Family Matters Follow-Up Part I: Divorce and Marriage; Sex Education

Last Friday I wrote a post entitled "Family Matters" about the decline of the traditional family in the United States and the West, which I called "our true national and civilizational crisis."  To my surprise, the post was very well-received and popular.  To date, it is the second-most read blog post on the site, and I look for it to eclipse the most-read entry, "American Values, American Nationalism."  It certainly shattered single-day records for The Portly Politico.

It also garnered quite a bit of discussion on my Facebook page, where I always share links to these posts.  There was a great deal of excellent discussion, including questions for clarification on some points.  People also shared some of their personal experiences with matters of family and what sorts of arrangements work and in what circumstances.

As such, I thought I'd dedicate today and Wednesday's posts to following up on some of the comments, questions, and observations I received.  I do so to facilitate further discussion and to help clear up any confusion about some of my contentions.

(Note:  As I wrote this post, I decided to split it into [at least] two parts.  Wednesday's portion will deal with questions about same-sex couples and the impact of the Great Society upon black families.)

 

Like what you're reading?  Mad as hell?  Either way, you'll feel good supporting The Portly Politico.  Help keep quality, civil content alive and well with your generous donation.  --TPP<3b>

- Divorce:  I did not mention divorce at all in Friday's post, but many of the comments I received dealt with this painful scenario.  Certainly, no picture of the decline of the traditional family is complete without a discussion of dissolved unions.

With roughly 50% of marriages ending in divorce, the model of the stable, two-parent family is further threatened, although increasingly families are forming outside of formal marriage.  Neither of these scenarios is ideal.  The rate of divorce naturally increased in the twentieth century in part because divorces became easier to obtain, especially with the rise and success of the women's suffrage and rights movements.

The relative legal ease of acquiring a divorce, however, does not tell the full story.  Divorce also increased because of increasingly relaxed attitudes about marriage and family formation.  As the single working mother morphed from an object of sympathy into a perverse ideal--and as social signals and laws increasingly downplayed the importance of fathers and privileged mothers--both men and women came to see marriage as less of an institution and more of a formality.

"[Parents]... should make a good-faith effort to raise their children in a stable home, and to spare them the misery, confusion, and familial turmoil of divorce."

As several commenters noted, sometimes divorce is, sadly, the better option, such as when a spouse is abusive.  I suspect many such unfortunate unions take place precisely because we've come to take marriage (and love) so lightly.  The erosion of a broad, common set of cultural and religious values could also play a role, as more and more "oxen" are unevenly "yoked," creating deep tensions within relationships.

Of course, marriage is hugely complicated, and couples part way for many reasons (usually money).  However, it does seem that, absent abuse, infidelity, or criminality, couples with children should make a good-faith effort to raise their children in a stable home, and to spare them the misery, confusion, and familial turmoil of divorce.

 

If your husband is pointing a gun at you, it's probably time to call it quits.  Otherwise, make the best of a bad situation.  At least you can still get 2 for $20 entrees at Chili's (tm).

(Image Source:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Gates_of_Divorce.jpg/574px-Gates_of_Divorce.jpg)

Marriage, after all, is--or, at least, should be--a serious obligation entered into by two sober-minded adults with shared values and principles.  Of course, actual human relationships tend to be messy even in the most ideal of circumstances, but a proper focus on the point of marriage--two people coming together as one in the presence of God--would go a long way to help realign and heal struggling marriages.

 "Marriage, after all, is... a serious obligation entered into by two sober-minded adults with shared values and principles."

- Sex Education:  One friend argued that we need more sex education in schools, as well as free birth control for young people to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  While I believe that abstinence is the best method of birth control to emphasize, I'm enough of a realist to know that teenagers find particular joy in doing what they're told not to do.

The problem I see is two-fold:  first, we already provide sex education in most public high schools throughout the United States; second, the call for more sex education and access to contraceptives merely demonstrate the crisis of the family I've noted.

The proper realm for sex education is the home.  The popular media has perpetuated the myth that parents don't talk to their children about the pitfalls of premarital sex because they're uncomfortable or prudish, so the schools have to do it to prevent millions of unplanned pregnancies.

The problem, rather, is that so many children are growing up in homes without proper parental guidance, they're missing out on important lessons about sex, marriage, and family.  Absent fathers aren't there to teach their children that it's wrong to get a woman pregnant and then to leave her.  Sex outside of the framework or expectation of marriage becomes devoid of any larger sense of responsibility.

 "[S]o many children are growing up in homes without proper parental guidance, they're missing out on important lessons about sex, marriage, and family."

Therefore, teachers have had to take on yet another responsibility that should rest primarily, if not solely, with parents.  Add to this lack of parental involvement the glorification of sex in the media and the general "if-it-feels-good-do-it" philosophy of postmodern America, and you have a recipe for moral disaster.

It's unfortunate that schools have had to adopt this responsibility, at it suggests a massive decline in the understanding of what parents are supposed to do for their children.

To the point about free birth control in schools, I've never really understood this argument.  I understand that the logic goes, "it's worth taxpayers' money because it prevents the births of children who would become wards of the state; therefore, it's ultimately more cost-effective."  But many forms of birth control are incredibly cheap and readily available.  There's no compelling argument for why the government should force taxpayers to pay for a box of condoms for high school students.

As far as the birth control pill for girls, it's actually Republicans who want to make it available over-the-counter, which would further drive down the cost and allow young women experiencing shame or uncertainty to obtain it more easily.

 "[P]roviding birth control pills to minors through public schools introduces a host of sticky constitutional and legal concerns...."

Most importantly, providing birth control pills to minors through public schools introduces a host of sticky constitutional and legal concerns, the biggest being, "what if a family's faith forbids the use of contraceptives"?  A devout, traditional Catholic, for example, would no-doubt object to being forced to pay for birth control for his daughter and the daughters of strangers.  He would likewise experience a crisis being required to purchase condoms for his or others sons.

Just because most people--including, apparently, most Catholics--are morally comfortable using traditional birth control and contraceptive methods doesn't mean that we should make those who disagree pay for it.  The need to fund contraceptives becomes even less pressing when the low cost is considered.  Why cause an unnecessary, stressful crisis of faith for millions just to save a kid a quarter on a gas station rubber?

At this point, I would agree with my friend that, unfortunately, schools do have to take some role in sex education, especially given the increased likelihood children won't receive it at home, since the traditional family unit is on the decline.  If private non-profit organizations want to provide additional information or free contraceptives, no worries--there's no infringement upon religious liberty via official coercion.  Additionally, schools should stress the moral and financial obligations of parents to their children, especially in those communities where good role models are lacking.

Unfortunately, another government program to hand out free condoms is not a lasting solution to a problem that is one of the soul, not of the pocketbook.  Let civil society address these problems (perhaps with a revival of the good, old-fashioned shotgun wedding).

***

These are certainly thorny problems, and I fully recognize that as a single, never-married man I don't possess the same perspective as, say, a married couple of twenty years or a divorcee.  Nevertheless, I reject the notion that a lack of personal experience disqualifies one from the discussion (even while acknowledging that personal experience often provides a great deal of clarity).  Besides, I've witnessed first-hand the power of strong marriages and stable families.  Indeed, I'm the beneficiary of one such union.

Finally, I appreciate lively (and civil) feedback and discussion, and I look forward to expanding further on this topic on Wednesday.

Family Matters

Last Friday, I wrote about one of my intellectual heroes, Richard Weaver (and I recommended his masterful treatise Ideas Have Consequences in the wildly popular Portly Politico Summer Reading List 2016).  In that post, I promised to begin a series of pieces "exploring why tradition, morality, and Truth matter to a free society, and how we can restore them."

To that end, I'd like to focus on the importance of family to the maintenance of a free, prosperous society.  This topic should be fairly uncontroversial--that is, if we still lived in a society that did not demonize the traditional family structure while unthinkingly validating less productive--and, indeed, at times destructive--alternatives.

Unfortunately, we seem to take the nuclear family for granted.  We do so at our peril.  I would argue that a host of modern American society's worst problems--generational poverty, increased government dependence, loosening morals--are in many ways byproducts of the destruction of the nuclear family.

In 2012, over half of births to women under 30 were out of wedlock.  72.3% of blacks were born out of wedlock, while nearly 30% of whites were born so.  Compare those figures to the 1950s--before President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, which wreaked havoc on the black family--and illegitimacy rates were comparably very low, and only somewhat higher among blacks than whites.  Now it would seem that the rising tide of illegitimacy is indeed lifting all ships, and the ill-effects of illegitimacy are decreasingly color-blind.

 

The most adorable public domain family I could find.

(Image Source:  http://publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=62978&picture=happy-extended-family-isolated-on-white&large=1)

(For more reading, I highly recommend anything written by economist Walter Williams, especially his excellent book Race and Economics:  How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination.  I've also used this Williams article in preparing this post:  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/258575/culture-and-social-pathology-walter-williams.  For more statistics--and nice line graphs--check here:  http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_jack/2013/04/26/the-president-planned-parenthood-and-the-black-mass-against-traditional-morality/.  UPDATE:  Here's a link to a transcipt of Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous "Moynihan Report," written in 1965 while he was working in the US Department of Labor:  http://www.blackpast.org/primary/moynihan-report-1965.)

It's a testament to the institution's destruction that I even have to argue in favor of it.  The benefits of the nuclear family should be self-evident.  To wit:

- The Family is an Incubator for Morality:  The family is the first place in which children's morality is taught and reinforced.  We all have an inherent sense of right and wrong (except for sociopaths), but the family helps to develop the conscience and to give morality meaning, usually through a system of punishments for bad behavior and rewards for the good.  Parents (ideally) model good behavior for their children, and take an active role in inculcating proper behavior.

Indeed, self-government is impossible without this moral instruction:  we learn self-control and -restraint so that we can live freely.  Without such moral instruction, we raise generations of adults who are unable to control their impulses and who fail to understand the consequences of wickedness.  Therefore, a poor or incomplete moral upbringing breeds more criminality and recklessness, causing a growing portion of society leaning on the state for support.

"Without such moral instruction, we raise generations of adults who are unable to control their impulses and who fail to understand the consequences of wickedness."

- The Family is a Generational Anti-Poverty Machine:  I am able to live a modest, comfortable life on a private school teacher's salary (it's noticeably less than that of public school teachers in the State)--and was able to pursue two degrees in History/Advanced Trivia--because my father read water meters while going to school full-time, and because my parents scrupulously saved money (and taught my brothers and me how to do the same).  My father was able to teach me those lessons because his father accepted Christ.  His father--from what I can discern--was a restless gadabout who played piano in juke joints and lumber camp bars.  My grandfather reversed what could have been a negative trend of absenteeism and amorality.

It took three generations of self-restraint and moral uprightness to build a solid foundation.  Even then, it required loving moral instruction from my parents to help preserve the gains of the past.  The hard work and sacrifice of my parents and grandparents not only taught me how to fend for myself; it provided (and continues to do so) a powerful economic incubator.  Without that sacrifice, I would have been unable to attend college, or would have become massively indebted doing so.  I'm able to slam money into retirement now because dad read those water meters, went to college, and worked his way up in municipal government.  In the process, he taught me to work and study hard (which is why I spend most of my summers painting classrooms and trimming the football field).

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was right when he called the nuclear family the most effective anti-poverty program available.  It works!

- The Family Provides a Model for Masculinity and Femininity:  The image of the sexy single career mom--the one who doesn't need a man to raise a kid--and the schlubby, do-nothing dad are probably two of the most destructive notions ever to plague the modern West.  Don't get me wrong--I'm all about women pursuing their dreams and careers as they wish.  What I object to is the unrealistic notion that somehow people can "have it all"--all the rewards of work, family, and the like--without any of the necessary sacrifices that come with them.  It's selfish to want and expect everything, even at the cost of a child's well-being.  Further, any objective observer will acknowledge that it's harder to raise a child with one parent rather than two.

"[S]tatistically and historically, the best possible social arrangement for the rearing of children is the traditional family structure headed by a mother and a father."

Allow me to make a point that is, unfortunately, now controversial:  men and women need each other.  Yes, that's a generalization.  Yes, there are some exceptions.  But, broadly speaking, it's the truth most of the time.  More importantly, children need a mother and a father.

Please note:  I'm not arguing that a stable, same-sex couple or a single person shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child.  The need to find good homes for orphans far outweighs the potential shortcomings of lacking a male or female role model.  Nor am I arguing that all traditional families are always perfect--far from it.

What I'm saying is that, statistically and historically, the best possible social arrangement for the rearing of children is the traditional family structure headed by a mother and a father.  It's pretty much the way we're designed.  Children need and receive different things from their fathers than they do their mothers, and vice-versa.  Young boys learn how to be good men from their fathers.  That means they learn how to treat women with respect, among other things.  Little girls, for that matter, learn different lessons from their fathers than their mothers.

As I often tell my students, men and woman are different, but equal.  One sex isn't better than the other, but both are complementary and possess intangible qualities that the other needs.  That's why marriage is a coming together of two people to make one.  And, again, it's just the way we're made.

***

There's a reason the nuclear family is a subject near-and-dear to the hearts of social conservatives, and why we despair upon seeing the rise in illegitimacy rates and the decline of traditional marriage.  The nuclear family as an institution and social arrangement is hugely successful, yet we've jettisoned it from society in favor of... practically nothing.  If all arrangements are deemed equally valid, then none of them is worthy of supporting.  Thus, why bother?

At that point--the point, I fear, we have reached now--there is little hope that the next generation will enjoy, on the same scale, the manifold benefits the nuclear family provides.

This sobering reality, more than anything else, is our true national and civilizational crisis.  To repair it will require an acknowledgement of the benefits of the traditional family structure and an emphasis on the proper roles mothers and fathers are to play in the moral lives of their children.

There is No General Will

I've been watching the television series Wayward Pines (don't worry; no spoilers), which raises tons of great questions about how a society--particularly a closed one under duress--should function.  What's the proper balance between freedom and security?  How much should governing elites reveal to the folks, and what should be concealed?  Should people fulfill specific roles in a society to benefit the greater goals of that society, or should they be free to choose their professions (and, for that matter, their mates, homes, schools, etc.)?

These are interesting and complicated questions.  Indeed, the question of the proper balance between freedom and security has puzzled republics since Periclean Athens.  The question itself is misleading, I would argue--and likely will in a future post--that the two are not mutually exclusive.

"[T]here is no such thing as the general will."

But I digress.  All of these questions seem to pose a larger one:  what is the "general will" or "greater good" of a society, and how should a society go about pursuing it?  My answer is that there is no such thing as the general will.

Now, to be clear, this statement does not mean that I think there's no merit in a society pursuing some common goals, or that I deny that sometimes in a majoritarian system there will be policies that some people don't like, but that are beneficial for society as a whole.  Our whole constitutional system in the United States is carefully balanced to make sure that the "will of the people" is well-represented at the local, State, and national levels, while still guaranteeing and protecting the basic rights of individuals--even when those rights aren't particularly popular.

But here's the rub--while our constitutional order protects against the tyranny of the majority, the broad notion--from French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau--of the "general will" acknowledges no such limiting principle against the power of the majority.  It is against this sense that the "will of the people" is the be-all, end-all of social good that I stand.

 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Philosophical Super Villain.

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_(painted_portrait).jpg, portrait by Maurice Quentin de La Tour)

The people, as a whole, are fickle.  It's very difficult to get ten people to agree about what to eat for dinner; note how difficult it is for 330 million to agree on even the most basic of issues (in South Carolina, we still haven't reached any kind of consensus about how to pay for and fix our roads, something virtually everyone wants done).

Even if you can get ten reasonable people to agree to, say, a long-term weekly dining schedule, at some point one or two will start to say, "Well, maybe we could have spaghetti on Wednesday nights instead of tacos."  Imagine that conversation happening loudly and angrily across fifty States.  It's a recipe--pardon the pun--for disaster.

Raw majoritarianism--what Rousseau appears to be calling for when he argues that society should be based on the "general will" of the people--is an unworkable scheme on anything but the smallest levels of society.  Rousseau's chilling dictum that men are "forced to be free" reveals the inevitable consequence of unbridled democracy:  ultimately, the inexpressible "general will" becomes expressed through a demagogic tyrant, or through a legislator uninhibited by any restraints on its law-making authority beyond what the people want.

"[T]he 'general will' acknowledges no... limiting principle against the power of the majority." 

I've long viewed Rousseau as one of the great villains of modern philosophy, and I would argue that one can draw a more-or-less straight line from Rousseau and the French Revolution through fascism, communism, and totalitarianism, all the way to modern illiberal progressivism.  Rousseau--like modern progressives--believes in the mutability of human will, arguing that laws, not human nature, make people bad or good.  Get the laws right--or tweak the system enough--and you can spit out completely virtuous people.

Thus we see the conceit of the modern Left that no one commits crime out of greed or evil; instead, they're "victims of circumstance" or subject to "systems of oppression" that cause them to do evil.  If only we created more programs or redistributed more wealth--or, if taken to the logical extreme, if only we did away with private property altogether, since the state and its laws exist to protect it--then, finally, man would be perfect.

Such notions are not only absurd; they are hugely injurious to both individual freedom and the health of society at large.  A virtuous society is one that cultivates a virtuous culture, which is only sustainable if it educates its people to live virtuously, recognizing that there will always be failures because, after all, to err is human.

(Note:  I do acknowledge that sometimes people are driven to commit typically immoral deeds out of necessity; however, I believe our society hugely exaggerates the extent to which such motives drive criminality and wickedness; just ask any wealthy person who's ever been convicted of shoplifting or embezzlement why they stole, and you'll quickly realize that even people with plenty of material safety are tempted to sin.)

"Raw majoritarianism... is an unworkable scheme...."

Expecting pure perfection is dangerous and unrealistic.  Mistakes are the inevitable price of freedom.  You can ignore reality for a time and get by with it, but eventually it will catch up.

Rather than idealistically seek after a non-existent "general will," we should instead govern ourselves--and resist tyranny in the process.  To do so requires decentralization of power (and more local decision-making), a shared understanding of American values, and an education rich in morality, virtue, and philosophy.

(To read more about Rousseau's thought--and, perhaps, to correct my errors and oversimplifications, read more at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/.)

The Portly Politico Summer Reading List 2016

I'm at the beach--at the very desk at which I re-launched this blog after a six-year hiatus--and I figure it's the perfect occasion to unveil the "Portly Politico Summer Reading List 2016."

The books listed here are among some of my favorites.  I'm not necessarily reading them at the moment, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't!  These books have shaped my thinking about the many issues I've covered over the past two months.  I highly encourage you to check them out.

 

This picture accurately depicts high school students the night before classes start.

(Image Source:  Original doodle, 23 September 2012)

So, without further ado, and in no particular order, here are some of my all-time favorites:

1.) Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (1948) - I just wrote about this book in my last post (which I encourage you to read), and I'm including it on this list because it's pretty much required reading, especially if you're putting yourself through Conservatism 101.  The edition linked here is right around 100 pages, and while it's a dense read, it's not so overwhelming that you can't finish it, making it perfect for long days at the beach.

Weaver's writing is prophetic, especially if you've studied conservative thought, or even if you've just experienced a vague, gnawing sense of dislocation in the modern world.  It's packed--nearly on every page--with brilliant, quotable gems.  I re-read the introduction to the book every August right before school starts back, because it reminds me why I teach, and helps to align my thinking morally and spiritually.

If you read just one book this summer--or even this year--make it Ideas Have Consequences.

2.) Dennis Prager, Still the Best Hope:  Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph (2012) - Few books have shaped my thinking about American values--what they are, why they matter, and why they're worth defending--more thoroughly than this effort from conservative talk-radio host Dennis Prager.  Prager, a devout Jew with an Ivy League education and rich love of learning, outlines the so-called "American Trinity"--easily found on any coin--and argues that Americans are losing a three-sided battle against the Left and Islamism due to an inability to articulate why American values matter.

The "American Trinity"--liberty, trust in God, and e pluribus unum--is a brilliant and easy-to-digest device for understanding core American values.  In fact, I owe a huge debt to Prager; Still the Best Hope almost directly inspired two of my earliest come-back posts:  the much-read "American Values, American Nationalism," and the follow-up "Created by Philosophy."

Prager splits the book into three major sections:  outlines of the threats of radical Islamism and modern progressive Leftism, then an unpacking of the "American Trinity."  By far, the largest chunk of the book is the second section, which is one of the most effective eviscerations of Leftist assumptions ever written.  It's so long because it's extremely thorough and well-documented.

At around 450 pages, it can be a longer read, but it's written in a pleasing, engaging style.  Prager isn't a blow-hard like so many talk-radio show hosts, and his inquisitive, inviting voice comes through on the page.  I also love Prager's mind and the way he approaches topics; check out his other works here.

3.) Roger Kimball, The Long March:  How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America (2001) - If you've got some time--and are prepared to be terrified by the excesses of 1960s radicalism and its heroes--you must read this excellent, damning collection of essays.  In fact, everything Kimball writes is required reading (I also recommend The Fortunes of Permanence:  Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia and The Survival of Culture:  Permanent Values in a Virtual Age, both from 2012; the latter is edited by Kimball and includes the works of other writers).

"[E]verything Kimball writes is required reading."

Long March strips away the romantic facade of 1960s folk heroes and "radical chic" academics, exposing their fraudulent, dangerous theories and their continued influence on American society and institutions.  Kimball isn't aiming for the easy targets or to satisfy the Sean Hannity crowd; he brings thorough research and intellectual heft to the proceedings.  As an art historian and critic, he offers a perspective that's often lacking from conservative scholarship, serious or otherwise.

My only real beef with the book is that he takes a very dim view of rock 'n' roll.  That being said, his argument against it makes sense, and I can't help but experience a twinge of introspection now whenever I listen to my beloved classic rock.

Regardless, Kimball is a strong, eloquent writer, and I can almost feel myself getting smarter when I read his works.  I'm currently reading The Rape of the Masters:  How Political Correctness Sabotages Art from 2005, and it's a linguistic delight.

"If you read just one book this summer--or even this year--make it Ideas Have Consequences."

Honorable Mention:  Greg Gutfeld, Not Cool:  The Hipster Elite and Their War on You (2015) - if you want a summer read that's quick, digestible, and absolutely hilarious, pick up Not Cool.  Greg Gutfeld, co-host of Fox News's The Five and former host of the excellent late-late-late-night round-table discussion show Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, offers an unusual thesis:  everything awful that's ever been done--such as adopting wasteful, inefficient, and redistributive government programs--for the past fifty years or so has been because people are afraid to look uncool.

It's oddly compelling.  When you think about it, no one wants to be left out, and the Left constantly bludgeons society with the idea that if you don't uncritically accept that the government should solve all of our problems through coercion ("compassion"), then you're a mean, stingy racist.  If the parade of A-list celebrities at the Democratic National Convention last week (and the smaller cavalcade of B-list celebrities at the Republican National Convention the week before) is any indication, then it's clear that it's "cool" to be a progressive, but lethally uncool to be a conservative.  After all, what's "cool" about saying no to "free" stuff?

Not Cool is a quick read, and Gutfeld's humor and insight crackle on every page.  Sometimes you won't know whether you should laugh or cry.

***

So, there's your summer reading for 2016.  We've still got about a month of summertime fun left (although I'll be heading back to the classroom in just a couple of weeks), so grab some of these books before you head out of town.  You'll be glad you did.

Values Have Consequences

Every August, just before the new school year begins, I reread the introduction of Richard Weaver's seminal Ideas Have Consequences (1948), one of the foundational texts of the modern conservative movement.  It is one of the most eminently quotable books I've ever read, and every page of the introduction contains a gem.  I undertake this annual ritual as a way to prepare myself mentally, spiritually, and morally for the year ahead, and because philosophy is hugely important.

The crux of Weaver's argument is that a relatively innocuous notion, William of Occam's nominalism, "which denies that universals have a real existence," ultimately led philosophy "to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses.  With this change in the affirmation of what is real, the whole orientation of culture takes a turn, and we are on the road to modern empiricism."  As such, the "denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience," and ultimately "the denial of truth."  (Weaver, 3-4)

In other words, Weaver argues that nominalism set man on the path to moral relativism, which now dominates Western culture.

 

Those glasses probably had consequences for Weaver's dating life.

(Image Source and Attribution:  By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46415555)

Throughout his work--which I hope to explore more thoroughly in future posts--Weaver makes his case eloquently and succinctly (the whole book runs to just over 100 pages).  Anyone who has ever experienced a general sense of displacement in the postmodern world will find much in Weaver's work that rings true:  the decadence of modern society, the sense of alienation that haunts men, the gradual erosion of basic rights (after all, how can there be universal rights if there are no universals, or any true foundation upon which to base those rights).

Weaver argues that a single idea--nominalism--possessed ramifications that reverberated throughout the centuries.  Similarly, I would contend that the erosion of belief in the transcendental has resulted in a debasement of culture.

The story of the West is the story of philosophical inquiry and the quest for Truth.  I agree with Weaver--ideas have consequences, and shape everything from public policy and political theory to the fine arts and morality--and Western civilization gradually came to articulate rights that derive from that Truth (or God).  These rights are universal and precious.  They are woven into the very fabric of existence.

"[E]rosion of belief in the transcendental has resulted in a debasement of culture."

Thus emerged, from a marriage of Judeo-Christian faith, Greco-Roman philosophy, and (much later) Anglo-Saxon constitutionalism, ideas such as individual liberty, the sanctity of private property, the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance to protect men's thoughts and souls.

Once faith in these transcendental values was shaken by a cold, unflinching empiricism--after all, one cannot see justice, honor, or virtue--the cracks in the foundation slowly spread, until, one by one, the pillars of a Truth-oriented society crumbled.

Words once imbued with awe and power have been distorted or reduced to meaningless platitudes; some examples:

- "Justice" now is often "social justice," which amounts to a vindictive form of score-settling for historically-aggrieved groups.  There is no blind balancing of the scales, but bitter accusations of "privilege" and "cultural appropriation."

- "Community" has been replaced with "globalism" and "cosmopolitanism," which demand an artificial reduction of identities into an arid, sleek denominator.  Focusing on those near us, and to committing to a place and its traditions, are denounced as narrow and parochial interests.

- "Art" is doing anything that's "trangressive," but if there are no boundaries, how can they be pushed?  Rather than study great artists, learn their techniques, and then strive to build upon and actually create something genuinely new and artistically exciting, "artists" put their unmade beds into museums.

- "Family" is no longer the stable foundation upon which a free society is built.  Instead, it's an amorphous term that validates any number of arrangements that don't recognize the obligations, duties, and relationships of family members to one another.  The state will provide, so who needs the support of the nuclear family?

***

 "Once faith in these transcendental values was shaken by a cold, unflinching empiricism... the pillars of a Truth-oriented society crumbled."

The examples are, sadly, numberless.

Without any firm foundation in a moral universe, such dislocation and distortion are inevitable.  The lack of a unifying acceptance of transcendentals is why, more than anything else, there is such division in the United States and the West today.

There are, broadly, two camps:  those who reject transcendental Truth (and, ironically, create their own orthodoxies and religious precepts in the process) and those who accept it.  I fear the latter is losing--and has been for some time--this struggle for the soul of the West.

If the important things--family, community, justice, art, culture, tolerance, republican self-government--are to survive, it will take a re-dedication to the quest for Truth in an age that has, I'm afraid, utterly rejected it.

As such, I will dedicate the next few Fridays to exploring why tradition, morality, and Truth matter to a free society, and how we can restore them.

Disastrous National Convention

I knew there would be some lingering frustration from supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the fiery, crusty "democratic socialist" who fought tenaciously to secure the Democratic Party's nomination against the ultimate nominee, Hillary Clinton.  However, I never thought the frustration would manifest itself in such boisterous rebellion against the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic National Committee, and Mrs. Clinton.

As I've written before, the Democratic Party enforces remarkable party unity, and I expect that many discouraged Sandernistas will ultimately, if not enthusiastically, support Hillary Clinton.  That being said, the Democratic National Convention has so far been much more contentious than I imagined.

It's certainly been more frayed than the Republican National Convention.  To watch media coverage of last week's convention in Cleveland, one would have thought delegates were on the verge of running Trump out on a rail and nominating John Kasich instead.

 

Aging socialist Bernie Sanders--beloved by 20-something, upper-middle class liberal arts majors everywhere

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernie_Sanders.jpg) 

What exactly were the major "scandals" of the RNC?  Melania Trump gave a speech that contained one paragraph of broad, saccharine, generic platitudes that (admittedly) tracked very closely to a similar section of a speech First Lady Michelle Obama gave; Never Trump delegates essentially demanded a roll call vote by delegation; and Ted Cruz offered a non-endorsement of Donald Trump.  If anything, Cruz's non-endorsement actually did a great deal to bring Republicans together around their nominee, as did Trump's strong acceptance speech Thursday night.

Contrast that with the first two days of the DNC:  Bernie Sanders supporters booed when their hero encouraged them to vote for Hillary Clinton; the DNC stalled to avoid accepting paperwork that would have challenged Senator Tim Kaine's nomination as Clinton's running mate; the Sandernistas booed the California Congressman Nancy Pelosi--and Sanders again!--at a meeting Tuesday morning; and Clinton's team crafted a plan to drown out unruly Sanders supporters during Tuesday night's nominating vote.

Oh, and disgraced former Chairwoman of the DNC--and now honorary chair of Clinton's campaign team--Debbie Wasserman Schultz was denounced loudly by her own Florida delegation.

"[Sanders supporters] were listening to their messiah, and he'd been crucified by the very party and candidate at whose convention he spoke."

Add to this flurry of disaffection last week's Democratic National Committee e-mail scandal, which saw WikiLeaks release nearly 20,000 DNC e-mails--some of which demonstrate the open collusion between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and reporters--and the Democratic National Convention is a tinderbox.

The Sanders movement has evolved beyond the control of its titular leader.  As I watched Senator Sanders give his speech at the DNC Monday night, I was struck by the number of people--mostly women, but some men--who were openly weeping as he spoke.  I also noticed the absolutely awe-struck gaze some of these (mostly young) people had.  They were listening to their messiah, and he'd been crucified by the very party and candidate at whose convention he spoke.

"For some Democrats, the cry of 'I'm With Her' sounds more like 'Long Live the Queen.'"

Clinton will now desperately try to regain the Party's composure.  Upcoming speeches from President Obama and other Democratic Party stalwarts will have to convince disaffected Sanders supporters that their favorite programs and policies will be advanced under a Clinton administration.  Senator Tim Kaine, Clinton's bland but safe running mate, will have to make the case that a Clinton-Kaine ticket offers the same progressive punch as a Sanders-Warren one.

Through it all, look to media commentators to downplay the divisions.  There will also be a lot of tut-tutting over the behavior of Sandernistas, and smug remonstrances to "get behind her."

The popular, populist, anti-establishment candidate--for better or for worse--won the Republican Party and staved off a full-scale civil war.  The corrupt, corporatist, establishment crony of the Democratic Party will have to do the same.  Fortunately for her, she already has ample media, institutional, and political support behind her, ready to quell any further rebellions.

For some Democrats, the cry of "I'm With Her" sounds more like "Long Live the Queen."

The Democratic National Convention - What to Expect

With a sometimes rough, sometimes raucous, but ultimately uneventful (in the sense that "no one got hurt physically"; it was a big success for Trump) Republican National Convention in the history books, the nation's attention turns to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.  Donald Trump's seminal acceptance speech--the best he's ever given, and which I'll discuss in a later post--sparked immediate speculation as to the Clinton campaign's next move.  Hillary Clinton's announcement on Friday of her running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, failed to steal attention away from the Trump campaign, nor did it boost the Clinton campaign as hoped.

Instead, a breaking host of scandals emanating from the leaking of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails has diverted the wrong kind of attention to Clinton, the Democratic Party, and their convention.  It appears the DNC actively worked against Senator Bernie Sanders, cooking up ways to undermine his energetic campaign.  DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the first casualty of these leaks.  It seems the Democratic Party struggles with e-mail encryption.

 

At least one Democrat will be brought down by an e-mail scandal this year.

(Image Source:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DWSPortrait.jpg)

In light of these events, here are some things to look for at this week's Democratic National Convention:

- The E-Mails:  I'm very curious to see how, if at all, Democrats address this leak.  While I sympathize with their organization's plight--probably the only time I'll ever be able to write such a thing--and abhor such hacking chicanery, the e-mails are out and there's no going back.  Wasserman Schultz will step down as Chairwoman of the DNC, and CNN is already reporting that she won't be speaking at the convention.

There are two possible responses:  don't talk about the e-mails at all, or play for sympathy.  I could see Clinton (or some Democratic operative or B-list congressman) denouncing hacker Guccifer 2.0 as an agent of the Trump campaign or some such nonsense.  They would be right to point out the wickedness of such criminal activity, but explaining the contents of their e-mails--especially open collusion with reporters and media outlets to run stories favorable to Clinton--is going to be very difficult.  I imagine it will be so difficult, they won't even try.

"[A] breaking host of scandals emanating from the leaking of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails has diverted the wrong kind of attention to Clinton, the Democratic Party, and their convention."

- Tim Kaine:  Clinton's pick of Tim Kaine as her running mate is significant.  Rather than go for a progressive firebrand like Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren--a pick that would have fired up the base--Secretary Clinton went for a safe, reliable Senator with extensive public service and executive experience.  Kaine is a compromiser--a "progressive who knows how to get things done," Clinton said, echoing her description of herself from a Democratic primary debate last fall--and is apparently well-liked on both sides of the aisle, even by Texas Senator and die-hard conservative Ted Cruz.

Clinton's pick sends two messages:  one is that her ticket is the safe pick, and that establishment Republicans squeamish about Trump have a place to turn.  The latter is a long shot; yes, there will be Republicans who will vote for Clinton, but their numbers are dwindling.  Kaine also leaves the ultra-progressive, Warren/Sanders wing of the Democratic Party unfulfilled.  As I've written elsewhere, Democratic Party unity is often a remarkable thing to behold, but in light of the blatantly pro-Clinton position of the DNC the leaked e-mails reveal, that wing could be dissatisfied enough to stay home on November 8, or to vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein.

"Just as Trump's acceptance speech breathed life into his campaign... Clinton's acceptance speech will have to electrify the Democratic base."

- Clinton's Acceptance Speech:  Just as Trump's acceptance speech breathed life into his campaign and helped to assuage many Republicans' fears, Clinton's acceptance speech will have to electrify the Democratic base.  I imagine she'll use a good chunk of it attempting to discredit Trump, and she'll continue the claim that his speech was based on fear, while her campaign will be about hope.  She'll also promise to continue "fighting"--something she says she loves to do--for greater equality, access, and wages, but Trump has stolen her thunder on some of these issues.

***

Throughout this week, be on the lookout for a parade of telegenic, preferred-identity "victims" who will talk about how this or that government program saved their lives, or how the lack of free college and two-years paid maternity leave made their lives difficult.  The Democratic Party loves nothing more than to march out useful mouthpieces for whatever their cause-of-the-moment happens to be.

There was a diverse array of speakers at the RNC, in part as an attempt to dispel the myth that Republicans are just a bunch of old, white men (just look at South Carolina's elected officials and you'll realize right away diversity of the Republican Party).  It's also very difficult being an openly conservative minority--there's no great financial or professional benefit to being, say, a black Republican, and a great deal of scorn that can come with it.  Being a minority Democratic, on the other hand, comes with unlimited praise and media accolades, as we'll see this week.

(To be clear, there's nothing wrong with hosting speakers of multiple ethnic backgrounds at any function, but I think any reasonably honest person will recognize the unfortunate, racialist games our politicians play, either to avoid criticism or to garner praise from those who care about such skin-deep "diversity."  This statement is merely to clarify that my issue isn't with minorities speaking their minds--race shouldn't matter, ideas should--but rather with the portrayal of certain groups as deserving of or requiring special treatment, and of exploiting sympathy for those groups to push a coercive political agenda.)

Otherwise, the three items above are the big ones, and I'll be interested to see what unfolds this week.  Regardless, let's hope for a peaceful convention; love them or hate them, the Dems deserve their chance to make their case to the American people.

Ted Cruz - Conservative Hero, or Traitor to His Party?

On Wednesday, 20 July 2016, Texas Senator Ted Cruz delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, in which he congratulated his primary opponent and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on his victory, then urged voters to "vote your conscience" in November.  Boos filled the arena.

What convention delegates were booing was not the admonition to vote their conscience--for many of them, that means voting for Donald Trump--but the lack of an explicit endorsement from Senator Cruz to endorse Trump.

 

Ted Cruz - not the Zodiac Killer, but almost in as much trouble.

(Image Source:  By Frank Fey (U.S. Senate Photographic Studio) - Office of Senator Ted Cruz, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25195114)

Immediately, two camps formed:  the majority pro-Trump camp, and the dwindling minority of Never Trumpers.  Within the former there are, broadly, two groups:  die-hard Trump fans, who have supported the candidate since last summer; and more tepid supporters who have given their support to Trump because they support their party's nominee, they won't support Hillary Clinton, they support elements of Trumpism, or some combination of the three.

The latter camp--I suspect--will continue to lose momentum now that the nomination process is complete.  Some of those voters will reluctantly vote for Trump for fear that a Clinton presidency will irrevocably shift the Supreme Court toward constitutional adaptavism and judicial activism.  Some will vote third-party, probably for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, or not vote at all.  A very small minority will vote for Clinton.

The kerfuffle highlights well the tensions inherent in party politics:  when does loyalty to party overcome adherence to principles, and vice-versa?

How these two groups have interpreted Cruz's speech is predictable.  For the pro-Trump/party unity crowd, they see Cruz's non-endorsement as a traitorous, duplicitous swipe at the nominee and his supporters, someone who went back on his word to endorse the winner of the primary process.

For the anti-Trump side, Cruz is a hero who stands on principle, even in the face of overwhelming pressure from his party to support explicitly the GOP nominee.  They argue that his pledge to support the candidate became null and void when the Trump campaign attacked Cruz's wife, Heidi, and insinuated that his father was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

The kerfuffle highlights well the tensions inherent in party politics:  when does loyalty to party overcome adherence to principles, and vice-versa?  To what extent should a voter temper his principles for the sake of political advantage, expediency, or compromise?

These are difficult questions, and they did not start with the 2016 election cycle.  Movement conservatives were frustrated, for example, with the 2008 and 2012 GOP nominees.  They perceived Arizona Senator John McCain and Massachusetts Senator Mitt Romney, respectively, as being inconsistently conservative.  Some conservatives refused to vote for those candidates; many did.  Some voted for them enthusiastically, reasoning that their flaws were better than accepting the progressivism of President Barack Obama, or changing their thinking to align with the candidates.  Others did so more reluctantly.

***

(Full disclosure--and a disclaimer:  I voted for Senator Cruz in the 2016 South Carolina GOP primary.  The analysis to follow does not represent an endorsement or criticism of Senator Cruz's speech or positions, but rather is an attempt--as fully as possible--at an objective analysis of the reasons for his position, and the consequences of it.  Angry advocates of both sides take note.)

So, which is it?  Is Ted Cruz a hero of the conservative movement, standing on principle at the expense of party unity?  Or is he an opportunistic traitor to the Republican Party?

It's a tricky question, and both sides have merit.  The pro-Trump majority is broadly correct that, having committed to endorsing the ultimate nominee, Cruz should hold up that endorsement, as many other Republicans have done, if reluctantly.  Take, for example, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Trump, but also been quick to criticize the nominee when his statement's violated Ryan's principles.

"...while Cruz didn't outright endorse Trump, he didn't not endorse him, either, and in no way maimed Trump.  If anything, he mostly hurt himself."

On the other hand, Cruz in no way denigrated Donald Trump, or even suggested that voters should not vote for him.  Given in any other context, his speech would have received uproarious applause and plaudits from conservatives.  It did not explicitly fulfill his pledge to support the nominee, but it did not seek to criticize or harm the nominee overtly.

Lost in this debate--and in media coverage of the Cruz incident--was one of the best moments of party unity and statesmanship, which came when former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich started his speech by saying, essentially, that Senator Cruz had encouraged voters to vote their conscience for the candidate most likely to uphold the Constitution.  As Gingrich put it, the only viable candidate for president who would plausibly do so is Trump.

Some may object that Newt's entreaty was a neat verbal trick, or point out the possibility of voting third-party (though Gary Johnson isn't viable), but it demonstrated his ability to think on his feet and his skills at diplomacy.  He was able to restore some sense of decorum and unity to the proceedings.

In short, while Cruz didn't outright endorse Trump, he didn't not endorse him, either, and in no way maimed Trump.  If anything, he mostly hurt himself.

***

That gets to another question, one that I think is equally interesting:  what, if anything, did Cruz hope to gain from this speech?  Some will say it was free of any political motivation, but that seems unlikely.  Call me a cynic, but I think Cruz has his eye on the future.

I suspect--and, naturally, I could be very wrong--that Cruz is setting himself to win over the support of conservatives who either won't vote for Trump, or will vote for him with deep misgivings.  He's also looking for those voters who are becoming more enthusiastic about Trump, but have lingering feelings that they've had to talk themselves into liking the candidate a bit too much.  If anything goes majorly wrong in a Trump presidency, these voters may turn to Cruz in four or eight years.

Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins in November, Cruz will cast himself as the principled conservative who took a stand when the overwhelming force of his party's opinion pressured him to do otherwise.  In the event of a Clinton victory, Cruz will attempt to win the GOP nomination in 2020.  In the event of a Trump victory, Cruz is betting on Trump making enough mistakes that enthusiasm for him sours, and in their hour of need, Republicans will say, "this was the man with the wisdom to resist."  That's a much tougher path, as it is extremely difficult to challenge successfully an incumbent president for his party's nomination.

In both cases, it's assuming an awful lot, and if the reaction at the Quicken Loans Arena Wednesday night is any indication, Cruz miscalculated badly.  But politics is a fickle mistress, and the political scene could look very different in four years.

***

Will Cruz's speech galvanize the dwindling Never Trump forces?  Or will he spur more conservatives to support the party as a rallying cry against him?  Will he be blamed for splitting the party if Clinton wins?  Or will his gambit pay off, with voters of some distant election year seeing in him a man of principle?

These are interesting questions; ultimately, they are for the voters to decide.

Music is for Everyone

On the opening night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made the grandest entrance in American political history (as far as I know):

Pageantry.

(Video Source:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/the-biggest-winner-of-mondays-gop-convention-was-donald-trumps-amazing-entrance/)

Whether or not you love The Donald, hate his guts, or would rather watch reruns of The Celebrity Apprentice, surely we can all unite in acknowledging that his entrance was freaking amazing.  Heck, even The Washington Post thought it was cool.  I was watching alone in my not-so-portly bungalow and began hooping and hollering like a silver-backed gorilla.

Substantive?  No.  Reason to vote Trump-Pence this November?  Hardly.  An awesome display of pageantry?  Heck, yes.

 

 The Mustache of a Champion.

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury#/media/File:Queen_1984_0009.jpg; Attribution:  Thomas Steffan)

The showman in me--I am, after all, an over-the-top indie musician with delusions of grandeur--had to share my elation with the world.  No thought can be left unsaid these days, so I took to Facebook.

Here's my Facebook post, and the exchange that is the subject of this piece:

A bitter progressive rains on a parade before taxing and placing racial quotas on it.

Here's a transcript:

TPP:  Whether you love or hate Donald Trump, his entrance at the Republican National Convention just now was EXACTLY how I would have done it--striding in to the strains of a Queen song as a podium rises from the floor. Holy crap...

Bitter Progressive:  Trump opens a party convention that features a platform heavily biased against marriage equality and gay rights by strolling on stage to a song written and performed by a gay man who died of AIDS.

I'm not sure which is stronger, the 2016 GOP's innate knack for unintentional self-parody ("The national seal should include an AR-15!") or its total obliviousness to the concept of irony.

TPP:  Maybe a good song is just a good song.

BP:  The cool thing about music is that there's ALWAYS something deeper.

TPP:  Listen to my EP and you'll learn otherwise. :D

(Note how I cleverly defuse the bitterness with self-deprecating humor that also doubles as shameless promotion for my debut solo EP, Contest Winner EP, available now on iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, and elsewhere.)

For a post about a major political party's convention and controversial nominee, it was probably the least possible political statement I could make... except that, in our present age, everything is politicized.

"Tolerance isn't enough; bitter progressives demand total acceptance, even celebration, of whatever happens to be their cause-of-the-moment."

A quick aside:  I'm going to ignore the "unintentional self-parody" and the GOP's "total obliviousness to the concept of irony," except to ask the following:  how exactly is a political party supposed to acknowledge irony?  Do kill-joy progressives want Donald Trump to say, "Okay, okay, that was awesome, and I'm up here to introduce my wife, but first let me acknowledge that 'We Are the Champions' was written by a gay man, so let's take a moment to check our privilege and reconsider our platform's plank on same-sex marriage"?  I suspect that, even if he did, there'd be a slew of "too little, too late" articles on HuffPo the next day.

(And let me quickly take a moment to acknowledge the irony of writing a post lamenting excessive politicization on a blog that basically has "politics" in the name.)

***

So, let's unpack the first paragraph of Bitter Progressive's first post.  He complains that Trump entered to a Queen song, because the Republican Party platform supports traditional marriage, and Freddie Mercury was gay.  While BP intends this statement to be a slam at the GOP--and as a way of virtue-signalling his own support for gay rights--he essentially reduces a talented musician to one dimension, one personal trait.

I wish homosexual Americans all the best, but I, too, question the wisdom of same-sex marriage.  Does this mean I can't listen to and appreciate Queen, simply because Freddie Mercury happened to be gay?  By this logic, I shouldn't associate with gay people at all, nor should the roughly half of Americans who vote Republican.

Aren't we supposed to reach out to people--regardless of their sexual orientation--and treat them with respect, even if we disagree?  How does demanding an effective ban on music by gay artists for half the population help bridge that gap (and what are Log Cabin Republicans to do)?  How does it increase understanding and tolerance?

"None of [Freddie Mercury's] other qualities matter... until and unless they can be used as a convenient bludgeon to force conformity to the unforeseen priorities of a future age."

It doesn't, and that's not the point.  Tolerance isn't enough; bitter progressives demand total acceptance, even celebration, of whatever happens to be their cause-of-the-moment.

The logic of BP's post also dehumanizes Freddie Mercury (and, by extension, all gay men).  No more is he a phenomenal, groundbreaking singer and songwriter.  Instead, he's defined almost entirely based on who he likes to sleep with, and in turn, our anachronistic opinions about whether or not Mercury can formalize that sexual relationship in a legal forum is supposed to dictate whether or not we are allowed to enjoy his music.  None of his other qualities matter--being a man, having an awesome mustache, possessing an amazing voice--until and unless they can be used as a convenient bludgeon to force conformity to the unforeseen priorities of a future age.

Another pop culture example:  I disagree vehemently with pretty much everything Lady Gaga has ever said or done.  Her live concerts are like modern-day Dianic rituals to some pagan fertility goddess.  She prioritizes sexual libertinism over all else.  But, damn if I don't like "Bad Romance"--and even "Born This Way," an (inaccurate) anthem for the gay rights movement.  Should I not listen to her music because I disagree with her political and social views (there are other, better, aesthetic reasons to do so)?  If BP had his way, I suppose not.

A more useful, valid critique of Trump's epic entrance would point out the danger to a free republic of falling for grand pageantry... as a substitute for responsible self-government.

A more useful, valid critique of Trump's epic entrance would point out the danger to a free republic of falling for grand pageantry--"bread and circuses," as one of my colleagues put it--as a substitute for responsible self-government.  I'll admit that I loved every second of Trump's approach, but I'm not making an important voting decision based on a fifteen second stroll.  However, some people will love it too much, and make a decision based solely on pageantry.

That's a legitimate concern.  Freddie Mercury's sex life forty years ago--which magically makes "We Are the Champions," an incredibly politics-neutral song off-limits--isn't.

***

Music should be for everyone to enjoy (songwriters should, of course, retain the rights to their works, but that's not the issue here).  If we want to build a productive civil society--one with disagreements, but common respect--we shouldn't criticize one group for enjoying a song because of an incidental personal characteristic of the songwriter.  Some of my best fans are liberals and progressives.  Should I be offended that they listen to "Hipster Girl Next Door" even if it describes their lifestyle-liberalism to a tee (surely some of them fail to recognize the irony)?  Should they shun me from their slam poetry readings and drum circles because I don't think the government should pay for urine-soaked "art"?

Of course not.  Let's grow up and just let a good song be a good song.  Maybe we'll learn something while singing together.

In the Pickle Barrel - All Week Long!

Last summer, I appeared (most) every Tuesday on my friend Bill Pickle's daily podcast, In the Pickle Barrel, which airs Monday through Friday on American Patriot Radio.  I haven't been able to make my "Tuesdays with Tyler" segment this summer, and I've really missed the opportunity to wax political on the air.

 Get a good brine going.

(Image Source:  http://www.inthepicklebarrel.com/)

So when Bill contacted me a couple of weeks ago about guest-hosting while he's at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, I jumped at the chance.  This whole week (18-22 July 2016) I'll be hosting In the Pickle Barrel.  I've filled in for Bill before for a day here and there, but never for five days.  I feel like a less talented, less funny version of Mark Steyn.

Join me on air!  Call (605) 562-3140 and enter PIN 263151 all this week, M-F 8-10 AM. Listen LIVE at www.americanpatriotradio.com/apr-live.

What's on the agenda for the next week?  Here's a rough outline (subject to change):

- Monday - Let's learn about Mike Pence!  Also, who might show up in a Trump cabinet?  What's going down at the Republican National Convention?  In the second hour, we'll discuss the latest round of terror attacks in France, the recent shootings in the United States, and the coup in Turkey.  If you wish hard enough, Bill Pickle himself might call in with an update from Cleveland.

- Tuesday - We'll kick off the show discussing some core American values.  At 8:30, special guest Iva Reed joins the program to talk about her world travels, as well as her upcoming book on the impact of the War on Drugs.

- Wednesday - What's going down at the RNC?  We'll discuss during the first hour.  At 9 AM, we're joined by one of my former students, Jacqueline Lawson, who will discuss faith and missionary work in New York City.

- Thursday - Margaret Thatcher said that "Europe was created by history.  America was created by philosophy."  What does this mean?  We'll unpack this important quotation during the first hour.  ***UPDATE:  At 8:30, singer-songwriter Frederick Ingram joins the program to discuss music and politics.***  During the second hour, we'll go over the latest news from the convention and the world at large.

- Friday -  It's a Bill Pickle tradition:  Anything Goes Friday!  Call in at (605) 562-3140, then enter PIN 263151 to join the conversation.  We'll also review Trump's nomination speech.

So, there you have it.  I'll be back Wednesday with a full blog post about the Republican National Convention.