Why I Prefer the Williamsburg Capitol to Richmond's

A few days ago my family visited Colonial Williamsburg. Among the sites is a replica of the old Virginia capitol building, built on the foundation of the original building. (It burned down a couple times, most recently in 1832.)

There are several reasons why I prefer the old Williamsburg capitol to current one in Richmond. I'll confess that part of my interest comes as a Anglophile: the House of Burgesses chamber (below left) is an obvious copy of the House of Commons, with facing benches on each side, a table in between, the speaker's chair at one end, and even green seat cushions.

But that is a personal quirk, for me. More to the point, the Williamsburg capitol has a very different character from Richmond's. Though built in a colonial style - or, critics of the reconstruction would charge, Colonial Revival - Williamsburg's is not the strong neoclassicalism found in some other places. There is still a whiff of the medieval about the building. And I like that. This is not just an aesthetic perspective; this is a visual reminder that America, for all its newness, is heir to a long history of civilization, one that, yes, includes Greece and Rome, but also a thousand years of Christendom. That millennium was not inconsequential for us as Americans. It is to medieval England that we owe such norms as trial by jury, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and bicameral legislatures. The Richmond capitol (below right), in contrast, looks like it was copied from a pagan temple. (Which, in fact, it was.)

Which brings us to a second important distinction: the Richmond capitol is modeled on a house of worship. The kind of florid prose about the "altar of liberty" and suchlike is made rather literal here. Our legislators meet in a building whose design was once meant to honor a god. I find that association deeply troubling.  Liberty is precious, even sacred, but it is not, of itself, divine.  Government is not God. All governments are subordinate to the ultimate sovereignty of God and insofar as they are just they derive their justice from Him.

One final note, about the scale: the Richmond capitol feels big and daunting. There is clearly majesty about the place, and that is proper, in a way. People should have respect for their government, which embodies the community it represents. But perhaps the Richmond capitol is too big, too grand. The Williamsburg building, while still clearly an important place, feels a bit more approachable, even a little cozy. That, I would submit, is the right relationship of the citizen to his government, not least a republican government. There should be deference, but not awe. (Let us reserve that for the Almighty.)  In an age when bureaucracies are massive and many Americans feel alienated from their representatives, there is much to be said for approachable government.

Today's images come from Flikr here and here, and from Wikipedia.

Abortion Is Not Just a Christian Issue

I am not a Muslim, but I have been reading through the Quran. I recently came across this verse, "Do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Indeed, their killing is ever a great sin" (17:31). I am not an expert in Quranic exegesis, but it seems to me that here, in a 7th century text, you have a recognition of one of the most oft-cited justifications for abortion (economic hardship); in spite of this recognition, the text is clear that the taking of a child's life is still gravely wrong.

Discovering this passage in the Muslim scriptures was a useful reminder that abortion is not a Christian issue. It is a human issue.  People of all faiths - or no faith at all - can recognize the scientific reality that life before birth is still human life.  If we take seriously the defense of human rights, if we care about the well-being of our fellow human beings, then we must be scandalized by the daily killing of our brothers and sisters, the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society.  And we must do something about it.

Today's image is from Leonardo Da Vinci's Studies of the Fetus in the Womb.

Where Is the Christian Call for Criminal Justice Reform?

Yesterday I happened upon a short biography of St. Maud (also known as Matilda), a 10th century queen whose charitable works included visiting prisoners and seeking clemency for the repentant.

On Sunday I learned that Virginia has over 30,000 people in its state prisons. (This study, from January 2018, puts the figure at 37,813, to be precise.) Housing all those prisoners is not cheap. In the last few years the cost has been in the rage of $21,299 to $25,000 per prisoner per year, depending on who did the counting and when. That comes out to something like $824,010,613 a year, though some estimates have put it above $1.5 billion. Many of these are non-violent offenders.

And the State of Virginia does not spend a dime on chaplains. Our states prison chaplains are all privately funded.

More important that the precise statistics is the Christian attitude toward those in prison. Jesus is clear about what that attitude ought to be: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was... in prison and you visited me.’" (Mt 25: 31-36) Since its earliest days, the Christian community has held up the importance of this corporal work of mercy.

Too often contemporary American political discussions, even among Christians, characterize prisoners as pariahs who deserve what they everything they get. Or we ignore them all together.

The state has a duty to protect society, but within that broad mandate, it seems to me that Christians must work for several things:

- First, insistence that prisoners be treated with dignity, as human beings. True, many of these are troubled and troublesome individuals, but challenges should be met in ways that address real problems rather than demonizing our brothers and sisters. This includes caring for their basic needs, not only in terms of physical health, but also emotional and spiritual.

- Second, transferring some of the money currently spent on prisons to addiction recovery and other programs that can help offenders get back on their feet and reintegrate as members of society.

- Third, demanding that the criminal justice system - not least capital punishment - be fair and transparent. We must ensure that the poor, the uneducated, and other vulnerable populations are not being caught in a system they do not understand and cannot navigate.

It is high time that criminal justice reform was a major issue for Christians.

Threading the Needle on Same-Sex Marriage

Like this blog generally, I write today's post as an individual and not on behalf of ASP, its National Committee, or the ASP of Virginia.

I hate the debate about same-sex marriage.  It is especially problematic for at least three reasons.

First, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman for life.  Thus was it woven into human nature by the divine creator.  Thus was it affirmed by revelation and thus is it defined by the Church of God.  I call this the traditional view.  (I realize a lot of ideas may be considered "traditional"; here I am only concerned with heterosexuality and indissolubility.)

I also believe that all people have innate dignity and are deserving of respect.  There is, so far as I can see, no fundamental disagreement between these two statements (as I tried to articulate in a post on the Guild Review some years ago).  But statements which affirm the traditional view are often seen by supporters of same-sex marriage as hateful; conversely, statements affirming universal dignity, when made in the context of this debate, are often construed by supporters of traditional marriage as subversive, an attempt to undermine that institution without quite coming out and saying so.

This tension is made more acute by confusion of affirmation with agreement.  I can affirm the dignity of a person without agreeing with all their positions.  Mundane examples can easily demonstrate this: I think we should build a new neighborhood playground but my neighbor disagrees.  That doesn't rob him of his dignity or change the way I treat him, even if he's wrong.  But when the issue at hand is more contentious than building a playground, this distinction gets lost.  What, for example, may one rightly display in one's front yard?  What if my neighbor wants to fly a Confederate battle flag but I claim he does not have the right to do so?  Or what if I want to display a massive icon of the Virgin Mary but my neighbor, whose parents were killed by Catholic partisans in some nasty civil war, objects?  It can be difficult to hear someone say they deeply disagree with you, and even harder to hear that they believe you do not have the right to do something you very much want to do.  Believing that someone else truly affirms your dignity, while having such a fundamental disagreement, is trying.

Second, there is the quite different challenge of political coalitions.  On virtually all issues there is disagreement.  The more exacting your position on a given issue, the smaller your cohort of fellow believers will be.  Thus, any political grouping will, in some measure, be a coalition.  The American Solidarity Party - which recently released a statement on the dignity of all people, including LGBTQ persons - is just such a coalition.  Its members come from a wide variety of faith communities and include people of no faith at all.  Thus, while the party's position in favor of marriage and family is quite strong, it does not define with great precision what constitutes a marriage.  Proponents of traditional marriage could construe this as a sell-out.  I see it as pragmatism.  Sooner or later any party will involve compromises or end up becoming a party of one.  The toxic debates about same-sex marriage threaten to destroy this and other coalitions which might accomplish a great deal of good in defense of marriage and family.

Third, symbols surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage have become highly charged with a multiplicity of meanings.  The picture which accompanied the ASP statement included a rainbow-colored hand print, a dictionary entry for "discrimination," and a caption that reads, "Stop Discrimination!"  What does this mean?  One person could interpret this to mean that all people should be free of physical and verbal abuse.  Another person might construe it to imply something about hiring decisions.  Does it imply anything about the status of same-sex marriage?  Some people might presume that the use of rainbow colors - long associated with the push for same-sex marriage - implies a specific position.  Some people might presume that the graphic implies that preventing same-sex couples from marrying would be a form of discrimination.  Etc., etc.  The point of hyper-analyzing a simple graphic is to underscore the way in which people can jump to conclusions and react very strongly to words or symbols that may mean one thing to them but something very different to those who created them.

All of this makes the discussion of same-sex marriage difficult, painful, and prone to misunderstandings.  It's a discussion we - as Americans and as people of faith - need to have, but we should precede with great caution and charity.

Is Christian Democracy Just Big Government?

It is an oversimplification, but you could say that Democrats want to tell you what to do economically (via regulation and taxation), while leaving you free to do what you like socially (have an abortion, smoke weed, marry someone of the same sex); Republicans, on the other hand, will let you do what you like economically, but want to dictate your social behavior.  But what of Christian Democracy?  Some have characterized it as socially conservative and economically liberal.  Is it simply bossy government on both the social and economic fronts?

This is a misunderstanding, for three reasons:

(1) Christian Democracy endorses localism.  The term for this is generally "subsidiarity" - the notion that problems should be solved at the lowest possible level, since those closest to the problem have the greatest knowledge of it and greatest interest in seeing it resolved.  So although Christian Democracy is imbued with a concern for one's neighbors that is often expressed in some sort of government program or policy, that's ideally done by local governments, not distant bureaucrats.

The platform of the American Solidarity Party (ASP), a party in the tradition of Christian Democracy, reflects this in several ways.  It explicitly states, "We believe that family, local communities, and voluntary associations are the first guarantors of human dignity, and cultivate mutual care. National institutions and policies should support, not supplant them."

With regard to education, for example, ASP endorses the "right of families to choose the best methods for educating their children, be they public,charter, private, parochial or home-based education."  Concerning health care, ASP supports, "diverse efforts across this country to secure universal health care access, affordability and outcomes, including single-payer health initiatives, healthcare cooperatives, and hybrid systems at the state and national level."  It further supports "allowing states to experiment with alternative income support approaches."

(2) Christian Democracy calls for active citizenship.  We want informed, engaged citizens, people who take an interest in their community and desire to contribute to it.  Government should support such a citizenry, not replacement it.

ASP supports "the constitutionally guaranteed rights of free public assembly, speech, and a free and independent press" and aspires to "voter participation by all citizens."  It calls for an educational system that provides "rigorous formation of literate, well-rounded, virtuous citizens. In addition to providing a strong foundation in core subjects, such as reading, writing, mathematics and science, we call for classes to be offered in, among other things, civics, the arts, technical fields, vocational training, home economics and financial literacy."  These are not automatons in a big government scheme, but strong pillars in a vigorous society.

(3) Christian Democracy is about more than material concerns.  It's about values, foremost among them human dignity.  "We must build a culture and enact laws upholding the equal, innate and inviolable dignity and rights of every human person from conception to natural death."

A government program which meets someone's material needs but in the process turns him into a nameless cog in a machine is not a success.  Material needs must be met in a way that affirms the worth and dignity of all people.  This concern for values serves as a built-in check in the ideology of Christian Democracy; while we must think seriously about the needs of those around us, bigger government is not necessarily better.

Educating for Christian Democracy

Christian Democracy is a political movement, but it is also a way of viewing the world. Our minds are comprised of a great many parts. It is very difficult to focus one part of it in a given direction when so many others are pointed elsewhere. Many of us have come to believe that a certain set of values and policies are correct. Perhaps and encounter with the Gospel has convicted us. But the media around us, our sense of history, the voices we hear on TV - even our imaginations themselves - point in directions other than what our good sense tells us. If we are to make good on a paradigm shift toward a more sensible and humane society, we need to educate ourselves and others in good ideas. We need to fill our imaginations with images that point us to the truth.

To that end, I have assembled a list of twenty Americans whose lives, collectively, demonstrate some of the salient values of Christian Democracy: the dignity of human life, the importance of strong local communities, and call to serve others before ourselves. Not all of these individuals agreed on all matters of politics or religion. Some might even have disliked each other. But, taken together, I think they offer some fresh ways of thinking about America.

If you are someone entrusted with designing curricula, consider weaving some of these figures in. If you are looking for a new book to read, consider a biography of one of these individuals. Some are memorialized in film as well. If you belong to a book club, consider suggesting something by one of these individuals for your next discussion. You get the idea: the possibilities are practically endless.

Junipero Serra (1713-1784), missionary priest and a founding father of California.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton (1737-1832), signer of the Declaration of Independence, diplomat and Maryland and US senator (pictured above left).
Elizabeth Ann Seton (1774-1821), wife, mother, and teacher, who cared, in particular, for the poor.
George Henry Thomas (1816-1870), Virginia military officer who remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War.
Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906), abolitionist and women's rights activist.
Harriet Tubman (1822-1913), former slave who dedicated herself to freeing others.
Carl Schurz (1829-1906), German immigrant, journalist, diplomat, general, senator, and secretary of the interior.
Damien De Veuster (1840-1889), Belgian missionary who cared for lepers in Hawaii.
William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), member of the House of Representatives and secretary of state, famous for his Christian faith and regard for the common man.
Black Elk (1863-1950), Oglala Lakota Sioux medicine man who described Lakota culture to a broader audience; subsequently converted to Christianity and became a catechist.
Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933) governor and president who championed racial equality and decentralized government.
T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) poet, playwright, and essayist who explored, among other topics, the meaning of being Christian in the modern world.
Dorothy Day (1897-1980) Catholic social activist who worked for economic justice, racial equality, and peace.
Thomas Merton (1915-1968), poet, social activist, monk, mystic, and student of comparative religion.
Madeleine L'Engle (1918-2007), author whose books for children and adults reflect her Christian faith (pictured right).
Isaac Asimov (1920-1999), prolific writer of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, physics, astronomy, history, religion, mathematics, and virtually every other topic.
John Glenn (1921-2016), Marine pilot, astronaut, and US senator.
Daniel Inouye (1924-2012), Japanese-American who served in the famed 442nd Infantry, received the Medal of Honor, and served in both chambers of Congress.

A Lesson in Civic Speech

Name calling doesn't work.

Or, to be more precise, name calling doesn't work if you plan to ever talk to someone again.

But it can be a very useful tool for convincing your friends that you and they hate the same enemies. Thus, in politics - and what isn't political these days, from sports to entertainment? - leaders often say to their supporters: "Our opponents are extremists." "Their policies are stupid." "His behavior has been positively criminal." "Does she have a clue what she's doing?" Ridiculing opponents in this way can be a great way to signal to others that you share their values. It gets plenty of applause at campaign rallies.

It also poisons our democracy.

Name calling turns differences into divisions. It makes disagreements personal. It burns bridges. And that's a problem if you need to work with someone.

We use such language inside our political parties, even though opposing wings need to work together for the good of the party. We use such language in the open political arena, even though the parties will have to work together - in one chamber or the other of Congress, between the branches of government, in the statehouses, and in the many transitions between administrations - for the common good. We use such language to describe international leaders, even though we depend upon their support to solve the thorniest problems and bring about diplomatic solutions (for even a strong power cannot always resort to war).

Social media has not improved our behavior. It is far easier to belittle someone you cannot see than someone you must look in the eye.

We've all been there, we've all slipped into a rant that temporarily made us feel good and gave us a sense of camaraderie with those who agree with us. But what has it really accomplished?

St. Paul reminds us that our focus should be on the good things that are praiseworthy, not on shortcomings to be criticized:

Whatever is true,
whatever is honorable
whatever is just,
whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely,
whatever is gracious,
if there is any excellence and
if there is anything worthy of praise,
think about these things. (Phil 4:8)

So next time you're tempted to affix some derogatory term to your opponent, tempted to make assumptions about other people's motives, tempted to bad-mouth someone on Facebook: don't.

Let's speak in a way that strengths America's democracy, rather than harms it.

Today's meme comes from the Young Christian Democrats of America.

In Virginia, Thanksgiving Comes in December

We all know the familiar story: in 1621 the Pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts, sat down with their Native American friends and had a day of feasting and thanksgiving to God for blessings received: the first Thanksgiving, right?

Well, not quite.  When a group of English settlers arrived at the Berkeley Hundred on 4 December, 1619 they knelt and prayed, thanking God for their safe passage.  Moreover, the Berkeley Company, which organized their settlement, decreed that "the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned... in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God."  (If, however, you want to be a real stickler, Spanish settlers in Florida beat their English brethren by several decades, with a mass of thanksgiving and dining with local Native Americans in 1565.)

To be honest, most Virginians don't actually celebrate Virginia Thanksgiving, though there is an annual Virginia Thanksgiving Festival (which was moved to the first Sunday of November, in the hope of avoiding bad weather).  So why bring it up at all?

I have no problem celebrating the Massachusetts Thanksgiving, which has been a federal holiday - currently marked on the fourth Thursday of November - since 1863.  As Americans, we are all part of a single body.  We rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.  But we also belong to local communities and cultures.  Apart from a short stint my in-laws spent in Boston when in graduate school, neither I, nor my wife, nor any of our ancestors have any ties to New England.  So why not celebrate something tied to our own state?

Fostering local holidays and culture can be an important part of building local solidarity, a sense of brotherhood with our neighbors, one which ultimately bears fruit in helping one another.  But how do we go about doing that?  For starters, what do you eat for Virginia Thanksgiving?

The Virginia Thanksgiving Festival offers a wide range of foods, from the usual turkey and cranberries to BBQ, baked beans, coleslaw, Brunswick stew, Virginia ham, sweet tea and pecan pie.  If you're historically minded, Colonial Williamsburg and Mount Vernon both offer colonial recipes.  If you'd like more contemporary fare, simply ask your Virginia neighbors what they like to have at the holidays.  (It's a good excuse to actually talk to your neighbors!)  Or make up your own family customs; historical longevity is great, but it's the building of community that matters most.

Tomorrow our family will be eating turkey and mashed potatoes, like most Americans.  But in a couple weeks, we'll take a stab at celebrating Virginia Thanksgiving as well.  If you live in the Commonwealth, maybe you should try it too.

Can We Afford To Care for Our Neighbors?

Virtually everyone recognizes the desirability of caring for our neighbors.  But in an age of spiraling debt, can we afford to do so without busting the bank?  (In the recent election here in Virginia, Ralph Northam's opponents' primary argument was that the state could not afford his policies.)  I think we can afford to care for our neighbors, for several reasons:

1. Social welfare should be a safety net, not a free ride.  There are a few with incapacitating handicaps who may require care for the remainder of their lives.  But these are few and far between.  Most people simply need a little help getting back on their feet.  Programs should be designed with this focus, providing, for example, vocational training, job searching services, and various forms of matching funds.  If you're providing for every need from cradle to grave, you're not only spending beyond the government's means, but also robbing people of the dignity that comes from being responsible for themselves.
2. Local duties always come first.  Families should not be asked to care for their neighbors when they cannot provide for their own children.  Communities should not be asked to care for the next town over when the cannot afford to care for their own.  Christian Democracy embraces the idea of subsidiarity: problems should be solved at the lowest level possible, by the people who understand them best and have the greatest stake in them.  When we return more powers to state and local governments, taxpayers can have greater confidence that they are being asked to shoulder burdens that match their abilities.
3. Social welfare should include frequent public-private partnerships.  Civil society has a vigorous role to play.  Just as the safety net should support, not replace, personal responsibility (see point #1), so too government welfare should support, not replace, the excellent work of private charity.  Americans have a strong tradition of helping our neighbors through a wide variety of civic and charitable organizations.  Deep in our American DNA is the sense of duty to volunteer and that's a wonderful thing.  Government programs should be tailored to support, with matching funds and light-touch regulations, the work of private organizations.
4. There are opportunities for savings.  Increased transparency can shine a light on waste and reveal places where we can save money.  Spending on big-ticket hardware and government support to large corporations, typically in the form of generous tax breaks, cost taxpayers every year.  If we can close some of the loopholes and trim some of the waste, that leaves more money available for caring for ordinary Americans, particularly veterans, the elderly, the sick, and the poor.
5. Not caring comes with costs too.  Minor health problems which would have been small, had they been addressed early on, can become costly chronic ailments.  Small investments in basic health can avoid those costs.  Drug abuse can become drug addiction which can lead to a variety of crimes, which in turn harm society and force us to spend money on policing and prisons.  A little money spent on drug rehabilitation may go a long way.  The list goes on and on.  The point is: before balking at every dollar spent, let's think about the issues at stake and make prudent, long-term decisions.

The American Solidarity Party platform states that, "we have an obligation to care for our neighbor, and especially to defend those who are most vulnerable. We believe that ensuring every person has access to essentials such as food, shelter, education and healthcare is an achievable goal in our society."  Let's work together and make it happen.

Why We Are Flying the German Flag Today

Our family flies the US flag most days, but we also have a small collection of state and foreign flags. Since the white supremacist rallies here in Charlottesville, we have not flown our German flag. Not that there's anything racist about the Federal Republic of Germany, but we certainly wanted to avoid any misunderstanding.

I like flying a variety of flags. I think it is a useful reminder of our multiple identities and layered loyalties. I am an American and proud to fly the Stars and Stripes. But the US Constitution (signed on this day in 1787!) divides power between the federal and state governments. My wife and I are both proud of our home states and happy to fly their flags (albeit, in the case of Mississippi, the historic Magnolia flag). Our ancestors came from a variety of countries and their cultures are part of our heritage too. Identity is not an either-or question. We are Americans and Virginians and Catholics whose roots are in Arizona and Mississippi, France, Germany, Sweden, and half a dozen other countries. And we hold all those identities at once.

September 17th is the birthday of Friedrick von Steuben, a German aristocrat who came to America to help our young republic fight for its independence. His birthday - or a day near it - has long been marked as a celebration of German-American heritage. From my German-American ancestors I inherited a penchant for hard work, Biblical faith, and hearty food. I'm happy to honor them.

There are many stories that explain why the German flag three stripes of black, red, and gold. Many of these stories are legends which may or may not be historically true. But they tell us something about how people think about politics. My favorite explanation of the colors comes from the Weimar Republic, the attempt to create a democratic Germany after World War I. The black-red-gold flag that the Weimar Republic adopted is said to represent the three major political parties which worked to defend the republic against extremists on the left (Communists) and right (Nazis). These three parties were the Centre Party (black), Social Democrats (red), and Democratic Party (gold). The Centre Party was heavily Catholic, committed to seeing faith made manifest in the social and political life of the country, but also willing to compromise and work with other parties to see that realized. The Social Democrats were a party of the working class, closely tied to labor unions; they sought to protect the rights of workers and their families. The Democrats - whose heirs in modern Germany are the Free Democrats - were what we call "classical liberals," a party of the middle class committed to the free market, the rule of law, and efficient government.

Between them these three defenders of Weimar republicanism express a decent approximation of my own political views, namely Christian Democracy. We must always be mindful of the men and women whose labor - often manual - makes our country and its prosperity possible. But we also have a duty to ensure that this is done in a manner that is free, fair, and transparent; rather than creating a mess of regulations and bureaucracy, we should craft a simple set of rules in which all people can thrive. And all this should be done with love for our neighbor and acknowledgement of divine sovereignty, from which we derive our sense of justice and to which we own ultimate loyalty.

Why I'm Interested in Wilhelm Röpke

I recently bought a copy of Wilhelm Röpke's A Humane Economy as well as a biography of him. Röpke (1899-1966) was a Swiss economist who inspired the German economic miracle under Konrad Adenauer's Christian Democrats and, so far as I can tell, held firmly to two ideas: (a) The economy must be a moral place which cares for all of society. (b) Individuals and private institutions, not the state, should be the primary actors in the economic sphere. With regard to the latter point, he bears much resemblance to Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics, which staunchly supports the free market against an overly regulatory state. But unlike Mises or F. A. Hayek - to say nothing of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of libertarianism - Röpke explicitly emphasized the social and moral role of the economy.

The demands of social justice are clearly written in the Gospels and across both the Old and New Testaments. The appeal of this part of Röpke's thinking to me is obvious. But I am also attracted to the small, individual, private vision as well, for at least three reasons I can identify:

(1) As someone coming from a conservative, formerly GOP background, I have some deep-seated suspicions of government. Some of these are irrational. Many I have abandoned over the years. But some remain, with good reason, I think. We have seen in other arenas - such as same sex marriage or the never ending war in Afghanistan - the pernicious effects of a government that may have too much power for its own good.

(2) I would not characterize America's welfare state as a failure. There are many good programs accomplishing a great deal of good in our society. And yet, deep problems remain. I think it is worthwhile to at least ask if there might be alternatives to simply creating another program. This is particularly so in the US, which has a deep tradition of volunteerism and individual initiative. Large government-directed social programs may make sense in other countries, but I think Americans instinctively want to do these things themselves.

(3) Being moral agents and caring for our neighbors are fundamentally individual responsibilities. There are many legitimate roles for the government, but there is a cheapening of our dignity if, at every turn, we simply pass our moral obligations on to distant bureaucrats. Encountering the poor and the weak, the stranger and the outcast for ourselves is an experience - and a duty - which no program, however well-meaning or effective, can accomplish.

So I'm excited to read more abut Röpke and his ideas. If I find the time both to make headway on my new reading and to type up some additional thoughts here, I look forward to sharing my new discoveries.

"Under God" - On Its Necessity

This post first appeared on The Guild Review.  Sorry for the shortage of posts of late; I hope to change that in the coming weeks and months, but life has been busy!

In 1954 a joint resolution of Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.  Among those pushing for this addition were the Knight of Columbus, an American Catholic fraternal organization.

To secularists, these words are anathema, an attempt to establish an official religion and overturn the First Amendment.  To others, these words nail America's flag to the mast of Christianity, underscoring that this country is, and always has been - at least in their view - a Christian nation.

I am both less confident and less interested than this latter party in America's Christian heritage.  This is not a debate I wish to enter today.  Rather, I would like to contend that the words "under God" are essential for Christians, or indeed probably any people of theistic faith, to say the pledge.

My hang up is the word "allegiance."  Christians owe their allegiance to Jesus Christ, their Lord and their God.  He is king of the universe and king of their hearts.  All Christians are, rather literally, monarchists.

This does not necessarily mean that Christians should be theocrats, endorsing government by bishops or other clergymen.  Indeed, Jesus Himself insisted that that which is Caesar's should be rendered to him.  But I would contend - as I tried to flesh out some years ago - that the republics we establish by the consent of the governed must exist under the larger kingship of Christ.  He has granted us, so to speak, the right and responsibility of looking after the affairs of our particular polities. But this does not change the fundamental reality that He is the ultimate lawgiver, judge, ruler, and commander.

So when a Christian - or, so far as I understand, a Jew or Muslim as well - is asked to swear allegiance, the natural question would be, "Do you mean allegiance in the ultimate sense, or in the local, political sense?  If you mean in the ultimate sense, my allegiance is to God alone."

Perhaps, you say, it is obvious that a political pledge is concerned with allegiance in the local, political sense, and not in the universal, theological sense.  Perhaps that should be obvious.  But across the centuries - and certainly in the 20th - regimes have made claims that exceed the political.  They have demanded that their own fiat should trump the consciences of citizens, that the good of the state is more important than the moral law.  In such cases, the political has claimed an unholy, idolatrous precedence.

Let me be clear: I do not think America is on the verge of becoming a totalitarian dictatorship along the lines of the Communists or the National Socialists.  But it never hurts to make clear, long in advance of any problems, the terms of our discussion.  And let us not forget that the dictatorship of relativism is quite strong and that it must be opposed, in culture and, yes, sometimes in politics.

Concerns about the First Amendment's establishment clause are not to be taken lightly, but neither should we overlook the fact that, absent these two little words, large swaths of America would rightly have serious questions about taking the Pledge of Allegiance in good faith.

Four Tips for Living Localism

In the past 15 years I have moved more times than I care to count. I have lived in four states and the District of Columbia, as well as spending a semester in Italy and a summer in Germany. Both of my parents are from states other than that where I grew up, and I married a gal from yet another state. I am what David Goodhart calls an "Anywhere," a person at home in the globalized, cosmopolitan world.

But there are problems with such a globalized view. As R. R. Reno recently pointed out in First Things, self-government necessarily requires some sort of localism. The larger the entity involved - epitomized by that largest of all entities, the global community - the more likely that political and cultural elites run the show in a insular world that common folk can rarely penetrate.

In the last few years my wife and I have settled down in Greene County, Virginia, where we own a home and raise our children. I am ready to become a "Somewhere," a person rooted in a given place, a person committed to living in solidarity with one's neighbors. But how do you go about doing that, in concrete ways? Let me make four suggestions:

(1) Get to know your neighbors. Yes, your literal neighbors, the people whose homes are within sight of yours. Wave when you see them getting the mail. Talk to them on a Saturday afternoon when you're both out mowing the lawn. Invite them and their kids over to have take-out pizza on your porch some Friday evening. There's no substitute for actually knowing actual people.

(2) Subscribe to your local paper. I have had a subscription to the Financial Times, a British newspaper focused on international business and politics, almost continually for the last decade. It is emblematic of my status as an Anywhere. But lately I also took out a subscription to the Greene County Record. The journalistic quality is hardly the same, the problems discussed are hardly as large. But I think subscribing to the local newspaper, however modest it may be, has a couple virtues. It helps us understand the problems and opportunities of our local area. I have been surprised to discover how many concerts and classes there are, at little or no cost, near our home. Moreover, a subscription to the local newspaper encourages investigative journalism - or at least some level of coverage - regarding local politics. And that's important. One reason so many local political scenes are run by a good ol' boys network is that there is so little media attention focused on local politics. My 50 cents per week is a modest contribution toward improving such coverage.

(3) Take an interest in your lowest level of government. Who represents you on the city council or county board of supervisors? Do you know how long their terms are? Where they meet? How much authority does your local body have? Given the limited media coverage, you'll have to do some homework on this one, but the local newspaper will help you. And you may be pleasantly surprised to discover that, in conjunction with your neighbors and other informed citizens, you can actually make an impact on local politics, with visible results in your community. It's not always easy, but probably a lot easier than trying to change the outcome of a presidential election.

(4) Get involved in your house of worship. Don't just show up for worship once a week. Get to know your fellow worshipers. Join a Bible Study or men's or women's group. Find a ministry that needs your help. Serve on a committee. Teach a class. So much of the basic fabric of civil society has been destroyed, but one of the few places you can still reliably find its remnants are in houses of worship. I don't think that's a coincidence: our faith in God has implications for how we love one another. So if you want to see your local community reinvigorated, your fellow believers may be a good place to start.

Pontificating on Dylann Roof - Is It My Place?

I recently published a blog post calling to spare Dylann Roof from the death penalty. But as I was pushing the button, I heard a little voice in my head. The conversation went something like this.


Aaron Linderman, the Reader: Back in November you wrote a post about boundaries, about not having an opinion on things that aren't really your business. You don't live in South Carolina. Your family wasn't among the victims. You're not on the jury. Is it really your place to be commenting on this?

Aaron Linderman, the Writer: Does seem rather inconsistent, doesn't it?

Reader: Yes, it does.

Writer: Well, I suppose I was trying to articulate a principle, namely, that in cases like Roof's, we - and by that I mean the people of Virginia, my state - should show mercy.

Reader: Perhaps you should have been clearer about that. Perhaps you should have written about some of the people currently on death row in Virginia.

Writer: That's a good idea. But I think the argument would be basically the same: These are unsavory people who have grievously hurt society. But rather than continuing the cycle of violence, we should demonstrate that we live in a humane civilization and spare their lives. Moreover, in the overwhelming majority of instances, there's no serious case that they pose a threat of escaping and striking again.

Reader: But on that point about the ongoing danger to society: Are you aware that, here in Virginia, six death row inmates escaped from the Mecklenburg Correctional Center in 1984? It can happen.

Writer: Indeed, it can. A group of seven who escaped in Texas in 2000 also comes to mind. The state has the responsibility to protect society.  For this reason, I think we should probably keep capital punishment on the books, but with several strict limits: (1) There must be the utmost certainty of the defendant's guilt. These days that probably means DNA evidence. Here in Virginia Earl Washington was wrongly sentenced to death, and there are many other cases as well.  This is utterly unacceptable.  (2) It must be a particularly heinous crime that is being punished. (3) The prosecution must make the case that there is a real probability that the defendant could escape from a maximum security prison and kill again. Speaking of prison security, I'd be quite happy to vote for extra money for maximum security prisons, so that we can have confidence in a life sentence.

Reader: This is all interesting, but aren't we getting away from the initial question? Is it really your place to comment on this case?

Writer: Carnes Lord, in his book The Modern Prince, discusses the "right to be wrong." He argues that our elected leaders - not bureaucrats or investigative journalists or other backseat drivers - have been vested by the people with decision-making authority. A bureaucrat has a duty to describe a situation as best he can and to subsequently carry out his orders as well as possible. He does not get to decide, in a fundamental sense, what to do. Elected leaders are vested with that power. We can criticize their decisions, but we must also recognize that, in giving them the authority to make such decisions, we are also granting the possibility that they will make poor ones.

That concept may be relevant here. A jury of ordinary citizens in South Carolina has been given the authority to decide Dylann Roof's fate. I contend that the best choice would be to grant him mercy - even, and perhaps especially, if he is uninterested in it - and spare his life. But I also recognize that government is best conducted, whenever possible, at the local level. And if the above discussion has demonstrated nothing else, I think it shows that this is a complex question. The South Carolina jury is free to make their decision as they see fit. But I do hope they choose life.

Mercy for Dylann Roof

The trial of Dylann Roof, the murderer of nine worshipers at a black church in Charleston in 2015, has now moved to the sentencing phase. The basic question is whether Roof will received life in prison or be executed for his crimes.

There is no doubt that Roof's attack was heinous. In addition to the deaths themselves and the attendant suffering inflicted on the community and the families of the victims, Roof's motive casts a further specter: he sought to ignite a race war in America.

In spite of all this, Roof's life should be spared. His execution would potentially make him a martyr to those few people who share his twisted views of racial superiority and violence. In contrast, sparing his life demonstrates that American society retains the moral high ground and will not stoop to the kind of vindictive actions Dylann Roof has taken.

To my knowledge, no one is making the case that Roof poses a significant threat of escape. So long as he remains behind bars, he poses no threat to society. His blood need not be shed to protect the rest of us.

Human life has dignity - all human life. If we embark on the task of choosing which lives are and are not worthy of respect, as Dylann Roof did, we enter morally dubious territory. Human dignity is innate and inalienable; even acts as heinous as Roof's cannot erase the sacred calling given to him and every man and woman on the planet: to love and to be loved.

Perhaps, as he lives out his days in prison, Dylann Roof might yet come to see that. I'm not optimistic, but I can hope.


UPDATE: For further discussion on this topic, see the follow-on post.

It Is Not My Place To Have an Opinion

My wife and I recently finished watching Downton Abbey. (Behind the times, I know.) One of the interesting features of the series is how often a character, when asked about some important matter, will answer with something like, "It is not my place to have an opinion." It's not just the servants who express such sentiments; even among the aristocracy, this sense of boundaries is keenly felt.

It strikes me that contemporary America is need of such a sense of boundaries. At present, whenever there is a problem or controversy anywhere in the country, people a thousand miles away begin commenting on things about which they know very little and social media storms brew in no time. Apart from the most grave forms of injustice, we need to trust our fellow citizens in other communities and other states to resolve their own problems. We need to trust that good people in other places will be the voices of decency and reason. They don't need us pontificating about every headline that crosses our news feed.

Films to Heal America

America is in serious need of reconciliation and healing. That was bound to be the case whatever the results in Tuesday's poll. So I asked some American Solidarity Party members for film recommendations to help foster such healing.

The suggestions were wide-ranging, including religious films (The Mission, The Island, There Be Dragons), films about wars (Joyeux Noel, The Railway Man, To End All Wars), films about America (Remember the Titans, Forrest Gump), films set in ancient Rome (Ben Hur, The Robe), and films set in foreign lands or the dystopian future (St. Petersburg, Les Miserables, The Diary of Immaculee, Hunger Games). Here are three I thought particularly notable:


Of Gods and Men (2010). A community of Trappist monks decided to stay in Algeria alongside their Muslim neighbors, even as the civil war turned decidedly ugly.  This is their story.




The Tree of Life (2011). This film tells the story of one man's life through his recollections of childhood and particularly his parents. (Side note: Robert Barron gave some commentary on this film as well.)




Pay It Forward (2000). A film about the power of kindness toward others.



Have you seen any of these films? What did you think? Are there others you would recommend?

Vote Your Apathy!

Tired of the latest news about Clinton's mishandled emails? Disgusted by Trump's treatment of women? Ready to endorse the Giant Meteor just so we can be done with this election? If you're feeling apathetic about the presidential election, go vote that apathy!

Staying home may be understandable, but it sends the wrong message. It lets the major parties think that more of the same is ok. And it's not.

A third party vote, far from being wasted, sends a message that we need fresh voices, new perspectives, and a real commitment to the common good. So go vote for Michael Maturen and the American Solidarity Party. But if you can't get behind ASP for whatever reason, vote for independent Evan McMullin, Libertarian Gary Johnson, Constituionist Darrell Castle, or the Green Party's Jill Stein. Whatever you do, don't let your apathy be mistaken for agreement. Vote for change.

Is a Third Party Vote Wasted?

This post first appeared on the American Solidarity Party of Virginia website.

You can’t talk about voting for a third party for very long before someone will say, “I don’t like either major candidate, but I’m not going to waste my vote on a third party.”

But is it a waste?

Those who make such comments would point out that, particularly in the presidential race, the odds of actually electing a third party candidate are quite small. In this sense, success is virtually impossible and so the vote is “wasted.” But voting Republican in California, or Democratic in Alabama, is also virtually guaranteed to “fail,” in the sense that these states’ electoral votes are foregone conclusions.

Voting third party, like voting Republican in California or Democratic in Alabama, can send a powerful message. It demonstrates that there are voters out there, voters willing to go to the polls, who have values that are not currently being reflected by the major parties. This is an invitation – to the major parties, to donors, to fellow voters – to rally to those values and the voters who stand by them.

Voting always involves a moral hazard. When you vote for someone you support them, their pros and their cons alike. We generally weigh these and find someone whose positive traits and policies we think are more significant than their shortcomings. Nevertheless, by casting a vote, we are, in some measure, supporting those shortcomings too. In settling for a major party candidate, you may be taking on a larger moral hazard than you’d like. Why not choose a third party candidate with whom your conscience can sleep well at night?

“But what about the Supreme Court?” some people ask. Are we not obligated to vote for a major party candidate, however bad, in the hope of saving the highest court from the justices that the other candidate would appoint? As writers all over the internet have been pointing out, that line of thinking is filled with holes. It rests on a long string of “maybes” and “what ifs,” ignores the role of the Senate in confirming justices, plays upon fear, and overlooks the poor quality of justices we’re likely to get from either candidate.

Next month you can send a clear message that you want something different. You can vote third party. You can vote for American Solidarity. Or you can add your vote to the sea of messages you did not craft and with which you do not agree.

The choice is yours.

Constitutionalism, Solidarity, and Immigrant Heritage: Three Reasons to Celebrate Today!

Today is a triple holiday!

On this day in 1787 the delegates to the Constitutional convention signed the document that has provided the foundation to our political order. As much as we grumbled about contemporary politics, I think the US Constitution deserves recognition as one of the most stable systems of government the world has seen and the framework within which America has prospered in freedom and material plenty. (I would add, in passing, that Constitution Day is a sadly under-celebrated holiday in the US, though the University of Dallas always celebrates in style, with rousing singing of patriotic songs in all of their verses. Definitely worth attending.)

But a constitution, even a good one, is largely an empty vessel. It is the grammar, if you will, of politics, not the contents. Those contents are provided the people, parties, and policies that operate under that system of government. On 17 September 1980, the Solidarity labor union was established in Poland, under a constitutional arrangement far different from our own. But in spite of the Communist system within which it was forced to operate, Solidarity acted as a powerful force for good, reminding us to always pursue what is best, in spite of the odds or circumstances.

Finally, 17 September is also the birthday of Friedrich von Steuben, one of the foreign volunteers who aided the young republic. It is observed in a few localities as Von Steuben Day (complete with parades in New York, Chicago, and Philly). For all its exceptionalism - and America is indeed an exceptional place - our country owes a great debt to the hard work and diverse contributions of many waves of immigrants. Von Steuben Day is a reminder that our arms should continue to be open to those seeking to come to our country.