February 20, 2006
Lamott's Leftism
At his Reformissionary site, Steve McCoy points to this morning's piece by Dr. Al Mohler concerning a pro-choice outburst by Christian author Anne Lamott. You can read Mohler's piece here. Also read Amy Welborn's take on the subject. It was Wellborn that first drew my attention to this issue. I should mention that Amy Welborn is a fine whose blog is a must for all things Catholic. I suspect it will become an invaluable resource once the DaVinci Code hits theatres.
At any rate, we've been discussing Dr. Mohler's comments on Steve's site. I think Lamott is important to consider for a few reasons. First, she is a telented writer. Second, she is a popular writer with something of a large following. Stop in the local Barnes and Noble and you'll find her books on display in the religion section, recieving the attention that might not be given to the works of A.W. Pink. Third, confessional writing of the sort she does is becoming increasingly popular in evangelical circles. Think of Don Miller and Lauren Winner.
I like confessional writing. I would love to be able to do some of my own work in that vein at some point in my life. And yet there must be a caution within this genre. Just like public testimonies in church, confessional writing is subjective. It may refer to Scripture, but ultimately it is the recounting of one person's experience. It can be a tremendous help in our walk with Christ, but it is no replacement for Scripture, first and foremost, and, second, for the deeper truths of the Word that are found in theological study.
In Mohler's piece, he offers a level of discernment towards Lamott. He cites a Christianity Today piece that says this about Lamott:
"Yet, deeper within her than her loud liberalism is a reality that has won her many evangelical readers: a zany ardor for Jesus. Lamott's fascination with all things Jesusy (a term she might as well have copyrighted) must be the reason why she is a mixed bag of hilariously antagonistic affections."
I commented at Reformissionary that Mohler may very well be troubled by more than Lamott's radical liberalism. (See the links below for more information on that - she is more than your garden variety working-class Democrat) It seems that Mohler is troubled by the idea that no one cares about her liberalism. I know I am. And what I mean by that is not that I wouldn't welcome her and befriend her. I would. I regard her as a believer in Christ. I respect her talents. Evaluating the beliefs of a public literary figure like Lamott is not the same as picking apart the stranger on the bus or the newcomer at church. Showing a certain degree of criticism for ideas and opinions that are offered up for public consumption is not, by definition, unfair and un-Christlike.
I reject the idea that we can endorse anything that claims the name of Christ. Can we offer it a seat at the table? Most certainly. But that is not the same thing as sending the product/writer/artist/preacher/program back into the world with our blessings. To sound emergent for a moment, I would love to dialogue with Lamott and her comrades (ha!), but I can't give them a full thumbs up. She is not privately voting for Ralph Nader. She is an active, proud leftist. It's one thing to vote for John Kerry; it's another to speak glowingly of Barbara Lee. And though some would suggest that Christians can vote for whomever they like, I tend to think the Lord is bothered by unapologetic support of the right to terminate a pregnancy. Anne Lamott may not be, but Mohler is not wrong to suggest that she is stepping outside the bounds of Christian tradition in so doing. I would again suggest that while God may not have a favorite political party, there are essentially two streams of political thought in this country and whatever its shortcomings, one is far more in line with the traditional ethics of orthodox christianity. The other finds a nice home in the traditions of the Enlightenment and existentialism. Such legacies cannot be denied.
For more on Lamott's ideas see the following:
Anne's interview with Powells.com
In the Powell's interview above, Anne speaks of donating to Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Ms. Lee gave this speech at an anti-war rally in San Francisco in the Spring of 2003. The march was organized by the International Action Center. The IAC was founded by Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general now doing a little pro bono legal work for Saddam Hussein. (Clark also worked on behalf of that political prisoner, Slobodan Milosevic, but who's keeping count?) The IAC is also the sponsor of the leftist group ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. The IAC is part of the World Workers Party, a Stalinist organizaiton that is more than a little supportive of the regimes (not the citizens, mind you) of Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Nice, isn't it? I've said time and again that I find Dobson to be grating, Falwell midguided and Robertson embarassing, but I don't recall any of them working with this sort of crowd. Here's the Wikipedia skinny on the WWP. This is the splinter group that formed from the WWP.
Here's a good piece on the IAC and WWP from FrontPage Magazine. National Review also ran several articles on this topic. See here and here.
See here for my concerns about leftism in evangelical circles, particularly among artists and writers. My comments originally concerned Derek Webb, but I do not limit them to him alone. The anti-war organizations are of particular concern for me, and I would mention Webb's support for Sojourners and Miller's endorsement of Cornel West (scroll down), the Princeton professor who recently visited Venezuela in support of dictator and Castro buddy Hugo Chavez. A
gain, these folks are still my brothers and sisters in Christ. I would welcome them into my church without reservation. Indeed, I would welcome them into my home. I would not, however, agree with their views on these important matters. Likewise I will not be silent with the support of earnest believers leaves them with a public platform by which they can advance such views. We are all sinners, all of us fallen short of God's glory. I confess my own failings and note that I am not the final arbiter of truth in this world. Yet these disagreements deserve scrutiny for they affect serious issues in our world. We can disagree, to be sure, but the consequences might well force us to reconsider.
Posted by Matt at 10:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 16, 2006
Christian "Music"
Jeffrey Overstreet points to this really great post about the problems with Contemporary Christian Music.
Posted by Matt at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 07, 2006
Christians and Movie Criticism
In talking with a friend the other night, the comment was made that the friend did not appreciate movies with a redemptive story. Note that I am not talking about movies about salvation, those that feature a tearfully repentant drunk kneeling at the altar of a country church. I instead think of many movies within the film noir canon, most of which show that we do indeed pay for our sins.
The topic was Woody Allen. I enjoy Woody Allen's films a great deal; Lori and I watched Annie Hall last night while I graded papers. There is an undeniable truth, however, in Allen's films; almost every one of his protaganists are egomaniacs of the highest order. A proper Christian evaluation of this tendency in Allen's films will note that while we are all sinners, fallen and depraved, behaviors have consequences. In Stardust Memories, Sandy Bates is neurotic and self-involved. He is a rather miserable character, and as a believer, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that such self-indulgence harmed Bates and the women with whom he was involved. Art doesn't have to have resolution, but it is an existential failure to suggest that art is complete without further commentary. Brokeback Mountain may be a very well-made movie, but it cannot be ignored that in pursuing their own fantasies, the protaganists harm their wives and children. Whatever one believes about homosexuality, it is terribly irresponsible to endorse the notion that abandoning one's commitment to one's family is acceptable in pursuit of adolescent lust.
It would be unfair and perhaps even bigoted to limit this criticism to a movie that deals with homosexuality. In fact, Brokeback Mountain is just the latest example. Yes, like Woody Allen, we are all sinners in need of forgiveness. And it is because of this truth that our own criticism should not ignore, nor it should unlovingly condemn, the truth that our sins have dire consequences for ourselves and for those around us.
Posted by Matt at 12:16 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 31, 2006
The Oscars
The Oscar nominations have been released. Let me say a few things.
To begin, I have not seen any of the movies. I plan to see Capote sometime next month when it shows at a small art theatre here in Tuscaloosa. The others I have not seen, though I would like to see all of them. Having said that, in an information age such as ours, I believe there is enough available by way of criticisms and reviews for me make some slight comments.
There will be a lot of clamoring that the Oscars no longer represent mainstream America. Indeed, it has already begun. I am sympathetic to this notion on a lot of levels. I do not expect most Americans to head off to the movies after a long week to watch the gay cowboy movie. I do not expect anyone with a firm grasp of history to be jumping at the prospect of watching George Clooney's naive interpretation of all that took place during the McCarthy era. Beyond that, I understand that for many folks, the movies are an escape. They want to laugh and cry, but rarely do they want to think. I am tempted to criticize this point, but life is hard sometimes. I won't fault anyone for wanting a fun movie to relax with on a Friday night.
And yet I find it increasingly disturbing that so many Americans champion movies for superficial reasons. A movie is not good because it is clean. It is not good because it makes you feel good and warm and fuzzy. It can be all of those things, but a lack of profanity or the promotion of a cheap emotional reaction does not necessarily make for good art. I do feel that good movies were left out: King Kong and Cinderella Man. (Don't think of suggesting the mediocre Narnia) I think most of the movies nominated for best picture are products of a liberal Hollywood but by all accounts, they are still art. They are pictures that must be engaged. They must be critiqued and challenged. And those with differing political viewpoints must be willing to create vibrant art that challanges that liberal status quo.
Complaining gets you nowhere. Powerful art will open doors that we cannot currently imagine.
Posted by Matt at 12:31 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack
The Problem We Face
Powerful writing by Roger Kimball. A highlight:
"Whatever the wisdom of the position in the abstract (and I have my doubts about it), the resurgence of international terrorism, fueled by hate and devoted to death, renders it otiose. Last summer’s bombings in London were, as these things go, relatively low in casualties. But they were high in indiscriminateness. The people on those buses and subway cars were as innocent as innocent can be: just folks, moms and dads and children on their way to work or school or play, as uninterested, most of them, in politics or Islam as it is possible to be. And yet those home-grown Islamicists were happy to blow them to bits.Here is the novelty: Our new enemies are not political enemies in any traditional sense, belligerent in the service of certain interests of their own. Their belligerence is focused rather on the very existence of an alternative to their vision of beatitude, namely on Western democracy and its commitment to individual freedom and economic prosperity. I return to Hussein Massawi: “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”
In fact, the situation is even grimmer than Mr. Massawi suggests. For our new enemies are not simply bent on our destruction: they are pleased to compass their own destruction as a collateral benefit. This is one of those things that makes Islamofascism a particularly toxic form of totalitarianism. At least most Communists had some rudimentary attachment to the principle of self-preservation. In the face of such death-embracing fanaticism our only option is unremitting combat."
How does one articulate the point with further clarity? This is, as Norman Podhoretz says, World War IV. I do not suppose that we should create a rabble over each and every political moment, but I am increasingly frustrated with the lazy attitude that we - I point to myself, as well - possess. As a Christian certainly I have a higher calling to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," and yet the incessant worries of the day not only override Christian virtue; they override common sense, as well. We are at war, and yet we act as though we are not.
It is not easy, I confess. World War II necessitated that we ration our food and buy war bonds. The immediate cause is not so dire, but one wishes that America - her churches and schools - were clearly aware of the threats we face from the madrasses of Pakistan, the mullahs of Iran, the deranged old man in charge of North Korea and the arrogant nationalists of China. These are important matters; one wishes that we all shared a sense of awareness and, indeed, of urgency.
Posted by Matt at 09:08 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
January 28, 2006
Theology's Consequences
After the West Virginia mining tragedy, Michael Spencer wrote a three part series on The Gospel for Appalachia. (Click here for part one, part two and part three) This is a very compelling read about the state of one of the nation's poorest regions, and Michael makes some strong suggestions about what Christians can do to help revive this region of the nation.
Michael makes a lot of commentary about the nature of the Church in Appalachia as it currently exists:
"Religion in Appalachia is devout, and it stands at the center of the culture. Its message is everywhere. No matter what the sign out front, most churches have the same message: Life is a battle between God and the devil. Hard times are to be expected. The Good Book and the good Lord are there for those who are believers. Satan, drugs and alcohol are there for the sinner. When a person comes to understand that death is near, and heaven is our only hope for happiness, then he will get saved. He will get right with God."
This sort of thinking reminds me of one of the central tenets of conservatism, both political and theological. It is this: ideas matter. The philosophical understandings of human nature are not always abstract concepts for the college classroom. They eventually find themselves in the halls of government; in Congress and the courts. The ideas of Rousseau profoundly influenced political liberalism just as Burke influenced conservatism. And those ideologies mark the two major political parties within the United States. Each party enacts legislation that can, more often than not, be traced directly back to the philosophical roots of their own ideologies.
In this regard, theology also matters. It has consequences beyond the personal beliefs of its adherents. This is what I seem to understand in Spencer's discussion of Appalachia. A theology that does not graciously and voluntarily eschew possessions, but instead suggests that desiring "stuff" is sinful on pretty much any level, will depress a local economy if the notion gains any significant traction over a period of years. A theology that suggests the Bible is all a man needs in terms of education will do very little promote serious education. Similarly, and this is as true in the inner city as it is in the mountain regions, any theology that looks at hard times as just part of life, with the believer bearing no ability (or responsibility) to change his or her condition in life, may indeed create believers without a strong work ethic.
I am not talking about believers, like Spencer, who voluntarily choose a life of ministry that brings less in terms of material wealth, nor am I talking about the Biblical command to value Christ above all our possessions. I am not suggesting that there is any replacement for a clear understanding of the Scriptures. And yet we see in our culture a small but significant number of believers who advocate, as nothing short of orthodoxy, the notion that money and education are almost always tools of the devil. That a hard life is just a common life and we can't change nothin' so we'll just cling to the Lord. These things do happen, but to suggest that the command to all believers is a life of poverty and ignorance is dangerous, offensive and, above all, unBiblical.
I once heard a very well-known Southern Baptist pastor suggest that kindergarten teachers should not be holding bakesales; college professors should be doing this instead. I cannot possibly remember what portion of the sermon necessitated such a comment, but I fear that a subtle point was reinforced to the congregation. The point being that the work of the elementary school teachers is more important. Therefore in a sense, it is suggested that college is not important. What an absurd thing to say in a world where educated Christians are needed more and more.
I do not want to suggest that I have all the answers to such matters, but I find Spencer's essays to be a clear example of the maxim that ideas have consequences, whether political or theological. Secular humanism has consequences. Existentialism has consequences. And theology that denounces money, in even the most innocent of circumstances, and education will lead to a culture that is economically depressed in a way that cannot be good for anyone involved.
Posted by Matt at 10:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
Derek Webb Mea Culpa
Let me offer something of a follow up to my post on Derek Webb. I think I was somewhat unfair in my discussion, so met me say a few things.
Let me first say that I feel, in retrospect, that my post was made in haste. It should have been fleshed out further with more links and quotes than I provided.
I have noticed in Derek's interviews a theme of social justice. I certainly share his heart on this matter, but I simply can’t go along with some the organizations he supports; namely, the ONE campaign and Sojourners, both of which linked on his website under the heading Social Justice. I take that sort of linking as open support of both the organizations and their underlying premises. I certainly think that Bono and the others behind ONE have good intentions, but debt relief and fair trade agreements have never proven to be an adequate means of relief, particularly in Africa where corrupt regimes, tribal practices and the threat of radical Islam loom large over any small gains that might be made.
I agree with Jim Wallis’ belief that the Kingdom of God is not limited to the GOP, but Wallis undermines his own point when he advocates, on practically every issue save abortion, a political program that is, at the very least, as leftwing as the Democratic Party, if not more liberal. This is not a new development, either. The Weekly Standard ran a piece recently noting that for all his talk, Wallis has always been a leftist. That’s fine and good, but I don’t think Wallis should be afraid to say as much, and he should certainly be willing to defend his position biblically.
It was my failure to address these points in my post, and I will offer a mea culpa shortly. My own reference to Derek’s political beliefs was based upon the links on his site and particularly with this interview in Relevant Magazine wherein he said:
“As a Christian if you are not pro-rich, pro-war then you re just not a Christian. And I think that we’ve got to blow all that apart, we’ve got to break all that, we’ve got to open that up and find out what the hell is going on. None of that makes any sense. It’s not even a consistent Christian worldview. There’s a lot of work to do in the way Christians think about politics and issues of social justice in this country and internationally. I think we’ve got to be people who know what’s happening in the world, who can apply Scripture to all of it.”
Please understand that I share his concerns, but I’ve read enough political literature to have an alarm go off when I hear “pro-rich, pro-war” used in a negative light. Combine that with his support of Sojourners, and yes, I think the logical assumption is that he believes the Wallis model for social welfare to be both competent and Biblical. I find it to be neither.
I do not feel that I was overly harsh in my language or my tone. I do feel that I jumped too far on this point: It is quite likely that Derek is turned off by the Dobsons and Falwells of the world. As I have said countless times on SCO, I am, too. It is also fair to assume that Derek is exploring the need for concern for the fatherless and the widow. Same here. It is possible that he is exploring the Wallis position because he is turned off by the other side and, frankly, who can blame him. Yet I believe, as many Christians have believed, that free markets, when combined with compassionate church and private sector, are the best solutions for ending poverty. I do question whether Derek has considered this or been presented with an articulate model. It is possible he has not been presented with such a model, and it is my failure to consider this for which I apologize. I fear that I was reading into his words something deeper than necessary, but I do find his support of Sojourners troubling.
I do worry about the growth of progressivism among Christians, particularly when I see people like Don Miller and Brian McLaren. Surely God is bigger than the GOP, but when Miller says that the MoveOn.Org and the ACLU are doing “God’s work” (I kid you not), I get more than uncomfortable. One, because I don’t find the statement to be true. Two, the results of that thinking are very unhealthy. Don has redone his website, so those links are no longer present, but I am telling the truth. I realize that there is a new conversation among young believers; I hope to become a part of it. Yet I am troubled that the politics of this conversation seem to be consistently drifting leftward, as though no one has noticed that damage that liberal economics has wrought upon Canada and Europe.
I hope this position makes sense. Though I often disagree with many of these writers (Miller, Lauren Winner, etc.) on theological, political and social matters, I like what they are doing in terms of addressing the new generation. I hope to somehow become a part of this conversation, because I remain worried about much of its implicit political direction.
Posted by Matt at 08:11 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack
November 27, 2005
Quick Hits
Thanksgiving and homework have left me quite busy. I shall be back soon to further clarify my post on Derek Webb. In the meantime, here's a question, and I'm curious for some feedback.
Should you tell your children about Santa Claus?
Something tells me Professors Lewis and Tolkien would have no problem with such a thing.
Posted by Matt at 07:31 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
November 22, 2005
Derek Webb Interview
I'll post further thoughts on the idea of a separate Christian "culture" later, but for now check out this interview with Derek Webb. Part one is here, this is part two. I like Webb's music a great deal. I'm thankful for his voice and his creativity. I think he can say important things to the Church in this day of bad Christian t-shirts and cliches.
But...if his idea of "social justice" were ever inacted, it would be an unmitigated disaster. The Biblical call to mercy and compassion for the fatherless and the widow is not fulfilled by confiscatory taxes and the false notion that the federal, state or local government will solve our problems. It's a wrong idea. Moreso, it's a dangerous one.
And don't get me started on this naive premise of Christian pacifism with which he's flirting...
"[Pacifists are] the last and least excusable on the list of the enemies of society. They preach that if you see a man flogging a woman to death you must not hit him. I would much sooner let a leper come near a little boy than a man who preached such a thing." - G.K. Chesteron
Posted by Matt at 11:38 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
November 11, 2005
A Class Act
Tomorrow afternoon, at 2:30 pm central time, the mighty Alabama Crimson Tide takes on Josh Britton's LSU Tigers.
Win or lose, you're likely to see Alabama star linebacker DeMeco Ryans all over the field. (I'm hoping I see him dismantle LSU quarterback Jamarcus Russell, but that's just me). As it turns out, DeMeco is a pretty great guy.
Read this Ivan Maisel piece from ESPN.com for more.
Posted by Matt at 01:43 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
November 10, 2005
Derb on Torture
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. Liberal readers, fire away.
Posted by Matt at 11:32 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
November 08, 2005
Evangelicals and the Pill
Thought-provoking piece at Mere Comments by Russ Moore.
Posted by Matt at 07:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Evangelicals and the Environment
Scroll down to the second point of this post. Fr. Neuhaus is none too happy about the National Association of Evangelicals joining up with certain environmental groups.
Neither am I.
Posted by Matt at 10:44 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
November 07, 2005
Terrell Owens
In this entire mess, Owens has proven clearly and finally that he is a selfish brat. ESPN analyst and former Dallas Cowboys great Michael Irvin has demonstrated himself to be a clueless imbecile, incapable of distinguishing between day-to-day problems and the general problems with Owens' selfishness.
Posted by Matt at 06:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Muslim Riots in France
For a good understanding of why Islamic youths are rioting in Paris, read this 2002 article by Theodore Dalrymple in City Journal.
(HT: Douglas Burtt a la BHT)
Posted by Matt at 06:52 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Pearce Lectures on Tolkien
Follow this link for mp3s of Joseph Pearce's lectures on Tolkien and myth at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is absolutely fantastic stuff if you love J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Download it and burn it. This is a wonderful listen.
Towards the end of the second lecture, Pearce takes a question on the need for Christian literature. Pearce says that it is absolutely essential that Christians make good literature, but notes that in the present day he finds a lot of "good bad literature." This is literature that is morally good but artistically bad. Thank goodness that he is willing to speak truth in this matter; literature must not be forced. It must be natural; any theological merit must be the natural outgrowth of the artist's gift. It must not be a planned, programmed set of ideas to which the story must conform. Would that we had more voices like Pearce's noting that while there is a lot of morally good Christian art, literature, music and film, the majority of it is aesthetically repugnant. Our art must be something is appealling on its artistic merits, and we must let the theological chips fall where they may. Tolkien and Lewis understood this. So did Flannery O'Connor and Walkery Percy. Musicians like Sufjan Stevens, Over the Rhine, the Innocence Mission and Pedro the Lion get it. Let us pray that many others will come to do so, as well.
"When a book leaves your hands, it belongs to God. He may use it to save a few souls or to try a few others, but I think that for the writer to worry is to take over God's business."
-Flannery O'Connor
Posted by Matt at 06:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 03, 2005
NFL Question
Is it just me or has Marty Schottenheimer been wearing the same pair of glasses for the last two decades?
Posted by Matt at 04:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Poverty in America
My friend Glenn Lucke at Common Grounds Online sent me this post several days back concerning the nature of poverty in America. The writer of the post, David Lumpkins, feels that the Church is capable of dealing with poverty on these grounds:
"The sad irony is that the Church is uniquely capable of addressing the root causes of poverty in ways that can make a difference. That is because at its core, poverty in Americais not due to a deficit of resources. Poverty in America stems from the moral, spiritual and behavioral deficits in the lives of those ensnared in it. And to the extent that the Gospel represents Truth - that is, the true reality; the way the world really works, and the way that individuals work in that world created by God – then the Church has the best answers for those for whom the world doesn’t work."
That is a terribly controversial remark in some quarters, but I must admit that there is a fair amount of truth to it. I hear a lot of talk about poverty these days, but the solution is usually suggested in the form of government aid. I won't say that aid is always and forever bad, but government solutions rarely address any root causes of poverty. I should mention hear that sometimes poverty just happens in ways that cannot be explained, but let us not kid ourselves. In this day, when people choose to be sexually promiscuous and have children out of wedlock, powerty often results. I'm not saying that the government force people to wear cast iron chastity belts, but it should be obvious to anyone that on some fundamental level, behaviors have results.
The problem here is that it is difficult to make people act in a certain way. I think it is imperative for Christians to acknowledge that until some behaviors change, in America or in the third world, it will be difficult to change poverty. To pretend otherwise is naive and, dare I say, negligent.
Posted by Matt at 04:04 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Culture Wars
Rod Dreher explains them pretty darn well.
Posted by Matt at 03:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 25, 2005
Answering My Critics
Allow me to make a post answering a few of the criticisms some readers have leveled towards my opposition to Harriet Miers.
First, one can call himself a conservative, but the title must have meaning. The basic conservative principles are laid out by Russell Kirk. You can find them here. Disagree if you like, but for over fifty years, Kirk has been regarded as the father of modern conservatism in America. If one wants to dispute these principles, he shall quickly find himself at odds with practically every conservative of note in this country. At that point, he might begin to ask himself if in fact he is a conservative. And he should seek to find some ideological allies, and with a quickness.
Second, yes, there are a few conservative leaders supporting the Miers nomination. Chief among them are Hugh Hewitt and Newt Gingrich. Hewitt’s argument boils down to loyalty to the President and a fear that the withdrawal of Miers will be politically damaging to the GOP. I don’t believe that to be the case in any event, but it should be noted that a GOP unified around anything resembling most of the Bush spending proposals would be a giant waste of resources. As for Gingrich, the man is entitled to his opinion and certainly he is a valuable conservative, but I don’t believe he’s right in this case. A lot of other folks take that position as well.
Of course one can be a conservative and hold differing opinions on certain matters. One reader cited Pat Buchanan, George F. Will, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Buckley. One would be hard to find many issues wherein Buckley, Will and Limbaugh disagree and as for Buchanan, it has been almost a decade since the conservative moment took him seriously. No informed person outside the mainstream media considers him to be a credible spokesman for the conservative movement.
I never claimed that respect for tradition is the only definition of conservatism. I did in fact asset that it is an attribute of conservatism, one of its most defining characteristics. One reader suggested that by my definition abortion and the New Deal are conservative, but this reasoning is absurd. Conservatism has been defined, for over two centuries, by the value of prescription, as Kirk notes in the passage linked above. When I cite Buckley or Will, it is not so that I might receive a conservative merit badge. It is because the ideological fathers of the movement that supported Goldwater, Reagan and Bush find fault with this nominee. After evaluating her myself, I join them in their disapproval.
If that makes no sense to our readers, there is no more I can say. I did not apologize for these ideas have proven to be valuable for generations, from Burke to Wordsworth to Kirk to Limbaugh. I will not recant them, for I find them to be worthy ideals. As an orthodox (small o) Christian, I find them easily compatible with Scripture. If anyone chooses to support the Miers nomination on grounds of party loyalty, so be it. I find that misguided but well-intentioned. I cannot support this, though I welcome any reader to defend her nomination on grounds that do not evoke the threat of lost Senate seats or a fractured party during the 2006 and 2008 elections. A Supreme Court vacancy must be regarded beyond the upcoming elections, and no President should be afforded loyalty for a campaign promise that has been muddled, if not outright broken.
Posted by Matt at 09:50 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Question of the Day
"
Question: Well into his second term, mired in scandal and obvious unending lies and deepening crisis, did any senior Democrat turn on Bill Clinton? One year into his second term, and days after a huge and historically significant election in Iraq and a month after yet another unfair savaging at the hands of the MSM over Katrina, George Bush surveys his allegedly supportive pundits and the GOP Senate majority that he made, and he finds what?
Is the GOP incapable of governing as a majority?"
Principle over party, Mr. Hewitt. We are conservatives first, Republicans second. George W. Bush alone did not make that Senate majority. One should not throw a party, insult the guests and then be surprised when they are offended, annoyed and, indeed, angered. Mr. Bush has done just that.
Posted by Matt at 01:43 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
October 24, 2005
My Miers Issues
Several readers seem confused about my opposition to the nomination of Harriet Miers, so let clarify. This post is based upon a comment I left in a previous post.
It's been suggested by readers that Harriet Miers has lots of support. From where? The editors of National Review and the Weekly Standard oppose her. Rush Limbaugh is not on board. Neither is Laura Ingraham. Robert Bork doesn't like the idea. The only serious voices that I know of are Ken Starr, Thomas Sowell and Hugh Hewitt. Miers' leading support comes from evangelicals. I'm not sure what Chuck Colson is thinking but don't tell me that James Dobson's opinion matters a whit. It doesn't. Does the man have a credible opinion on constitutional matters that don't involve abortion, gay rights or euthanasia? I mean no disrespect, but why should I care what Dobson or Jay Sekulow think more than I should care about what Rush Limbaugh or Will have to say? Oh, that's right. Dobson and Sekulow are evangelicals. Reckon I should just get in line.
As a grassroots leader, Dobson is second to none. I don't doubt his sincere concern for what have become known as "life issues." Because of their sheer numbers, evangelical often act like they own the market on these issues. The truth is that many people, of all religious backgrounds, take the conservatism position. Thus it is not incumbent upon evangelicals to only support one of their own in order to see their causes advanced. Conservative Catholics and Jews - even a few agnostics - share the same outlook on these matters. Likewise I know that, on the whole, folks like Limbaugh, Will, Krauthammer, Kristol, Frum, et al ad nauseum share the same outlook as evangelicals. It is not as though National Review opposes Miers because she is, supposedly, pro-life.
On the merits, I can't think of a good reason to support Meirs. She has questionable views of affirmative action. She has no paper trail to suggest she has a clear view of Constitutional matters. She rejected the Federalist Society as "partisan." She worships the ABA, a moderate organization at best. She started a lecture series at SMU that has been a revolving door off far-left feminist thought. I could go on but that should suffice.
I am not asking that she be an appelate court justice. I am not asking that she be a politician or a law professor. I am asking that a nominee publicly demonstrate, before their confirmation hearings, that they are, as the President promised his supporters, original constructionists in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Thus far, I have no reason to believe that Harriet Miers meets that criteria.
I will quiet my opposition if she defends herself well in her confirmation hearings. Thus far, she's not doing well with the Senate's early questioning and, frankly, I think she should withdraw before the hearings start.
Posted by Matt at 09:56 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
October 23, 2005
Will v. Hewitt
In today's column, George F. Will continues, on conservative grounds, to oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. I join will in his opposition. I mean no ill will towards her; I just don't believe she's a decent candidate, and I think the President nominated her as an act of blind loyalty and lite affirmative action.
Hugh Hewitt takes particular exception to the following passage from Will's piece:
"Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself."
Says Hewitt:
"But so do his missiles about "crude" people. Who are they? James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Jay Sekulow, Lino Graglia, Ken Starr? Four out of five are evangelicals. Does Will equate evangelical faith with crudeness?...And what, exactly, does "crudely obsessed with abortion" mean? Rod Dreher of NationalReview.com's The Corner thought this Will column quite devastating to Miers' nomination supporters. Does Rod agree that seriousness about abortion is "crude?" Does K-Lo? Does William F. Buckley?"
I do not believe for a second that Will finds evangelical Christianity to be crude. Yet he knows - it could not be more plain - that some evangelical leaders are championing a nominee that is blatantly unequalified, and yet they champion her because she shares the same theological conviction and the same, dare I say it, obsession with abortion. In a particular sense, that is certainly a crude position.
Let me make myself clear: abortion is a national shame. It is a horrendous, terrible procedure. Roe v. Wade was a terrible judicial ruling, and scholars on the right and left concur on that point. However, the Supreme Court has other business besides overturning Roe. Those of us conservatives who oppose Meirs do not oppose her because she is an evangelical or because she is rumored to have pro-life positions. We oppose her because we know nothing about how she might proceed on Constitutional matters. And for evangelicals to suggest that Meirs' faith is a qualification is to thereby make faith a question of all nominees to the federal bench. In our Republic, this ought not be so.
Posted by Matt at 01:52 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
October 20, 2005
The Coburn Amendment
I'm on board. Anyone else?
Posted by Matt at 01:42 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Back to Basics
Peggy Noonan has a message for the President. Something we should all remember. Maybe someone should fax a copy of this over to Pat Robertson. Goodness knows he's not reading the Wall Street Journal.
HT: The Corner.
Posted by Matt at 10:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 18, 2005
Condi Comes Home
I'll be seeing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretery Jack Straw on Friday. Even better, they're staying around to see the mighty Crimson Tide take on Tennessee.
Posted by Matt at 12:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 17, 2005
NR and Elitism
How shall we define elitism?
It was a topic of discussion today at National Review, thanks in part to (surprise, surprise) another stupid remark on the part of Howard Dean. The mention of merlot led to a mention of the movie Sideways, as Kathryn Jean Lopez declares that anyone who likes the movie must be an elitist. Rod Dreher, as usual, is a voice of reason in this moronic debate.
I've spent the last two week defending "elite" conservatism against the likes of Hugh Hewitt and James Dobson, but this is out of hand. National Review is the most important opinion magazine of the last fifty years, but a magazine that regularly features reviews of operas and symphonies should never, under any circumstance, call out someone else as an elitist. This sort of nonsense is what hurts Beltway conservatives.
I've not yet seen Sideways, but I'm sitting about ten feet away from a copy. I might watch it tomorrow. Who knows? The point is that liking an independent movie or disliking bad Starbucks coffee does not make you an elitist. Having taste is never a bad thing, whether it refers to coffee, music, movies or food. The word "elitist" carries with it a certain implication: you think you're better than the guy drinking Maxwell House. But that's not true. I don't think I'm better than the next guy just because I can enjoy a foreign film or jazz. It's just a choice on my part, a choice I make because I think that some movies are better than others. And if a movie recieves critical praise, I reaize two things: First, that sometimes critics are self-serving. Second, critical praise occurs, more often than not, for good reasons. It is almost objectively agreed upon that North By Northwest is a great movie, even better than the latest blockbuster. Even if that blockbuster is family friendly.
Why can't NR make this distinction?
Posted by Matt at 07:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Dobson Playin' Politics
Interesting read by John Fund. (HT: BHT)
Posted by Matt at 05:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 13, 2005
Absolutely Infuriating
This is absolute garbage. If some evangelical leader won't call out Robertson for this, then we have a serious problem on our hands. Is there no leader with enough integrity to publicly and kindly say that this man is a buffoon? Or does the rest of the evangelical leadership think this is correct?
Posted by Matt at 02:44 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
October 11, 2005
The Evangelical Crackup
John Podhoretz cites Hugh Hewitt's comments on the evangelical base. Hewitt seems to think at a GOP rejection of Meirs will lead to evangelicals abandoning the GOP.
I'll admit that's possible but if it happens, it's not that evangelicals who will be standing on principle.
I don't know how to make this any plainer. Conservatives who oppose Meirs are not in opposition to her faith. Period. If any of my SCO colleauges disagree, or if any readers can provide credible evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to see it. But the simple truth is that on the surface, Harriet Meirs is not a credible candidate. I don't care where she goes to church. I don't care if she taught Sunday School. I don't care if James Dobson likes her. I want to know what she thinks about the Constitution because there's more to being a Supreme Court justice than a woman's view of Roe v. Wade. If evangelical leaders can't understand this, then evangelicals aren't ready for primetime.
Here's a good Rich Lowry piece on the matter.
Posted by Matt at 06:01 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Conservatives and Evangelicals
Lo and behold, it looks like I'm not the only one who's tired of the "evangelical leadership."
See this letter and this letter at NRO.
Posted by Matt at 02:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 10, 2005
Jumping Off the Train
Reading this and everything else at the Corner this morning (keep a'scrollin'), it makes me wonder if Chuck Colson and Al Mohler want to jump off this bandwagon before it runs off a cliff.
If evangelical leaders aren't very, very careful, they're going to lose an enormous amount of credibility.
Posted by Matt at 11:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Fund On Meirs, Land
John Fund opposes Harriet Meirs, and nails Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention in the process:
"But it was Richard Land , president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who went so far as to paint Ms. Miers as virtually a tool of the man who has been her client for the past decade. "In Texas, we have two important values, courage and loyalty," he told a conference call of conservative leaders last Thursday. "If Harriet Miers didn't rule the way George W. Bush thought she would, he would see that as an act of betrayal and so would she." That is an argument in her favor. It sounds more like a blood oath than a dignified nomination process aimed at finding the most qualified individual possible."
(Hat Tip: Ramesh Ponnuru)
Someone is playing the evangelical leadership like a finely-tuned fiddle. The fact that no one else is offering enthusiastic support for Meirs should do more than raise eyebrows. This is downright embarrassing. Evangelical poltical action may have just jumped the shark.
Posted by Matt at 11:07 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Back on Top
For the first time in a long time, Penn State, Notre Dame and the mighty Crimson Tide of the University of Alabama are all ranked in the AP Top Ten.
Life is good.
Posted by Matt at 01:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Last Word on Meirs
This is my last comment on the Meirs nomination. I'll say more about the controversy and discussion within the conservative ranks later. For now, read this piece, especially this quote from Judge Robert Bork:
"It's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already...t's kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."
What more do you want? Call him part of the Beltway elite, but if anyone is going to be fair in this thing, it's Robert Bork. If you value Jay Sekulow or James Dobson's opinion on Court matters more than Robert Bork, nothing will persuade you. Either way, the simple truth of the matter is that Judge Bork has been fighting in the trenches for this thing for a long, long time. His voice matters, and even if he's not an evangelical (the golden word these days, apparently), he speaks from a place of high importance.
The more I read the President's comments on this matter, the more I'm disappointed. It's not a stretch to say that this is a betrayal of the conservatives who put push into office. Let me repeat that: It has been conservatism that put W. in office. Evangelicals cast the votes, but had the conservative movement not laid the groundwork for this sort of the thing over the last five decades, evangelicals would not have the political firepower they have today. It's the truth, and it's a position I'll defend with vigor.
Posted by Matt at 12:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 06, 2005
Hillyer On Meirs
Folks, this isn't about elitism. I don't care where Meirs went to school. I don't care that she's not attending tonight's National Review dinner in NYC. She could be pro wrestling afficianado for all I care, and I would support her nomination if there were one shred of evidence to suggest that she has a proper understanding of the judiciary.
So far, there isn't, and these evangelical defenses of her aren't holding an ounce of water.
Posted by Matt at 02:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
W on the War
This is a masterful speech. Read it in its entirety.
Posted by Matt at 01:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Getting In Line
I'll offer a larger rebuttal to Jim's piece later today, but I'll again cite David Frum. This morning's piece says a whole lot, including some thought on Ms. Meirs' view of stem cell issues.
While we're at it, could someone tell me one area where traditional conservatism and evangelicals are at a disagreement on legal matters? I'm having a hard time thinking of one.
Posted by Matt at 11:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 05, 2005
Reliable Votes
Here's an interesting letter sent to Jonah Goldberg.
The most interesting part:
"I get the impression that only reliable vote that many of those who are supporting Miers care about is on abortion. I have many issues that concern me as least as much or more than abortion. Where does Miers stand on federalism issues? What are her views of the commerce clause? How would she have voted on Kelo? Campaign finance reform? Has she even thought about any of this?"
Likewise I would ask have any of her defenders even thought about any of this? And don't tell me to trust the President, because he broke his trust on campaign finance reform, and his federalism is highly, highly suspect. What does Dr. Dobson think about the commerce clause?
Posted by Matt at 11:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
My Questions about Meirs
In relation to Jim's post below, let me offer a brief response as it appears that I am the anti-Meirs 'round these parts. I am thrilled that Ms. Meirs is a Christian, and I trust that her faith has been a source of strength for her and for those around her. But her faith alone says nothing about her qualifications for the nation's highest court. I am not asking that the nominee have any particular characteristic in terms of gender, race or religion. I simply want a candidate whose legal abilities are clearly and confidently articulated in their past work. There is nothing in Ms. Meirs' past work suggesting she has a clearly defined belief about what should be the nature of the executive, legislative or judicial branches. It is a dangerous thing to have her make up her mind about such matters while on the Court.
And as for the President's relationship with her, and his serious view of the court, I offer this from George F. Will:
"In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.'"
The rest of Will's column is here, and I would defy anyone to rebut his argument without citing "trust" of the President. If this is beltway elitism, then sign me up.
Posted by Matt at 09:45 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 04, 2005
All the Proof I Need...
Rod Dreher cites George F. Will's latest column, speaking against the Meirs nomination.
If George F. Will, Bill Kristol and the editors of National Review can't support her, then no serious conservative can, either.
Supreme Court nominations are not about trust.
Posted by Matt at 06:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Trusting Dubya
I'll admit it. I trust the President.
With that out of the way, and with all due respect to Jim and his well-written post, I have two words for anyone who'll support Harriet Miers simply because she's an evangelical:
Jimmy Carter
It may turn out that Ms. Miers reveals herself to be such a wonderful justice and original constructionist that James Madison and Edmund Burke both rise up to pat her on the back. But if she doesn't, evangelicals will have no one but themselves to blame.
I've suggested before that evangelicals - as a body of people - have not yet, with clarity and consistency, articulated any clear political ideology. Evangelical votes have centered on two things: gay rights and reproductive/life issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning). When these points are gone, where does the evangelical leadership stand? Is James Dobson going to have a Justice Sunday rally to fight the Court's outrageous ruling on eminent domain? I doubt it, though it can be easily established that abusing eminent domain is a grave evil. It seems as though the evangelical grassroots can be pacified on the grounds that Ms. Meirs is "one of us," but the problem is that when abortion and gay rights aren't on the table, how will evangelicals vote?
Yes, the President knows and trusts Ms. Meirs, but then again his own conservatism is often dubious, as witnessed by his reckless spending, his disaster-in-waiting immigration policy, his refusal to veto the campaign finance reform bill and his basic belief that government should help instead of get out of the way.
I trust the President, but I don't trust politicians. And the simple truth is that evangelicals who cannot explicitly identify themselves as conservatives have now fully established themselves as the biggest interest group in the country. I'm sure the President understands the importance of the Court, but for my money, I care more about a nominee's judicial philosophy than where she goes to Church. I'll take David Frum over Marvin Olasky any day of the week. And I'll take Ramesh Ponnuru. And Ronald A. Cass. And Randy Barnett. Then there's this: Jay Sekulow is a team player? Yuck. And Jonah nails the evangelical theory.
If Dobson thinks I'm going to support Meirs because she's an evangelical, then he is mistaken. And he's in serious danger of becoming the Jesse Jackson of the Christian Right.
We should know better.
Posted by Matt at 12:14 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
October 03, 2005
Boo on Miers
Hugh Hewitt says conservatives should trust the President's new pick for the Supreme Court. I like Hewitt's poker analogy, but frankly, I trust Mark Levin, Ramesh Ponurru and Rich Lowry more. And no, Hugh, I don't trust what appears to be another crony appointment.
Is there anything the President could do that would earn Hewitt's ire?
Posted by Matt at 11:44 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 01, 2005
Roll Tide!
Not a bad way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
And if you've never had the pleasure of spending a day at a rowdy college football game, might I suggest you read Warren St. John's delightful Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer. The book is a fun recounting of St. John's year following the Crimson Tide.
Incidentally, that year was 1999, the last time Alabama beat Florida. Twice. For the SEC title. The Tide lost in the Orange Bowl, but that sort of thing can be forgiven when you lose to a quarterback named Tom Brady.
Roll Tide, indeed.
Update: Ivan Maisel has more.
Posted by Matt at 09:57 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Charlie Weiss - Great Guy
This is just the most touching story I've read in a long time.
Then again, as an Alabama fan, I can't help but cringe just a little bit every time I hear about Notre Dame passing to the tight end while deep in their own territory.
Posted by Matt at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 28, 2005
Derb on Dylan
John Derbyshire has a great piece on the new Martin Scorsese documentary about Bob Dylan.
Posted by Matt at 11:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Act Now
Note: This is no way intending to sound preachy; just some thoughts I've had.
I'm learning how to handle this delicate balance, to believe passionately in something and yet to accep that others believe in a different manner, though I may be vehemently convinced that they are wrong. Completely, objectively wrong. As a Christian, I believe in sovereignty but surely that doesn't mean that I don't care and believe that truth - objective truth - has a place in history, economics and the arts. And yet all around I see those with their heads in the clouds - blinders on the sides of their faces - pretending that nothing in this world is wrong. I can't accept that. I won't accept that.
I had a friend once who sang for a punk band. He was an agnostic to the best of my knowledge, though he may be an atheist. (Nick, do you know?) The band always played this one particular song about my friend's uneasy relationship with some Christian believers in his own life and before each time, he would say the song was about people "whose eyes are on the heavens while the world around them is burning like a hell." I thought then, as I do now, that such an analysis was unfair in a general sense, but all too often it was accurate in many specific cases. I, however, won't apologize for looking to Heaven. For when I see Heaven, I see the Cross. And though I see, ultimately, the most significant portrayal of love imaginable in the Cross of Christ, I believe, like Bonhoffer, that the call to believe in this Love is a call to follow, a call to die. This love is not merely sappy or sentimental. The call to come and die is a call to sacrifice and sometimes even, as Bonhoffer sorrowfully demonstrated, a call to fight.
I can't be silent about moral decay in my culture. I don't mean MTV. I don't mean Desperate Housewives or Sex and the City. I mean the state of moral apathy that crassly suggests that this nothing worth dying for, that there is nothing worth sacrifice, that every system of values - whether religious, cultural, social or economic - is valid, equal and good. That doesn't mean we should ever hate or disdain others. But it does mean that even in my desire as a believer to be humble and merciful, I should not feel guilty for believing in a sense of truth and justice, knowing that standards do in fact exist, and the defense of objective truth is a worthy pursuit.
As an example, and I say this as one who loves living in a college town, I suppose I am simply tired of seeing college students (even believers) live as though nothing matters outside their own world. There is suffering in this world. There is injustice in this world. Slavery still exists. There are ways in which we can demonstrate mercy to all kinds of people (first and foremost) and yes, in some cases, other living things. Religious freedom is endangered around the world. There is ample injustice in America, as well, though I would caution that trying to fix any economic problems in America or around the world, in, say, I don't know...Africa?, by tax and spend programs is like trying to fill a round hole with a square peg.
Posted by Matt at 10:56 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
September 27, 2005
Oh, Atlanta!
The Atlanta Braves just won their fourteenth straight division title.
Fourteen.
Here's a great piece about the best manager in baseball, Bobby Cox.
Go Braves!
Posted by Matt at 10:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
SCO Must Reads
Over at the BHT, Michael Spencer is speaking the plain truth about FEMA.
He also refers to this post by Tim Challies concerning the Ashley Smith/Brian Nichols/Purpose-Driven Life saga.
In the days after the Smith story broke, I was listening to a sports talk show that is very popular in the Deep South. Lots of callers were talking about their experience with the book. I heard a lot about purpose. I didn't hear much at all about the Gospel.
Just saying.
Posted by Matt at 04:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack