Posts
In my latest reading of Clear and Present Dangers: A Conservative View of America's Government,
M. Stanton Evans discusses and is critical of liberal justifications
for expanding the role of the federal government, even though the Tenth
Amendment limits the federal government's powers to those enumerated in
the U.S. Constitution.
These liberal justifications include the
following: the argument that small government made sense in the
Founders' time but since then we have learned that small government
doesn't work because it leads to unfettered capitalism and thus the
inequality of wealth, plus we live in a more advanced time; a liberal
application of Article I, Section 8, which includes the Commerce Clause
allowing the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, the
stipulation that the legislative branch of the federal government can
collect taxes for the general welfare, and the Necessary and Proper
Clause permitting the U.S. Congress to enact whatever laws it deems
necessary to carry out its enumerated powers; the Fourteenth Amendment,
which Evans says has been abused to justify many examples of federal
intervention in state and local affairs; and the notion that the U.S.
Constitution is a living document.
In terms of Evans' critique of these liberal justifications, I'll only mention three points that Evans made:
First,
Evans says on page 45 that conservative judges in the early 1900's
deserve some blame for the abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment, for they
appealed to that amendment to overturn "industrial regulations enacted
by the states." My guess is that, because the Fourteenth
Amendment says that states cannot deprive people of life, liberty, and
property, conservative judges maintained that states cannot impose
industrial regulations, which (in their minds) undermined liberty and
property.
Second, Evans critiques the notion that the U.S.
Constitution is a living document by noting that it lays out a formal
process for it to be amended, which (according to Evans) would be
strange if its Framers believed that the U.S. Constitution was living
and breathing and could be "changed from age to age merely by
interpretation" (page 47).
Third, Evans says on page 44
that "Most favored by the centralizing interest from the time of
Hamilton on has been the phraseology in Article I, Section 8..."
This intrigued me because Evans was acknowledging that a liberal
interpretation of Article I, Section 8 went back to the early days of
the United States, as far back as the time of Hamilton. Would
that call into question the argument that some liberals have used that
small government worked in the early days of America but has since
become outdated, since there were some who did not care for small
government even in the early days of the United States?
I started Evans' chapter entitled "The Power of the President".
In this chapter, Evans argues that, while a number of liberals have
criticized President Richard Nixon for making the Presidency more
powerful, liberals themselves----including some of the liberals who were
criticizing Nixon----spoke highly of a strong Presidency when it came
to Presidents prior to Nixon. It's easy for ideologues to be
inconsistent, to think that a strong Presidency is all right when it
serves their ends, but not when it does not. Even today, there are
people who criticize President George W. Bush for circumventing the
legislative branch at times, even though President Barack Obama has done
the same thing.
But, if the Presidency is given the power to do
good, would it also have the power to do evil? I think that this is a
significant reason that libertarians support limited government.
Personally, I'd hope that the election process would keep leaders in
check. The danger there, however, would be that the majority could
become a tyranny, which could potentially stomp on the rights of the
minority. Should there not be limits on government power, even
if the majority wants for the government to have power that exceeds
those limits? I wrestle with this question. I do think that a
reason that government exists is to enact policies that promote the
general welfare as well to stop wrongdoing that harms people. Consequently,
I have a hard time saying that it's an abuse of power for the
government (say) to require everyone to have health insurance, and to
stop health insurance companies from dropping people who get sick. Are
we on a slippery slope when we give the government the right to make
those decisions, though? Wouldn't we be on a slippery slope if we gave
the government any power? And yet, libertarians could then
argue that this is why the government should respect the Constitution:
it legally sets limits on government power by telling the government
what it can and cannot do.
I'll stop here.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
We're Right, Even If You Can't See How...
In my latest reading of Paul Knitter's No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions,
I read Chapter V, "The Conservative Evangelical Model: One True
Religion". Although Knitter recognizes that there are evangelical
critiques of Karl Barth, he still appeals to Barth to describe a
prominent conservative evangelical model of Christian interaction with
world religions: to believe that Christianity is right while the other
religions are wrong. Knitter acknowledges that, according to Barth,
Christianity itself can have the same pitfalls as other religions:
self-righteousness, people trying to save themselves, etc. And yet,
Barth held that Christianity was where God's grace and revelation
shone. Knitter speculates, however, that God could be present in other
religions as well, for there are people in non-Christian religions who
do good works, and that could be because they themselves have
experienced God.
As Knitter described Barth's thought, I was reminded of something about conservative evangelicalism that particularly irks me. I've heard a number of conservative evangelicals say that, because we as human beings are limited in our knowledge, then we have to accept the conservative evangelical spiel by faith, and we cannot critique it. I don't think that one follows from another, however. I mean, just because I'm limited in my knowledge, I should accept one group's spiel about what it considers to be truth? Give me a break! And what do we do when that spiel appears to contradict what we see in the world around us? Many conservative evangelicals would probably tell us that their perspective does fit the world around us, only we may not see how, with our limited knowledge. We just have to trust that their view is right, even if we can list tons of reasons that their view is wrong. Well, Whatever! In my opinion, even if our knowledge is limited, we can acknowledge when things fit and don't fit!
I did appreciate something that Knitter said on page 88: that, even though our knowledge is limited, it does appear that there are times when people are lifted up by a power greater than themselves. That's why I don't give up on the notion that there is a supernatural out there, and that part of it wants to help us. I can't point to any supernatural experiences in my own life, but I'm encouraged by others' testimonies that there is a God, and I try to trust that this God cares for me.
As Knitter described Barth's thought, I was reminded of something about conservative evangelicalism that particularly irks me. I've heard a number of conservative evangelicals say that, because we as human beings are limited in our knowledge, then we have to accept the conservative evangelical spiel by faith, and we cannot critique it. I don't think that one follows from another, however. I mean, just because I'm limited in my knowledge, I should accept one group's spiel about what it considers to be truth? Give me a break! And what do we do when that spiel appears to contradict what we see in the world around us? Many conservative evangelicals would probably tell us that their perspective does fit the world around us, only we may not see how, with our limited knowledge. We just have to trust that their view is right, even if we can list tons of reasons that their view is wrong. Well, Whatever! In my opinion, even if our knowledge is limited, we can acknowledge when things fit and don't fit!
I did appreciate something that Knitter said on page 88: that, even though our knowledge is limited, it does appear that there are times when people are lifted up by a power greater than themselves. That's why I don't give up on the notion that there is a supernatural out there, and that part of it wants to help us. I can't point to any supernatural experiences in my own life, but I'm encouraged by others' testimonies that there is a God, and I try to trust that this God cares for me.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Clear and Present Dangers 1
I started M. Stanton Evans' 1975 book, Clear and Present Dangers: A Conservative View of America's Government. You can read more about Evans here.
The reason that I am reading this book right now is that it will set
the stage for my "Year (or More) of Nixon", in which I will blog through
books by and about Richard Nixon throughout 2013, which is the
one-hundredth year after Nixon's birth in 1913.
Why would blogging through Evans' book set the stage for my "Year (or More) of Nixon"? For one, this book by Evans dates to 1975, which was soon after the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Second, Evans had definite opinions about Richard Nixon: Evans didn't care much for Nixon's foreign policy or domestic policy, but he started to like Nixon when Watergate happened! It will be interesting, therefore, to see how Evans addresses Nixon's Presidency. And, third, I bought this book because it appeared to me to criticize the expansion of the Presidency's power and the decline of Congress, and that reminded me of a book by John Dean that criticized George W. Bush's Administration for expanding Presidential power. It's interesting that what is considered right-wing and what is considered left-wing can vary with time. You'd expect for conservatives, who claim to believe in less-government, to oppose a more powerful Presidency, but that's not always the case!
In my latest reading of Evans' book, at least four things stood out to me. First, Evans says that he is challenging the liberal consensus that few in that day were challenging. That intrigued me because, nowadays, a significant number of people challenge liberalism. Back in Evans' day, however, that was probably not the case, at least not as much. Although I am rather left-wing, I happen to admire contrarians----those who challenge conventional wisdom. That's probably why I played that role for so many years, even though people may not have thought that I was intelligent when I did so.
Second, Evans argues that the American system (the ideas of equality, limited government, opposition to tyranny, the value of the individual, etc.) is based on biblical rather than Greek values, and that liberals have tended to accept moral values while detaching them from their theistic roots. Evans may have a point when he says that biblical values influenced the development of the American system. At the same time, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the American system is entirely consistent with biblical ideas, for the Bible in some places is quite supportive of monarchy, stomping on the religious freedom of idolaters, and the fusion of religion with government (whereas Evans says on page 10 that the state in the Hebrew Bible is merely a "peace-keeping agency", not a "compact religious-political institution"). Conversely, there are liberals who root their liberalism in the Bible and religious beliefs, so I think that Evans is wrong to characterize liberals as people who detach ethics from religion. Even if Evans can make a solid case that prominent liberals have done this, such a characterization disregards the many liberals who have not.
Third, Evans wrestles with the apparent inconsistency of liberals in supporting an active state that subordinates the individual to the common good, while maintaining an almost absolutist regard for certain rights, such as free speech. Evans believes that there is a thread that ties all of this together, but, at the moment, I'm unsure what exactly he believes that thread is. It will be interesting to see how he handles conservatism's inconsistency in supporting economic freedom but also restrictions in the social and cultural sphere.
Fourth, Evans talks about federalism and the Tenth Amendment. I'll have to admit that the Tenth Amendment is a challenge to my liberal support for an active federal government, for Evans is probably correct to note that a number of Founding Fathers sought to limit the federal government's authority to certain enumerated powers, while reserving other powers to the states and the people. I guess that the question then would be what powers the U.S. Constitution enumerates for the federal government. Many liberals interpret the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution quite expansively, which means that they believe that the federal government can regulate, not just interstate commerce, but also whatever affects it (see here). The Commerce Clause may have originally been intended to allow the U.S. government to regulate trade between the states, but liberals have a more expansive application of it. Is this wrong? Perhaps, in the Founders' time, what went on in an individual state primarily affected the state itself, and the Constitution granted the U.S. Government the power to step in when one state impacted another through commerce. Nowadays, however, what goes on in one state can arguably impact the entire country. Would that not necessitate a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause?
Why would blogging through Evans' book set the stage for my "Year (or More) of Nixon"? For one, this book by Evans dates to 1975, which was soon after the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Second, Evans had definite opinions about Richard Nixon: Evans didn't care much for Nixon's foreign policy or domestic policy, but he started to like Nixon when Watergate happened! It will be interesting, therefore, to see how Evans addresses Nixon's Presidency. And, third, I bought this book because it appeared to me to criticize the expansion of the Presidency's power and the decline of Congress, and that reminded me of a book by John Dean that criticized George W. Bush's Administration for expanding Presidential power. It's interesting that what is considered right-wing and what is considered left-wing can vary with time. You'd expect for conservatives, who claim to believe in less-government, to oppose a more powerful Presidency, but that's not always the case!
In my latest reading of Evans' book, at least four things stood out to me. First, Evans says that he is challenging the liberal consensus that few in that day were challenging. That intrigued me because, nowadays, a significant number of people challenge liberalism. Back in Evans' day, however, that was probably not the case, at least not as much. Although I am rather left-wing, I happen to admire contrarians----those who challenge conventional wisdom. That's probably why I played that role for so many years, even though people may not have thought that I was intelligent when I did so.
Second, Evans argues that the American system (the ideas of equality, limited government, opposition to tyranny, the value of the individual, etc.) is based on biblical rather than Greek values, and that liberals have tended to accept moral values while detaching them from their theistic roots. Evans may have a point when he says that biblical values influenced the development of the American system. At the same time, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the American system is entirely consistent with biblical ideas, for the Bible in some places is quite supportive of monarchy, stomping on the religious freedom of idolaters, and the fusion of religion with government (whereas Evans says on page 10 that the state in the Hebrew Bible is merely a "peace-keeping agency", not a "compact religious-political institution"). Conversely, there are liberals who root their liberalism in the Bible and religious beliefs, so I think that Evans is wrong to characterize liberals as people who detach ethics from religion. Even if Evans can make a solid case that prominent liberals have done this, such a characterization disregards the many liberals who have not.
Third, Evans wrestles with the apparent inconsistency of liberals in supporting an active state that subordinates the individual to the common good, while maintaining an almost absolutist regard for certain rights, such as free speech. Evans believes that there is a thread that ties all of this together, but, at the moment, I'm unsure what exactly he believes that thread is. It will be interesting to see how he handles conservatism's inconsistency in supporting economic freedom but also restrictions in the social and cultural sphere.
Fourth, Evans talks about federalism and the Tenth Amendment. I'll have to admit that the Tenth Amendment is a challenge to my liberal support for an active federal government, for Evans is probably correct to note that a number of Founding Fathers sought to limit the federal government's authority to certain enumerated powers, while reserving other powers to the states and the people. I guess that the question then would be what powers the U.S. Constitution enumerates for the federal government. Many liberals interpret the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution quite expansively, which means that they believe that the federal government can regulate, not just interstate commerce, but also whatever affects it (see here). The Commerce Clause may have originally been intended to allow the U.S. government to regulate trade between the states, but liberals have a more expansive application of it. Is this wrong? Perhaps, in the Founders' time, what went on in an individual state primarily affected the state itself, and the Constitution granted the U.S. Government the power to step in when one state impacted another through commerce. Nowadays, however, what goes on in one state can arguably impact the entire country. Would that not necessitate a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause?
Jesus the Mythical Archetype?
In my latest reading of No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions,
Paul Knitter discussed psychological explanations for religion,
particularly those of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, William James, Abraham
Maslow, and Robert Assagioli.
One point that stood out to me was Jung's view that the unconscious (which appears to be both personal and collective) has certain archetypes that are evident in a number of religions: "the divine mother, the wise old man, the dying god, the young virgin, the hero-savior, the cunning evil one, [and] the hidden treasure" (Knitter's words on page 57). My impression from Knitter's discussion is that Jung thought that these archetypes were symbolic. For example, on page 61, Knitter refers to Jung's view that Jesus' incarnation was a model for "individuation"----as the self is realized, the ego is left behind, and the person is integrated "into the mystery of the self-in-God" (Knitter's words).
This reminded me a lot of Joseph Campbell. I have not read most of Campbell's works, but I did watch Bill Moyers' interviews with him. I rolled my eyes at some of what Campbell was saying, for it appeared to me that he was reading pop psychology into myths and religions----such as the notion that we should find our "bliss". I don't want to dismiss the idea that the archetypes that appear in various world religions are getting at something psychological----needs that we have as human beings. But I also want to listen to what the religions, myths, and cultures themselves are saying, without reading stuff into them that they do not explicitly say.
One question that Jung inspired Knitter to address was whether or not Jesus' historicity is important for Christian theology. Jung focused on Jesus as a mythical archetype. I'm not sure if Jung dismissed the notion that Jesus historically existed, but his focus was on myth and story. I know people who affirm that the historicity of Christian claims about Jesus (i.e., the incarnation, the virgin birth, miracles, Jesus' death for our sins, and the resurrection), and even Jesus himself, are not important for Jesus to have a place in one's spiritual and religious life. After all, can't we draw inspiration from the story of Jesus----the values that he exemplified as a character----whether or not he actually existed?
That may work for some people. It just doesn't work for me. I need to see a story about a hero-savior as grounded in history for it to do anything for me, spiritually. To use another example, I can draw inspiration from Luke Skywalker, but I can't form a religion out of Luke Skywalker that is meaningful to me personally, unless the story actually happened and literally had an impact on me----as does Jesus' death for my sins, according to Christianity.
One point that stood out to me was Jung's view that the unconscious (which appears to be both personal and collective) has certain archetypes that are evident in a number of religions: "the divine mother, the wise old man, the dying god, the young virgin, the hero-savior, the cunning evil one, [and] the hidden treasure" (Knitter's words on page 57). My impression from Knitter's discussion is that Jung thought that these archetypes were symbolic. For example, on page 61, Knitter refers to Jung's view that Jesus' incarnation was a model for "individuation"----as the self is realized, the ego is left behind, and the person is integrated "into the mystery of the self-in-God" (Knitter's words).
This reminded me a lot of Joseph Campbell. I have not read most of Campbell's works, but I did watch Bill Moyers' interviews with him. I rolled my eyes at some of what Campbell was saying, for it appeared to me that he was reading pop psychology into myths and religions----such as the notion that we should find our "bliss". I don't want to dismiss the idea that the archetypes that appear in various world religions are getting at something psychological----needs that we have as human beings. But I also want to listen to what the religions, myths, and cultures themselves are saying, without reading stuff into them that they do not explicitly say.
One question that Jung inspired Knitter to address was whether or not Jesus' historicity is important for Christian theology. Jung focused on Jesus as a mythical archetype. I'm not sure if Jung dismissed the notion that Jesus historically existed, but his focus was on myth and story. I know people who affirm that the historicity of Christian claims about Jesus (i.e., the incarnation, the virgin birth, miracles, Jesus' death for our sins, and the resurrection), and even Jesus himself, are not important for Jesus to have a place in one's spiritual and religious life. After all, can't we draw inspiration from the story of Jesus----the values that he exemplified as a character----whether or not he actually existed?
That may work for some people. It just doesn't work for me. I need to see a story about a hero-savior as grounded in history for it to do anything for me, spiritually. To use another example, I can draw inspiration from Luke Skywalker, but I can't form a religion out of Luke Skywalker that is meaningful to me personally, unless the story actually happened and literally had an impact on me----as does Jesus' death for my sins, according to Christianity.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
"Sages, Leave Your Contemplations..."
At church this morning, something that stood out to me was a stanza from the hymn "Angels from the Realms of Glory".
"Sages, leave your contemplations
"Brighter visions beam afar,
"Seek the great Desire of nations,
"Ye have seen his natal star:
"Come and worship, come and worship
Worship Christ, the newborn King."
This made me think about intellectualism and how there are Christians who believe that we can find the answers to our questions in Jesus. I often find myself discontent within intellectualism, seeing it as a process of continually trying to find a place on unstable ground and having empty discussions without arriving at anything satisfying to the soul. But I'd also be discontent were I to force myself into an evangelical mold, which disregarded nuance and assumed that we have all the answers. There is a joy that comes from not having a lot of the answers and therefore going on a quest to find them, only to find that those "answers" are not entirely adequate. Life then becomes an adventure, of continuously unpacking mysteries. But there's also a joy that comes from finding the answer, and that answer giving you joy, peace, and a sense of mission in life. Can one have both?
"Sages, leave your contemplations
"Brighter visions beam afar,
"Seek the great Desire of nations,
"Ye have seen his natal star:
"Come and worship, come and worship
Worship Christ, the newborn King."
This made me think about intellectualism and how there are Christians who believe that we can find the answers to our questions in Jesus. I often find myself discontent within intellectualism, seeing it as a process of continually trying to find a place on unstable ground and having empty discussions without arriving at anything satisfying to the soul. But I'd also be discontent were I to force myself into an evangelical mold, which disregarded nuance and assumed that we have all the answers. There is a joy that comes from not having a lot of the answers and therefore going on a quest to find them, only to find that those "answers" are not entirely adequate. Life then becomes an adventure, of continuously unpacking mysteries. But there's also a joy that comes from finding the answer, and that answer giving you joy, peace, and a sense of mission in life. Can one have both?
Sheila Suess Kennedy: Republican in the ACLU 6
I finished Sheila Suess Kennedy's What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU? I have two items.
1. A significant theme in Kennedy's book is the need for civility in political discussions. On page 164, Kennedy states: "Direct mail campaigns by the ACLU aren't much different than those conducted by the Christian Coalition or the Republican National Committee. Only the enemy has been changed. Such appeals may fill organizational treasuries, but they do a serious disservice to public dialogue. Worse, as the public becomes more sophisticated, they contribute to a dangerous and growing cynicism about American institutions."
I appreciate this passage because Kennedy acknowledges that the ACLU itself needs to work on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem in the area of public dialogue. When she referred a few pages earlier to a "Campaign for Civility" that the Indiana Civil Liberties Union initiated in 1994, I was rather skeptical about the effectiveness of such an enterprise, for I thought that the right-wing could simply come back and say that the ACLU and people on the Left (not that Kennedy regards the ACLU as left-wing) were themselves uncivil and thus had no authority to lecture people on civility. But Kennedy acknowledges that there is enough guilt to go around.
The thing is, what do you do when you believe that somebody else is a genuine threat to the well-being of society? Well, the ACLU and the religious right choose to warn people about what they think is a threat. This is understandable. But how productive is it? Wouldn't it be better if people sat down and talked and listened to one another, rather than just fighting?
Although Kennedy talks about fruitful interactions that she has had with people who disagree with her, overall, she appears to be skeptical that the religious right is even open for dialogue. She is probably right about that, in an overall sense. But I do believe that a fruitful discussion between elements of the religious right and the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, etc., is conceivable. Back in the 1990's, Ralph Reed came across as someone with whom you could have a conversation. He was tactful. He was open to addressing questions. He approached discussions as a place where he could listen and clarify his own position. Whatever his tactics in the political arena, he modeled respectful engagement of others in dialogue whenever he appeared on TV news programs. And this is not surprising, for he has a Ph.D. in American History from Emory! Nowadays, my impression is that Reed does not have the same level of star power that he once did, on account of questions about his relationship with Jack Abramoff, and other factors. It would be nice if the religious right could have somebody like Ralph Reed, at least in terms of modeling respectful dialogue. Or perhaps elements of the religious right are already moving in the direction of being open to constructive dialogue. Tim Daly of Focus on the Family has talked in the past about making Focus more open to conversation (see here). I hope that this happens.
I will say, though, that there are times when I am glad that personal attacks are a part of political discourse. Case in point: the 2012 Presidential race. I suppose that Barack Obama could have sat down with Mitt Romney to have a dialogue about the issues of the day, and, on some level, they did. But, in my opinion, Obama needed to bring up Bain Capital and Romney's continual flip-flops in order to win. Positions are important, but it's also important for people to know what kind of person would be representing them were he or she to win!
2. One question that has been swimming around in my mind is the school of constitutional interpretation to which the ACLU belongs. Is it strict constructionist? Originalist, in terms of wanting us to go with the intentions of the Founding Fathers? Textualist and literalist? Or does it regard the U.S. Constitution as a living, breathing document? I seriously wondered this. A number of people on the right-wing probably assume that people who disagree with them are in the "living, breathing" school of constitutional interpretation, but I was not certain that this could be said about the ACLU. The ACLU, after all, strikes me as strict and almost absolutist when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and that, to me, lacks the flexibility of the "living, breathing" approach. At the same time, it seems to me that a narrow, over-literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights has been used by judges to restrict people's constitutional rights, and so I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU shied away from textualism.
In terms of Kennedy's book, she does treat the intentions of the Founders as significant in trying to understand the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. At the same time, she highlights her problems with originalism on pages 183-184. She notes that it's difficult to uncover the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, for there was more than one Founding Father, each of whom may have had a different original intent. She also says that the Founding Fathers did not foresee some of the issues that exist today, such as pornography on the Internet. But she does believe that we should look at the principles of the U.S. Constitution and seek to apply them to the concerns of today. Speaking for myself, I think that looking at original intent is important in this task, for we should see what the Founding Fathers intended each amendment in the Bill of Rights to accomplish. Is there an alternative to this approach that is not arbitrary?
1. A significant theme in Kennedy's book is the need for civility in political discussions. On page 164, Kennedy states: "Direct mail campaigns by the ACLU aren't much different than those conducted by the Christian Coalition or the Republican National Committee. Only the enemy has been changed. Such appeals may fill organizational treasuries, but they do a serious disservice to public dialogue. Worse, as the public becomes more sophisticated, they contribute to a dangerous and growing cynicism about American institutions."
I appreciate this passage because Kennedy acknowledges that the ACLU itself needs to work on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem in the area of public dialogue. When she referred a few pages earlier to a "Campaign for Civility" that the Indiana Civil Liberties Union initiated in 1994, I was rather skeptical about the effectiveness of such an enterprise, for I thought that the right-wing could simply come back and say that the ACLU and people on the Left (not that Kennedy regards the ACLU as left-wing) were themselves uncivil and thus had no authority to lecture people on civility. But Kennedy acknowledges that there is enough guilt to go around.
The thing is, what do you do when you believe that somebody else is a genuine threat to the well-being of society? Well, the ACLU and the religious right choose to warn people about what they think is a threat. This is understandable. But how productive is it? Wouldn't it be better if people sat down and talked and listened to one another, rather than just fighting?
Although Kennedy talks about fruitful interactions that she has had with people who disagree with her, overall, she appears to be skeptical that the religious right is even open for dialogue. She is probably right about that, in an overall sense. But I do believe that a fruitful discussion between elements of the religious right and the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, etc., is conceivable. Back in the 1990's, Ralph Reed came across as someone with whom you could have a conversation. He was tactful. He was open to addressing questions. He approached discussions as a place where he could listen and clarify his own position. Whatever his tactics in the political arena, he modeled respectful engagement of others in dialogue whenever he appeared on TV news programs. And this is not surprising, for he has a Ph.D. in American History from Emory! Nowadays, my impression is that Reed does not have the same level of star power that he once did, on account of questions about his relationship with Jack Abramoff, and other factors. It would be nice if the religious right could have somebody like Ralph Reed, at least in terms of modeling respectful dialogue. Or perhaps elements of the religious right are already moving in the direction of being open to constructive dialogue. Tim Daly of Focus on the Family has talked in the past about making Focus more open to conversation (see here). I hope that this happens.
I will say, though, that there are times when I am glad that personal attacks are a part of political discourse. Case in point: the 2012 Presidential race. I suppose that Barack Obama could have sat down with Mitt Romney to have a dialogue about the issues of the day, and, on some level, they did. But, in my opinion, Obama needed to bring up Bain Capital and Romney's continual flip-flops in order to win. Positions are important, but it's also important for people to know what kind of person would be representing them were he or she to win!
2. One question that has been swimming around in my mind is the school of constitutional interpretation to which the ACLU belongs. Is it strict constructionist? Originalist, in terms of wanting us to go with the intentions of the Founding Fathers? Textualist and literalist? Or does it regard the U.S. Constitution as a living, breathing document? I seriously wondered this. A number of people on the right-wing probably assume that people who disagree with them are in the "living, breathing" school of constitutional interpretation, but I was not certain that this could be said about the ACLU. The ACLU, after all, strikes me as strict and almost absolutist when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and that, to me, lacks the flexibility of the "living, breathing" approach. At the same time, it seems to me that a narrow, over-literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights has been used by judges to restrict people's constitutional rights, and so I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU shied away from textualism.
In terms of Kennedy's book, she does treat the intentions of the Founders as significant in trying to understand the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. At the same time, she highlights her problems with originalism on pages 183-184. She notes that it's difficult to uncover the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, for there was more than one Founding Father, each of whom may have had a different original intent. She also says that the Founding Fathers did not foresee some of the issues that exist today, such as pornography on the Internet. But she does believe that we should look at the principles of the U.S. Constitution and seek to apply them to the concerns of today. Speaking for myself, I think that looking at original intent is important in this task, for we should see what the Founding Fathers intended each amendment in the Bill of Rights to accomplish. Is there an alternative to this approach that is not arbitrary?
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Sheila Suess Kennedy: Republican in the ACLU 5
In my latest reading of What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU?
(copyright 1997), Sheila Suess Kennedy explains why she differs from
the national American Civil Liberties Union in her opposition to
discriminatory government-sponsored affirmative action programs, and she
also defends public schools and criticizes government-sponsored
vouchers for children to attend private schools.
What I want to use as my starting-point in this post, however, is something that Kennedy says on page 159, as she discusses a mutually-respectful correspondence that she had with a pro-life woman: "Subsequent correspondence has revealed a common concern for the free speech rights of abortion protesters. We both worry that government is using RICO laws to stifle dissent."
Earlier in the book, on page 15, she mentions other common-ground that the ACLU has found with groups that many would characterize as right-wing. She refers to common-ground between the ACLU and the libertarian Cato Institute on the drug war, and between the ACLU and the National Rifle Association "on issues stemming from the 1993 tragedy in Waco."
I admire the integrity of the ACLU: it has principles, and it does not care if those principles put it on what people would label as the left-side of the political spectrum, or the right-wing side. It just stands up for people's rights! Some right-wingers have told me that the ACLU is pretty selective about what rights it defends, however, for the ACLU does not exactly take on gun control laws, which a number of right-wingers believe are in violation of the Second Amendment. You can see here that the ACLU regards the right to keep and bear arms as a collective right, not an individual right. I can see some of the ACLU's point, for the Amendment does mention a militia. But I wonder why a collective right would be placed inside of a document (namely, the Bill of Rights) that primarily concerns protecting the rights of the individual from government infringement. In any case, whatever the merit of its stance on the Second Amendment, I appreciate the ACLU's integrity on the other rights in the Bill of Rights, as it defends left-wingers and right-wingers, the mainstream and the extreme.
(UPDATE: Regarding Kennedy's views on gun control, on pages 188-189, she appears to be critical of the government confiscating guns to reduce crime and violence. Yet, in her post here, she disapproves of a measure allowing people to carry guns into the workplace.)
I'd also like to mention that Kennedy on page 128 criticizes Congress for exempting itself from the laws that it passes. This was an issue in the 1990's, for, in 1995, the U.S. Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which applied to the U.S. Congress a number of federal laws from which it had exempted itself. This law was passed soon after Republicans gained majorities in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, for the first time in over three decades. It was a time in which many anticipated reform, as Republicans in the 1994 elections had ousted long-time career politicians, and fresh blood was coming into the chambers of Congress. Of course, the outcome of the Republican triumph was not entirely positive, for the Republican Congress had its share of scandals. But I remember with nostalgia the fresh, innocent Republican optimism that I had right after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.
What I want to use as my starting-point in this post, however, is something that Kennedy says on page 159, as she discusses a mutually-respectful correspondence that she had with a pro-life woman: "Subsequent correspondence has revealed a common concern for the free speech rights of abortion protesters. We both worry that government is using RICO laws to stifle dissent."
Earlier in the book, on page 15, she mentions other common-ground that the ACLU has found with groups that many would characterize as right-wing. She refers to common-ground between the ACLU and the libertarian Cato Institute on the drug war, and between the ACLU and the National Rifle Association "on issues stemming from the 1993 tragedy in Waco."
I admire the integrity of the ACLU: it has principles, and it does not care if those principles put it on what people would label as the left-side of the political spectrum, or the right-wing side. It just stands up for people's rights! Some right-wingers have told me that the ACLU is pretty selective about what rights it defends, however, for the ACLU does not exactly take on gun control laws, which a number of right-wingers believe are in violation of the Second Amendment. You can see here that the ACLU regards the right to keep and bear arms as a collective right, not an individual right. I can see some of the ACLU's point, for the Amendment does mention a militia. But I wonder why a collective right would be placed inside of a document (namely, the Bill of Rights) that primarily concerns protecting the rights of the individual from government infringement. In any case, whatever the merit of its stance on the Second Amendment, I appreciate the ACLU's integrity on the other rights in the Bill of Rights, as it defends left-wingers and right-wingers, the mainstream and the extreme.
(UPDATE: Regarding Kennedy's views on gun control, on pages 188-189, she appears to be critical of the government confiscating guns to reduce crime and violence. Yet, in her post here, she disapproves of a measure allowing people to carry guns into the workplace.)
I'd also like to mention that Kennedy on page 128 criticizes Congress for exempting itself from the laws that it passes. This was an issue in the 1990's, for, in 1995, the U.S. Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which applied to the U.S. Congress a number of federal laws from which it had exempted itself. This law was passed soon after Republicans gained majorities in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, for the first time in over three decades. It was a time in which many anticipated reform, as Republicans in the 1994 elections had ousted long-time career politicians, and fresh blood was coming into the chambers of Congress. Of course, the outcome of the Republican triumph was not entirely positive, for the Republican Congress had its share of scandals. But I remember with nostalgia the fresh, innocent Republican optimism that I had right after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)