Dipping into that Mailbag

A swaggeringly happy New Year's celebration from the staff of the YFP to you and yours. In the meantime, here's an interesting letter we received recently.

Dear Ms Feygin,

My name is Emil Levitin, I am a 12 year old conservative Republican living in the Boston area and editor of a new conservative Republican newsletter called Republican Voices. I visit your website very often and enjoy it.

I recently wrote a column which is probably enough to put me in jail if my public school finds out it was me. It is entitled 'Liberals: The Cultural Nomads.'

What I am doing right now is contacting the owners of popular conservative Republican sites and asking them to exchange links and possibly write about my site with an ad that I wrote included. Please contact me at this e-mail.

If you wish to write my name on your site please use my pseudonym, Emil Levitin, as I am hiding my political activities from my hostage takers, the public school liberal establishment.

Thanks,
Emil Levitin

George Orwell for Christians

Interesting Pro-Life Implications?
A fetus in Missouri has gone missing. In the famous words of Matt Drudge, developing...

Pet Shop Boys Song-by-Song Commentary (unofficial)

Ever wanted to know who the party animal is in "Left to my own Devices"? Or who the famous writer is in "Being Boring"? All this and more at the Pet Shop Boys Song-by-Song Commentary.

And They Blinked
Dan responds to my post earlier that his critique of Dobson, et al. for being an unelected official who has undue influence over Right-wing politicians in his attempts to create a theocratic regime is equivalent to criticizing Ralph Neas for doing the same in order to create a socialist paradise.

Dan writes:

First of all, People for the American Way doesn't advocate socialism and Gene knows that. If Gene doesn't think that Messrs. Dobson, Weyrich et al. advocate theocracy, in the literal sense of reciprocal religious control of government and government control of religion, I don't think he really gets the religious right at all.

Well, color me stupid, but I have not heard a single statement from Dobson, Weyrich, et al. advocating theocracy, just as PFAW doesn't explicitly advocate socialism. That was the entire point of my post: the same hyperbolic hysteria Dan espouses about Wyrich/Dobson could as easily be used against PFAW. If Dan can provide me a quote where Weyrich, Dobson, et al. in fact said, that there should either be "a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," I would reconsider my position.

Dan then argues that PFAW is categorically different than the supposed "theocrats":

Moreover, even if People for the American Way (or some hypothetical interest group, if that helps) did push for state control of the means of industrial production, it would belong to the same political category as any other economic special interest. No so with the theocrats. The Constitution itself creates a specific prohibition on government endorsement of religion, and for good reason.

Socialism, in my view, would be a clear violation of the Ninth Amendment which says,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Would not the imposition of a government monopoly on certain economic activities and the resulting prohibition of private practices of said economic activity not be a construal of the denial or disparagement of other rights retained by the people?

So, suppose even that socialism is a bad example. However, take gun control for instance. The PFAW is on record opposing the individual right to gun ownership, a clear violation of the Second Amendment (even the ultra-liberal Lawrence Tribe thinks that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership). Furthermore, the PFAW is on record supporting campaign finance laws, which are also clear violations of free speech protections of the First Amendment.

So who's on record as being on the brink of overturning important Constitutional protections here?

The point here is that actually, neither Weyrich/Dobson nor Neas/PFAW actually want to completely OVERTURN various Constitutional protections. Rather, they want their interpretation of the Constitutional protection to win out. What's wrong with that? Just because Weyrich/Dobson think that we should have school vouchers for parochial schools and protect prayer in public schools does not mean that they are in favor of overturning the First Amendment. While PFAW comes close in their fascist interpretation of the Second Amendment, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are not really for overturning the Second Amendment, just for making it meaningless, since we don't have state militias anymore (and don't even try the National Guard argument... the NG is significantly controlled by the feds).

So, stop your hyperbole.

Cocktail Hour

A peek into where some of your editors were last weekend, and what kinds of things we talked about: World Magazine feature on the Collegiate Network 25th Anniversary Conference, with a nod to the YFP.

And congratulations to Karen Burke, one of our Senior Editors, for the publication of a letter in the New York Times!

Dan's 2nd Response

Dan - Sorry for misattributing the Saletan piece to you. The nested levels of indentation were just too much for me.

Dan writes, "for the record, I would not be comfortable with Lincoln's election victory being described as 'God's way of giving us a chance to repent of the sins of slavery?'. The corollary to such a statement, for one thing, is that the victories of the antebellum pro-compromise presidents were God's way of protecting the South's peculiar institution."

Christians see all events as coming under divine providence. If Kerry had won the election, Christians might have said, "This is God's way of giving us a wake-up call."

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that God, "directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created. " The mere fact that God permitted an act to occur does not demonstrate that the act was good. If people are reasoning, "Bush was elected, therefore God must believe that Bush will be a more moral President than Kerry would have been," then obviously we do have a huge problem. However, I think people are reasoning more like this, "I believe that Bush will act with more justice than Kerry will. So if Bush wins I will see it as a blessing. But if Kerry wins I will still see it as coming under God's providence."

I hope this clarifies.

Now on to the claim that Bob Jones University is in the evangelical mainstream. I'll admit that there mere fact of Colson's criticizing BJU isn't enough to show it's out of the mainstream. I'll try a different tack. Here's an explanation of their BJU's views on interracial dating:

The school acknowledges its restriction of interracial dating, but defends the policy as a precautionary measure against its religious belief that world unity will enable the rule of "Antichrist." It is not a racist-motivated punishment against minorities.

So, Dan - what percentage of Evangelicals are worried that interracial dating will enable the rule of the Antichrist? My guess is the percentage is very low.

If I wanted to argue that Evangelicals are anti-empricism, I'd start off by talking about how many of them believe the universe is only around 6000 years old. I wouldn't start of by talking about BJU.

Dan writes, "But the word 'international' itself can function as a glyph for 'those anti-American foreigners' an epistemically direct and non-semantic articulation by which the president created a false dichotomy between patriotism and ontological realism."
So, Dan, you think that Bush believes that truth is different in France than it is in the US?

Monster Farming on Slate

Strauss

The guys over at PowerLine post a link to a Toronto Star op-ed by a Professor of American History at University of Western Ontario. One choice gem from the op-ed:

The other intellectual wellspring for the neo-conservatives is widely believed to be political philosopher Leo Strauss.

The Bush administration is awash in Straussians (Leon Kass, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, to name a few) who, among other things, believe that true statesmanship entails overriding constitutional democracy and using Machiavellian instruments of deceit and autocracy to maintain all measure of social inequities.

Hindrocket, of PowerLine, writes in response,

I assume that liberals don't actually believe the drivel they write. But what possesses them to write such nonsense with a straight face is beyond me.

Well, what's interesting is that it appears that Prof. Johnston has never even read Leo Strauss. If he had, then he would obviously know that Strauss skewered Machiavelli in his essay, "Three Waves of Modernity" for setting up the stage for modernity's descent into moral relativism and for disregarding moral considerations in political decision-making. No "Straussian," not even Donald Kagan's son, would ever believe that "true statesmanship entails... using Machiavellian instruments of deceit and autocracy." This is just drivel on Johnston's part. Here is my email to him and his department chair:

Dear Prof. Johnston,

I am writing in regards to your recent column in the Toronto Star, in which you had the following gem:

"The other intellectual wellspring for the neo-conservatives is widely believed to be political philosopher Leo Strauss.

"The Bush administration is awash in Straussians (Leon Kass, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, to name a few) who, among other things, believe that true statesmanship entails overriding constitutional democracy and using Machiavellian instruments of deceit and autocracy to maintain all measure of social inequities."

My question to you is: have you ever read anything by Leo Strauss? If you have, then obviously you would know, that Strauss was particularly harsh on Machiavelli for helping usher in the moral relativism that has plagued modernity. In particular, Strauss criticized him for bringing moral relativism to the realm of politics and political decision-making.

So, this brings up a very interesting logical problem for your piece. If the particular villains of the Bush administration you name are Straussians, then they could not possibly believe that true statesmanship involves "using Machiavellian instruments of deceit and autocracy to maintain all measure of social inequities" given that Strauss criticized such tactics. Or if they did indeed believe that, then it would be incorrect to call them Straussians, would it not?

I wonder which is it? Is it that you criticize a political philosopher and his followers without EVER having read his work? Or, do you have problems with basic deductive reasoning and characterization of objects into sets? Either way, it doesn't give one confidence in your abilities as an academic.


Best,
Yevgeny Vilensky
Ph.D. candidate in Mathematics, New York University

UPDATE: After speaking with people who are better experts than I am on Strauss, it seems that Strauss did admire Machiavelli for Machiavelli's tapping into some important aspects of human nature, but believed his teachings were dangerous. Hence, Strauss' famous line that Machiavelli was a "teacher of evil." Regardless, Johnston is completely wrong that Strauss endorsed a Machiavellian approach to politics.

UPDATE: I decided that I was too harsh on Prof. Johnston. I clearly should not have attacked his academic abilities or intelligence... So, I wrote him an apology:

Dear Prof. Johnston,

I must say that I was unduly harsh in my first email and therefore must apologize. I certainly should not have let my strong disagreement with you, not only on Strauss, but also politics, get in the way of clearer and calmer thinking.

I do, however, still take umbrage with your characterization of Straussians as supporters of Machiavellian tactics of deceit and autocracy. While Strauss did believe that Machiavelli was right on some aspects of human nature, he clearly believed that Machiavelli's views were dangerous and nothing in Strauss' work ought be taken to mean that he endorsed Machiavellian political tactics. I believe at one point, Strauss said that Machiavelli was a "teacher of evil." His essay, "Three Waves of Modernity," as well as his work, What Is Political Philosophy? were critical of Machiavelli for his teaching of political leaders on how to be immoral. In "Three Waves of Modernity" he even draws an intellectual path from Machiavelli to ideas that gave rise to fascism in Europe and Naziism. It is unlikely that Strauss, a man who ran away from the Nazis, would have endorsed Naziism himself.

Regardless of whatever shortcomings I may believe your views on Strauss have, I should not have made ad hominem attacks on your academic abilities or intellect. I hope that you accept my apology.

Best,
Yevgeny Vilensky

Updates and Infamy

The November issue, that famously stolen bastion of ideology, is now available online, so you can see what the stir has been all about.

It's Not the Crime, It's the Cover-up

In response to Chickpea Eater's first post, Dan writes:

The fact that an unelected radio-evangelist should play a decisive role in determining United States Senate committee chairmanships---and that so many senators' and congressmen's knees should buckle in fear of his wrath---is an unrationalizable step towards theocracy.

Now, let me substitute some words here about Ralph Neas of the People for the American Way and see how it sounds:

The fact that an unelected policy activist should play a decisive role in determining United States Senate committee chairmanships---and that so many senators' and congressmen's knees should buckle in fear of his wrath---is an unrationalizable step towards socialism.

Dan's Response to my Post

Dan tells us that Chuck Colson and the president of BJU are both in the mainstream of the Religious Right. So what does he make of Colson saying that many of BJU's beliefs are "wrong and out of the mainstream of evangelical thought"?

Dan writes on his blog, "If Lukas wishes to suggest that Colson is somehow unrepresentative of the religious right, then he will have to square that contention with Colson's semi-official role as a liason between the Bush-Cheney campaign and the religious right." Actually, I don't have a problem with the Colson quote that Dan exerpted. Colson said that the election victory was God "giving us a chance to repent and to restore some moral sanity to American life." What's wrong with that? Is it that he speaks in religious terms? Or is it simply that he's pro-life? To put it another way, would Mr. Koffler mind if someone said that the election of Abraham Lincoln was God's way of giving us a chance to repent of the sins of slavery?
I also didn't have a problem with James Dobson's opposition to Arlen Spector. Roe is morally wrong and legally flawed, and should be overturned.


I agree with Mr. Koffler that Bush should have done more to criticize the policies of Bob Jones University.

Mr. Koffler writes, "You heard that right. The president explicitly refuses "to pass some international truth standard." Because evidence is the fundamental test applied in France as well as in the United States, Bush thinks he shouldn't have to back up his claims or decisions with evidence. ...[snip]..."
My sense is that the key word in "international truth standard" is not "truth" but "international." I don't really think that Bush meant that truth is different in the US than it is in France.
As far as Bush not having to back up his decisions with evidence - yeah, I'm definately disappointed with him on the foreign policy & prescription drug care. There may be a good reason for going to war with Iraq, but I haven't heard it yet, and I've been paying at least some attention.

Mr. Koffler writes, "Some time ago I realized that if I read another NR article in which religion went around masquerading as scientific expertise (c.f. 99% of NR's and NRO's thought re: stem cell research), I would wretch."
Can I get an example?

How voting the right ticket became a ticket to salvation by Daniel Koffler

Ordinarily I sort of enjoy reading Mr. Koffler's YDN columns. But this one was just terrible. Here's why:

He claims that the United States was founded as a "liberal, secular democracy." Wishful thinking.

Mr. Koffler quotes the president of Bob Jones University, as though he represented the views of the Religious Right. I may as well quote Rage Against the Machine and attribute their words to Mr. Koffler.

This paragraph is choice:
How, exactly, is one supposed to argue with those who think their political positions bear the mark of divine ordination, and for whom, consequently, things like self-criticism, rational persuasion, or the need to ground one's beliefs in observed evidence, are the vain tools of the Devil and of liberals that can only lead people to waywardness and heterodoxy?
Self-criticism is a vain tool of the devil? Ever heard of an examination of conscience? Some nonbelievers, such as Nietszche, would say that believers are neurotically self-critical, but according to Mr. Koffler they're not self-critical at all.
Does the Religous Right believe that rational persuasion is the vain tool of the Devil? I think this accusation might be true of Karl Barth and Kierkegard, since both deprecate reason in preference to a leap of faith. But is it true of St. Thomas, or contemporary Christian conservatives, like those at First Things and National Review?