the ones the media use.

I don’t want to bash the family at the beginning, and I wouldn’t wish economic hardship on them. But if their difficulty is limited to fewer snacks (or rationing them out over a week), I confess that I’m less sympathetic. In fact, the suggestion that this is the kind of economic hardship going on is insulting. It insults both the viewers’ intelligence and those who really are getting hurt by the downturn. Sure, things aren’t as smooth-going as they were, but at least the family in the video is frankly a long way from starvation.

I think the average person out there knows full well that this family isn’t getting hurt too badly. Are all these plans Senator Obama suggests intended to help out these kind of people at the expense of those of us who are little closer to subsistence living? I fear so. But the pretense of the video is spectacular. The remainder of the infomercial doesn’t get much better.

Part 2 of the infomercial

Part 3

Part 4

Is it just me, or was the live portion of this video kind of odd? He returned to the “hope and change” lines from early in the campaign. If he had clearly discussed policy in the previous 25 minutes, that might have been one thing. But instead we got a list of sob stories that seemed a little contrived and some vague promises to fix their problems. We want to know how he’s going to fix the problems — but once we know, we might not like it. I guess the question is whether the hope and change mantra will survive until Tuesday.

The whole discussion is silly. Experience is important, but we need to understand what experience we’re talking about. Usually people compare her to Biden or McCain and point out her relative youth and provincial attitudes. In reality, if she should be counted out for not measuring up to their tenure, then the top of the opposite ticket is out of luck too.

But what about this whole “experience” thing in politics anyway? Is experience really necessary? Gov. Palin’s critics seem to be equating experience with knowledge. She supposedly hasn’t been around long enough and therefore doesn’t know enough. But does experience always lead to knowledge?

I say no. And here are three arguments:

First, the kind of experience matters. It’s one thing to get to sit in on a board meeting of a major corporation. You might learn a lot. But it’s quite another thing to run the meeting. No amount of watching can fully prepare you to actually run the thing. Likewise, many Americans have the “experience” of watching politics (filtered by their televisions). But relatively few could actually do what politicians do (or ought to do). Teachers know that teaching a subject requires far greater understanding than just soaking it up in a chair. We can over-emphasize the value of “hands-on” experience, but we cannot deny that doing is not the same as watching. Governor Palin is the only candidate with actual political executive experience. Does that make her qualified? Not necessarily, but her experience of running things is somewhat different than the others.

Second, the content of the experience matters. We could find some aged musician with lots of frequent flier miles, but he wouldn’t necessarily be a reliable source on foreign policy. (Then again, he might be.) If a crime boss ran for political office, he might be able to claim lots of executive experience, but it isn’t quite the executive experience that most people are looking for in a leader.

Third, and most important, experience doesn’t necessarily produce knowledge. We could take a behaviorist tack and claim that, after a while, everyone can be trained to do certain things. But this is not the kind of knowledge we want in a leader. We want someone who will learn from mistakes (both theirs and others’). Moreover, we want someone who can learn without experience–i.e. by direct instruction¹ . When someone persists for years in foolishness, they probably aren’t qualified for public office. This would be a problem for Senator Biden. His weath of “experience,” particularly in foreign policy, has managed to land him on the wrong side of nearly every major foreign policy issue in the last decade. Further, he doesn’t seem to have learned that when he doesn’t know what to say, he shouldn’t say anything at all. For all his “experience,” his knowledge, judgment, and wisdom are certainly in question.

Governor Palin needs more knowledge, as we should expect. (She is, after all the governor of one of the states furthest from Washington D.C., and governors aren’t always in the “need-to-know” loop of national security and foreign policy.) But as I anticipate tonight’s debate, I hope Gov. Palin will have an opportunity to demonstrate that she learns quickly and that she can draw on the wealth of knowledge among her advisors. If she does so, she will further convince me that the media doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about. She can’t attack “experience” per se, since her running mate is running on that very thing (in an earlier post I suggested that this might not be all good). But she can attack Biden’s knowledge and judgment, and I hope she does.

It would be great to have someone with real experience in the White House again.

1. Consider how often the book of Proverbs connects wisdom, understanding, and instruction with “hearing.” back↩