A Time To Build, Yuval Levin

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/book-review-a-time-to-build-decline-congress-other-institutions-american-life/ 

The link takes you to another review of the book. 

"Forms vs Platforms" is the essential theme of the book. 

The military is certainly about forming, as Mona included in her review; “If you hear that someone attended Harvard,” Levin offered at an American Enterprise Institute forum, “you may conclude that he or she is smart. But if you hear that they attended the Naval Academy, you’ll probably conclude that this is a serious person.” I'd suggest "Fortitude" if you don't understand that distinction.  

Sadly however, the Harvard graduate is only "smart" in a narrow, very specific set of "excellency in perfectly punching the ticket" way.  They met a very specific set of criteria -- and NOT going outside of that box (lest they be "cancelled")! "Common Sense" is certainly not even related to that ticket -- the "winners" usually end up being "Excellent Sheep". 

Levin has a good section on "beyond meritocracy" that describes how we got into a set of elites that are all about performance without depth, and often arrogant, isolated, and fragile. 

The family is the ultimate most universal "form" as we all know (and have experienced), and is described in the book, it is terrible shape in our time. Levin doesn't really face how to beat that problem -- nor does he tell us how. He hints at it on page 202, when he talks about "devotion" ... devotion to work, devotion to our organization ("institution"). "It calls on us to pledge ourselves to an institution we belong to unabashedly". 

Can this be possible without religion? Pretty much all of my study of culture gives a sad and wistful, but assumed to be impossible wish for a return to faith -- in the West, generally Christian faith. The assumption is that this is impossible "because of Darwin". Perhaps, impossible for man, bout with God, all things are possible! 

Since Levin has largely written off religion -- although he does mention that there is a SMALL hopeful movement to more religious orthodoxy (Amy Coney Barrett would be an example) he largely just lists some possibilities for reform of institutions. Educational, political, civic, etc. 

My view, documented in MANY blog posts is that "the institution(s)" must be very close to "God, family, community, country" in that order. 

On page 194, he puts his finger on THE problem -- a conflict of worldviews. The progressive worldview assumes a human as fully formed, requiring only to be liberated from oppression to be free. Man is viewed as "basically good, noble, etc" ... Rousseau was one of the founders of this view. "Moral Believing Animals" covers the "we are all stuck in our own box" problem very we.ll. 

The alternate view, best expressed by Christianity, views man as fallen, requiring redemption and the Holy Spirit to reach his potential -- grounded in a supporting family, church, community and nation. It sees man as "clay" to be moulded by these institutions, and in the process of moulding, to be part of larger institutions --  a university, a profession, a "party", service organizations, etc. 

Yuval is not so specific as to use Christianity as an example of what is needed, but I see it as an excellent model -- naturally, as well documented in the book, also largely in tatters today. 

So if you pull out the foundation of God, can you build on "SOME truths we hold be self evident"? I don't see how, given the fact that there are two models that are in extreme conflict. The left, with man as god, basically good, and able to build "heaven on earth" on his own, and the right, with man as fallen, requiring the help of God to move to a better, though far short of "heaven on earth" existence" in this mortal coil. 

My study shows many thinkers seeing the problem of what we have wrought with the "man is god" movement in the last couple centuries. Most see us as at a crossroads, where the choices are a return to God as God, or a totalitarian state where man (the government) is god. 

Do we even have that choice, or is it God's?  

The Meaning Of Equity

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/deep-meaning-of-equity.php

Definitely worth following the link, and for the video oriented, viewing the embedded video there. 

The very short answer is "equity" is shorthand for "equality of outcome", or even more accurately "social justice" as defined by critical race theorist Ibram X. Kendi. If you have any questions, you are a racist, and if you even want to be silent on the issue, remember, "Silence Is Violence", you MUST celebrate whatever Susan Rice tells you on the topic! 

“Equity” is not equality (i.e., equal rights). It is a substitute for equal rights. “Equity” requires the authorities to determine who gets what according to the race, the ethnicity, or other status of the beneficiaries. It is updated Marxist claptrap in which race replace class.

Ie, "Identity Politics".  

Rand Paul Stands Up

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/voter-fraud-nothing-to-see-here.php

A good little clip to watch in the PL link. Stephanopoulos is certain that voter fraud was not a factor in 2020. I wonder if he was as certain that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election. 

Rand appears to have a backbone. 

Bezos, Amazon Oppose Mail-in Voting

https://beingbeliefbehavior.blogspot.com/2021/01/behold-biden-all-things-have-become-new.html

The link takes to to the Seattle Times, the only "mainstream" source I could find reporting this ... albeit in a rather "coded" way.  

The important quote is: 

Jeff Bezos — a strong Democratic supporter — and Amazon are aiming to postpone a unionization vote at one of its warehouses in Alabama, the Wall Street Journal reports. Interestingly, Amazon has requested that the National Labor Relations Board reconsider allowing mail-in voting, claiming that the mail-in voting process has “serious and systemic flaws.”

For which you have to go to "right wing" sources like this. 

One reason we are divided is because of what is NOT reported -- if you only listen to the MSM, you never hear this. You believe that "all reasonable people accept mail in voting is safe and secure". Counter claims are "without evidence". 

Certainly none of the "elite" would think it has "serious and systematic flaws"! 

One would have to be some sort of deplorable Trumpist to think that!!! 

Behold Biden, All Things Have Become New!

 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/biden-catholic-christian.html

Biden's liberal "christianity"? Well, no, what is happening is faith in "the thing". 

Here we have a bit of detail in what sort of thing this faith is in: 

When it was time for the homily, the Rev. Kevin F. O’Brien, the president of Santa Clara University and friend of the Biden family, compared Mr. Biden’s upcoming inaugural message to the words of Jesus.

“Your public service is animated by the same conviction,” he said, “to help and protect people and to advance justice and reconciliation, especially for those who are too often looked over and left behind.”

“This is your noble commission,” he said. “This is the divine summons for all of us.”

The actual Christian commission is found in Matt 28:

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The article makes it clear that while there is a lot of "liberalism" in this faith,  it is "Christian" in name only. Like the rest of our "culture", whatever "it" is, it is not culture, and certainly not "Christian".  We live in an age of fake religion, fake culture, and fake virtue. What we have is increasingly real Fascism. 

Practicing Christians that know Christ died on the cross to redeem us from eternal damnation, not to foster new social programs that attempt to make the government "God". He told his followers to feed the poor and other good deeds -- not to puff your chest because you voted to outsource your "good deeds" to the government. 

There is still nothing new under the sun. "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Indeed ... and sadly in this world, mostly evil. 

Reading the article shows just how far we have fallen from that tree.

President Biden, perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century, speaks of how his Catholic faith grounds his life and his policies.

He may be "religious" and to some degree, even "Catholic" (to the extent that church abandons life, marriage, sexual morality, etc), but he is in no way Christian, unless he repents!  

 

The Prince of Darkness

 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/books/review/Shafer-t-2.html

Naturally, the NYT review is biased, though it does give a "liberal that don't know they are liberal" view of the book. 

A better short description of the book is "The story of a conservative reporters journey from being a moderate liberal the manner of Scoop Jackson to being a moderate conservative in the manner of Ronald Reagan". 

It is a "nice", though hard hitting remembrance of the times from the 1950's to the Obamanation end of America. It gives a view of American culture and daily life from the perspective of an actual journalist that knows he is biased, and has a decent handle on his biases. 

It covers more detail than necessary (understandable given his "involvement") on the "Plame Affair" ... Joe Wilson went to Niger because his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame,  recommended him. Wilson brought back a non-committal report on Saddam attempting to get yellowcake (for nuclear purposes). Richard Armitage told Novack about it -- which he reported, including his wife's name -- wich was listed in "Who's Who In America" as Wilson's wife (so not a "secret"). 

The media, the Democrats and the Deep State (but I repeat myself) used this to claim that the "leaker" was Dick Cheney, possibly directed by Bush to "get back" at Wilson for his "report" that Saddam did not deal with Niger. 

Like much of our Fake News today, it was a totally a manufactured "scandal" -- a likely case is that it was manufactured by the CIA and blown out of all proportion by the media and the Democrats, but given what we know now about the media/deep state/Democrat effective singularity, it matters not. With the advantage of hindsight, we can see it was all fake. Like the Russia hoax. The message is "Republicans are EVIL" ... and when the hoax is outed, the media ceases reporting on it and never says "our bad" ... and then it is on to "Ukraine" or something else. 

I thought it read well, because I enjoyed his writing style and his chronicling of the massive drinking, smoking and general "hard" lifestyles of the late 50's and 60's.  

He matter of factly covers the vote fraud that "elected" Kennedy, and he used his being a registered Democrat and sneaky journalist skills to personally observe the massive voter fraud in Daley's Chicago. You know, the thing that never happens and you have to be a racist crazy to claim it does! 

If you are interested in an insider's view of American politics of the 50's to Obama, this is a good book. If you are a liberal, you will like the NYTs review which will naturally put a left spin on it.  

Cancelling Orwell

 https://www.vox.com/culture/22233197/orwellian-definition-george-orwell-1984-politics-english-language-josh-hawley-donald-trump-jr

Sometimes the rantings of the left are simply funny -- although tragically "funny" as Biden is inaugurated. 

It’s possible Donald Trump’s greatest talent is driving people to buy copies of 1984.

When Trump took office in 2017, sales of George Orwell’s dystopian classic went up by 9,500 percent. And in the wake of January’s Capitol riot, as Senator Josh Hawley decried his book cancellation as “Orwellian” and Donald Trump Jr. responded to his father’s ban from Twitter with the lament that “We are living Orwell’s 1984,” 1984 once again flew up Amazon’s bestseller list, briefly sitting at No. 1.

Last time 1984 returned to the bestseller list, it was because terrified liberals feared the Trump administration would drive us straight into the dystopian horrors of 1984, in which Big Brother is always watching, forcing his subjects to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 if he says it does. This time, it appears to be because outraged conservatives fear that private corporations have begun to censor public speech. But either way, it’s Orwell’s time to shine again.

And so “Orwellian” has become the word of the moment. In fact, it has become the kind of lazy, hackneyed, cliché word of the moment that Orwell himself despised.

So when Trump took office, the sales of 1984 went upf 9,500 percent. As Biden takes office, the sales briefly sat at #1. THEREFORE, it is now time to declare mentions of Orwell's 1984 "as the kind of lazy, hackneyed, cliché word of the moment that Orwell himself despised."

Naturally, when Trump was elected, references to the book were entirely valid! The "truth" is whatever MSM says it is -- and if you say "what about", well, the left has discredited any invocations of "hypocrisy" directed at them via the new term "Whataboutism" -- though of course use of such accusations against the right are still valid. 

I'm quite certain that VOX was totally fine with "sexual preference" went from being fine in the AM until Amy Coney Barrett used it, to offensive in the PM!

Are there ANY words that are not merely whatever the left says they are? 

The 1776 Commission Report

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/1776-commission-reports.php 

I have not taken the time to read the report yet, but I'm certain that given the people involved in developing it, and the organizations opposing it, it is worthy of attention. 

A statement on what it is about: 

The 1776 Commission—comprised of some of America’s most distinguished scholars and historians—has released a report presenting a definitive chronicle of the American founding, a powerful description of the effect the principles of the Declaration of Independence have had on this Nation’s history, and a dispositive rebuttal of reckless “re-education” attempts that seek to reframe American history around the idea that the United States is not an exceptional country but an evil one.

Transgressive / Adversary Culture

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/descent-of-the-adversary-culture.php

Mostly here as a link to other interesting posts on the subject line of "we oppose everything that doesn't worship us and our views (remember, under BLM, "Silence Is Violence")

This is from a post by NR on "succession of American academic culture":

The sensibility pervasive among our educated class — it is fair to call it the liberal sensibility — not only functions to obscure concrete actuality but works as a potent force for uniformity, eroding the sources of variety in order, as Minogue puts it, “to provide every man, woman, child, and dog with the conditions of a good life” as conceived by liberalism. Thus liberalism constantly endeavors to minimize or abolish conflict. Have men fought over differences in religious doctrine? How foolish: such differences are unimportant. But men have fought over honor. That too is irrational. Nations themselves seem to be an important cause of conflict. Let us then abolish them, and move toward an international world state. Racial conflict is virtually universal. Irrational again: there is no difference among races, though they differ in appearance. Conflict arises out of inequalities in wealth or nurture or education. We must extirpate differences here by abolishing aristocratic schools and so forth, and by progressive taxation.

A question that I've often attempted to answer from First Things:  

The elite endorsement of BLM radicalism and tacit approval of street violence raise a vexing question: Why are society’s most powerful opinion-makers supporting a revolt against mainstream legal, political, and cultural institutions? Aren’t these elites themselves, in a real sense, the system? How is it that those so richly rewarded by our society have come to ally themselves with society’s angriest critics?

What are the elites searching for and at least declaring that they are finding? This from the linked taking a trip to Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua. 

My fellow guests glared at me when I asked skeptical questions: What about the Sandinistas’ contempt for human and political rights? What about their attempt to turn the Catholic Church into an arm of the state? No answers came, and I began to suspect the motivations of hosts and their guests went beyond selfless concern for suffering peasants. Many had traveled to Central America on ideological pilgrimages with organizations such as Witness for Peace. As they recounted their experiences, their eyes lit up and their voices quickened, as if to say, “I once was lost but now am found.”

Leftism believes it is providing "redemption" to the liberal elite ! 

Sociologist Paul Hollander came to the United States after escaping from communist ­Hungary in 1956. Having first-hand ­experience with a totalitarian regime, he was baffled to encounter American intellectuals who were sympathetic to communism and endorsed its revolutionary aims. Some even championed ­Stalin, Castro, and Mao. Hollander saw that they were captive to an oppositional habit of mind, which led them toward a hypercritical repudiation of our nation’s institutions. Worse, this habit of mind led them to misperceive and idealize systems like the one he had fled, while overlooking or denying the virtues of their own society.

... and you shall know them by what they oppose. Opposition to "America" (really Western culture)  has been transformed into virtue in the minds of the left. 

Humans have an innate desire to seek redemption, to seek the sacred: 

As if to vindicate Trilling and Hollander, amid the destruction, a new, quasi-religious source of meaning has sprung up. In a city where many churches remain closed in response to COVID-19, activists have barricaded a several-block area and erected a shrine to George Floyd. In describing the site, which has drawn pilgrims from around the nation, a local official ­unwittingly articulated the impulse at the heart of the adversary culture: “We have an obligation to keep sacred what is sacred.”

Today the nation that used to be America inaugurates a man who gained power by his own admission using "The greatest voter fraud organization in history". 

From this low point, it appears the "Adversary Culture" has "won" by devious means. What would you expect from a culture that reveres Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ortega, etc ?

An Intelligent Person's Guide to Modern Culture, Roger Scruton

 I found this review to be "useful", though less positive than I am on the book. 

My kitties have declared that I need to post this warning that the moose is NOT an "intelligent person", but a moose of little brain. Honesty is the best policy! 

As a Confessional Christian, I was struck by this statement on page 7; "In religious belief and observance, it is not the large differences that count, but the small ones. The nearer someone is to me in his religious convictions, the greater my revulsion to the 'errors' which divide us". 

At one level I agree -- at least for more conservative evangelical churches, splits over "issues" like "what conservative Christian university you support", and even more minor, like "you allow women to dress too stylishly" are common. I suspect the Amish have a lot of discussions about proper piety. 

In this secular age, however, where Christians are a clear minority in the West, I find this to be "less true". I very much appreciate a monthly table talk at a local pub which usually is half Catholic and half Missouri Synod Lutheran. Both believe in the same creeds, and both agree on what are now considered  by the secular culture to be "social" as opposed to "religious" differences -- abortion, gay "marriage", transgender, etc. Very civil and useful talks, however we still do not share the communion table. I see that as appropriate, however we are on the same side of the barricades in today's culture wars. As this book makes clear, culture is CRITICAL!

OTOH, it would be a more difficult (however maybe more valuable) if the discussion included a Baptist (or other "fundamentalist"), and an ELCA Lutheran (or other "mainline")  Christian faith. The confessional churches generally agree on the social issues, and on the inerrancy of scripture, although they disagree on the specifics of the sacraments, and of course, the pope. The "mainline" faiths generally agree on the creeds to some degree, sometimes marginally on the  "real presence" in the sacraments (though usually they practice "open communion"), where the confessional churches do not. Some of the more strict "fundamentalists" weight "be ye separate" as a more important admonition than "love even your enemies", which would seem to ban "shunning". Those who have left the particular "fundamentalist" faith usually fall far short of being "enemies". (there are certainly verses that can be taken to support "shunning")  ... a topic not for this post. 

It's complicated. In 1974, a personal "young love" relationship I had was broken up firmly by her Catholic dad. She was a good daughter that honored her father, so "that was that". Today, the mainline Christian faiths, and even many (most?) of the confessionals would take an "evangelical and catholic" union as "what a relief"! The "mainliners" might be slightly stressed by a gay or some sort of transgender union, but it would be highly unlikely they would not accept it -- significantly because there would be no question that the children would not respect the parents wishes, and would very likely shun them -- "Honor your father and mother" is very nearly a thing of the past. 

From the mainline position, marrying a "conservative", or (Horror!) a Trump supporter, could lead to estrangement -- with a very high probability of estrangement if the parents were on the "confessional/conservative" side. In the modern world, "politics" and the secular humanist faith trumps all, especially family. That is one of the points of the book. Being woke is "morality", all others are deplorable, including your family. The secular IS the culture. 

On page 32, we find; "Rational activity involves both ends and means. In a technological age we acquire increasing grasp of the means to our goals, and a decreasing grasp of the reasons we should pursue them". Amen.

"The mystery deepens In a consumer society, when all channels of social life are directed to consumption" ... [of things, of entertainment, of signalled "virtue", etc.]

The book assumes that religious belief is impossible for most of the general population in the Darwinist "Secular Age" -- at least for the intelligent/educated. Since I fail the intelligence test, my religious faith proves my stupidity from a secular view. The book asserts that "higher culture" is a possible replacement for religion, and that a continuation of culture demands a replacement,  even if it is just living "as if" your life has eternal meaning. Scruton practices the Anglican faith -- this article goes into some depth on his fairly complex faith. I'm a lot less judgemental than the article -- my personal experience and faith include at least significant periods of doubt and practicing "as if" faith is a "solid rock", even in the dark nights of doubt and or despair. Sometimes it doesn't "feel" that way -- which is why practicing my faith in daily devotion and regular communion is critical. Even if it involves risk, as in the age of Covid. 

Higher culture is classic art, classic, music, sculpture, architecture, etc ... read the book for more. I'm REALLY stupid (though attempting to study) in those areas. I'm bourgois to the core. Scruton has been one of my guides on that path ... though I'm a poor student. 

The old Western "common culture", ("bourgeois") is a special object of hatred to the "post modern / woke". As we find on page 129, "Those who propose alternatives [to the bourgeois society], however never study them. They are led by hatred of the present to a blind faith in the benefits that will come from destroying it." A statement I could not agree with more. 

To me, it seems like after seeing the USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Communist China, Venezuela, etc -- in my mind, temporal examples of hell, the left says "yes, let's give that a try"! In a modern version of Milton, "I'm happy to live in hell as long as those damned bourgeois are punished"! 

In the conclusion; "We have knowledge of the facts, knowledge of the means, but no knowledge of the end." I would add that the "facts" known by the left are purely materialistic. They are devoid of what makes us different from automata, ... any idea of "beauty, love, the soul, etc" is at best an inconvenience. 

As a deplorable moose, I dare to be stupid.