My End of the Year Book List for Conservatives

It is nearly New Year’s Eve and the time of reflection is greatly upon us.  This reality is especially poignant in the wake of a revolutionary left-liberal presidential victory and the onset of substantial economic challenges.

Under the circumstances, I thought now might be a good time to propose a list of outstanding books for the intellectually curious friend or fellow traveler.

I would not dare attempt to put these in order based on excellence.  Just consider it a series of number ones.

1.  Lancelot by Walker Percy — A southern moderate-liberal is slowly fading out of his own life.  He doesn’t know what his purpose is or where his marriage and family are going.  But then, something strange happens.  He discovers there is such a thing as evil.  Percy won the National Book Award for The Moviegoer, but Lancelot is my favorite.

2.  Witness by Whittaker Chambers — Surely, the greatest memoir of any man of the right.  Possibly, the greatest memoir ever.  I once tried to copy out the passages that meant the most to me and ended up just typing in whole pages at a time.  For those too young to know, Chambers was an American traitor loyal to the Communist cause, who left the Communists for what he felt was the losing side.  He had to do it because of his recovered belief in God.  In the course of his life, he became a senior editor of Time magazine and ultimately defeated Alger Hiss in legal battles over Hiss’s identity as a communist agent.  Since Frost/Nixon is hot, you might also know that Richard Nixon’s presidency would likely never have happened without his championing of Chambers’ cause.

3.  Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand — I can’t resist putting Chambers and Rand together, especially since Chambers was the instrument William F. Buckley used to read Rand out of the conservative movement.  As a Christian, I find Rand’s work antithetical to my own sensibilities, but I have to admit its power.  Besides, this is a conservative-libertarian list and she can’t be left off.  On the other hand, as literature, it cannot rank with the greats.  I still remember the moment when John Galt grabs a microphone to speak to the nation . . . and one hundred pages later is wrapping it up!

4.  After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre — This is arguably the finest and most readable piece of political philosophy I have ever encountered.  Anyone who wonders why our political discourse has become so poisonous and incommensurate should read this work.  So, for that matter, should anyone interested in answering John Rawls.  George W. Bush would have known long ago that “the new tone” was destined to fail, if only he’d read his MacIntyre.

5.  Anarchy, Utopia, and the State by Robert Nozick — I’ll make this one simple.  Robert Nozick provides the most convincing case for a minimalist state that I’ve ever seen.  You can break your head on his symbols and formulas, but bear with it because you WILL get it if you keep reading.  Even if you were only to read the short portion where he tells his “tale of the slave” you will be confirmed in your libertarian instincts.

6.  Man and the State by Jacques Maritain — This collection of lectures about the relationship between the individual, the culture, and the state contains the kind of essential thought we wish every politician understood.  Careful, wise, insightful.  You will understand many things better after reading Maritain. If you would like to read political philosophy, but have been afraid to start, this may be your entry point.

7.  Stained Glass by William F. Buckley — William F. Buckley is dead and I don’t feel so good, myself.  However, I am comforted by reading his best works.  This Blackford Oakes heart of the Cold War novel is one of his strongest entries.  You want to see the kind of chess match the Soviets and Americans were playing?  Then, read this Buckley spy novel.

8.  The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer — Would you like to know who was the prince of the Christian conservatives?  It wasn’t Falwell or Robertson.  It was Francis Schaeffer.  The missionary who set up a Swiss Chalet spent years arguing with college students in Europe.  Along the way, he formed a convincing apologetic for the existence of God and the reality of values.  (I am almost required to point out that Schaeffer was wrong in his critique of certain figures.  So, I said it.  Still, this book is great stuff.)

9.  Perelandra by C.S. Lewis — I could have chosen almost any title by C.S. Lewis, so I picked the one that had the greatest emotional impact on me.  Perelandra is the second book of Lewis’s space trilogy (underappreciated next to Narnia).  The story centers around the drama of Adam and Eve being replayed on a new planet with an earthman there to witness it.  Utterly compelling and, of course, full to bursting with philosophical and spiritual meaning.

The Professor’s Lament

This semester was my first one teaching in addition to working as a university administrator.  Rarely have I longed for a Christmas break like I did for this one.

Teaching brings up emotions that are difficult to describe.  You have so much invested in the students.  Do they show respect?  Are they listening?  What’s going on behind those laptop screens?  Can they be helped to understand what it is to form a legitimate research question or to argue persuasively for some point of view?

And then there is the grading.  Some papers and exams are profoundly gratifying.  Others are incredibly frustrating.  you feel as though their writers simply occupied space in the room and learned nothing.

But enough about my thoughts.  What moved me to post was this beauty by Joseph Knippenberg (a friend and mentor of mine).  Here’s a sample:

We have a technologically-induced short attention span. We like, and can have, our information in short, easily digested bursts, soundbites, if you will. These are not arguments, but at most quips or wisecracks. They almost have to be short because they are placed in a context where there are many competitors for the audience’s time and attention. What’s more, because we have the capacity to accompany them (and compete with them) with video and audio, it’s relatively easy for the words and arguments to be overwhelmed by the images. Stated another way, our multimedia age privileges images and the emotions they evoke over arguments that are more likely to appeal to reason or to provoke a reasonable response.

I’m going to throw myself against the tide this semester.  I’ll be teaching an intro to political science survey where I intend to have the students leave the laptops shut and to read through Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Mill, Locke, and many others with me.  We will find the passages that are jewels and dwell upon them.  I’m praying lots of lights will come on.

Talking Paul Weyrich with Richard Viguerie

After writing the piece on Paul Weyrich for Friday’s online TAS, I found out a friend had a connection to Richard Viguerie, one of the pioneers of the modern conservative movement. He recalled a decade beginning in the in mid-seventies of breakfasts with Weyrich and other conservatives, including Newt Gingrich at one point, in his home.

Viguerie, like everyone I’ve spoken to so far, had a high opinion of Weyrich and his value to the movement. “Paul was a master strategist. He saw around corners. There were many occasions when he alerted our group to issues well ahead of time.” When I pressed him to explain Weyrich’s virtue as a strategist, he said, “Many people have mentioned that Paul coined the term “moral majority”. That’s not so much. His influence was bigger than that. It was Paul’s idea to bring the religious right on board.”

One of the things that stood out most as I listened to Viguerie was his recollection of Weyrich’s force within the context of a meeting. “When Paul had something to say, he spoke with confidence and authority. You had to be awfully sure of yourself to contradict Paul. I know I rarely did. The man was clearly a political genius.”

Viguerie also reinforced the positive things I’ve heard about Weyrich’s character. “Paul had one face for the world. One face. Period. Once he made a commitment, that was it.” He echoed others, too, in emphasizing that Weyrich was not a self-promoter. He was committed to the movement and not to building up his own reputation.

His estimate of Weyrich’s contribution to the movement? “He ranked with Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan. He was a major contributor.” It sounds grandiose. I don’t claim to be in a position to evaluate the statement. But one thing is certain. Viguerie is not the only person I’ve heard put Weyrich in that class.

Reading Russell Kirk

It’s the end of the year, so the book lists are out.  I’m thinking about conservative icon Russell Kirk.

If you want a really enjoyable and edifying read, I recommend you begin with The Roots of American Order.  That book will give you an understandable and historically grounded sense of what “ordered liberty” means. It will also open the mysteries of Kirk wide to the uninitiated reader.  The prose is lively.  Highly readable.

Kirk is more widely known for the book that made his reputation, The Conservative Mind, but I think The Roots of American Order is a better read for the vast majority of people.

Welcome, American Spectator Readers.

I’ve written this post in anticipation some of you will be visiting in response to my tribute to Paul Weyrich which will be at TAS on Friday.

Let’s get off on the right foot.  I’d like to introduce you to a recent piece I did on whether social conservatives and libertarians can maintain their political marriage of convenience.  My answer is YES.

Thanks for the visit.  Stick around and kick the tires.

Obama, Rick Warren, etc.

I have major policy disagreements with Barack Obama, but I have to admit that I like the way he handles himself. He gets this big left-wing backlash for having Rick Warren give the benediction at the inaugural and his response is pitch perfect. Boiled down to essentials: This is a big country and there are a lot of ideas around. There are going to be many points of view represented by people interacting with the White House.

Awfully good appeal to pluralism in the best sense of the word. Score one for Mr. Obama.

Bailout, Paulson, and the Failure of Technocracy

What exactly happened in the wake of Henry Paulson’s impassioned plea for a bailout of no less than $700 billion dollars?  Irwin Stelzer narrates:

Consider this. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson persuaded congress to give him a $700 billion pot of money with which to buy the rotten IOUs on banks’ balance sheets. The theory was straight-forward: relieved of this burden, the banks would resume their role of lenders to potential homeowners, businesses, and consumers. Sounded like a good idea. But almost immediately it occurred to Paulson that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had a better idea–recapitalize the banks by buying shares so that they could begin lending again. That, too, was confidently touted as a good idea. But we have moved beyond the range of what we know about credit crunches. All we know is that the results so far have not matched the predictions of the proponents of these policies. Which is one reason why Paulson decided not to use the second half of his $700 billion, and to leave it to the next congress and the incoming president to decide whether it might not be better to pass the remaining $350 billion directly to home owners falling behind in their mortgage payments.

Think about that for moment.  The Secretary of the Treasury demanded a massive bail-out of Wall Street and banks predicated on the idea that there was no choice and that something had to be done immediately.  There was no time to think it over, to consider alternatives, etc.  This same bail-out affected the dynamics of the presidential election and, more importantly, scared millions of consumers into save mode thus exacerbating economic forces pushing toward recession.

THEN, he decides his approach was the wrong one!  And further concludes he should wait on figuring out what to do with half of the huge bail-out funds?  Congressional spines should be stiffening everywhere.  The technocrat who came in with demands based on his incredible authority and expertise has been left flailing.

Kathleen Parker and “Secular” Reason

Kathleen Parker has a major case of secular reason sickness and it needs to be cured.  I’ll keep this short and simple.  Here is an offensive line from one of Kat’s latest columns:

How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one’s values, but let reason inform one’s public arguments.

Problem #1:  Social conservatives very rarely argue for their public policy positions on the basis of straight-up revelation.  It is much more common to hear them talk about scientific evidence that life begins from conception (which could be found in an embryology textbook, for example) than to hear a scriptural exegesis of, say, Jeremiah 1.  If anything, American social conservatives have worked quite assiduously to persuade their fellow citizens without direct appeal to revelation.

I think the Yale Law professor Stephen Carter was more correct several years ago when he complained conservative Christians relied on a platform that lacked spiritual distinctives and simply mimicked Republican positions.  See, Kathleen, Mr. Carter is a scholar in the area of law and religion.  His observation runs completely counter to yours, which you have seemingly formed on the fly in response to your personal Sarah Palin fiasco.

And let us not forget that when some Christian leaders hid behind the separation of church and state to avoid addressing topics like Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and nuclear proliferation, their liberal colleagues were applauded for highly public spiritual approaches to those controversies.  When liberals do it, we call it “speaking truth to power” or “speaking prophetically.”  When conservative religionists enter the political process, everyone suddenly frets about impending theocracy.

Problem #2:  Ms. Parker acts as though everything we discuss in politics can be parsed scientifically.  This is the same sort of casual toss-off we get when some self-satisfied personage says, “You can’t legislate morality.”  Really?  Hate crimes?  The illegality of segregation?  A welfare state?  Human rights?

The simple fact is that politics concerns itself with the realm of value as well as the realm of fact.  There are both religious and philosophical approaches to questions of value.  Is there any compelling reason to commit epistemological segregation, Ms. Parker? Must the religious contestants sit at the back of the bus to satisfy you?

How Obama Can Lead Us to Recovery

I have been part of an email correspondence group for a couple of years now which includes a number of strong public policy thinkers.  One of the best is a man named Francis Cianfrocca (aka “Blackhedd”) who writes regularly at Redstate.  He has been spot on with regard to the current financial crisis.  I’ve read far better stuff from him in my inbox than I’ve been able to find at CNBC or Fox Business News.  All of this is to say that he is plugged in to the financial community and has a strong analytical mind for making sense of it all.

Here is his latest.  And here is a taste:

Obama could sweep away a lot of this uncertainty and unreasoning fear with no more than a ten-minute news conference.

He could stand up, with the towering Paul Volcker, the sour-pussed Larry Summers and the sardonic-looking Tim Geithner standing behind him, and say the following:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve consulted at length with my economic team. We’re acutely aware that our economy is facing great uncertainty. We understand that our system is a capitalistic one. We intend to do whatever it takes to get business and capital working again, for the sake of every consumer and working person in America.

We also recognize our critical responsibility to the rest of the world. As the pre-eminent economic power, it’s up to us to lead global markets back to health and prosperity.

I’m announcing the following key decisions, which we will stand by until our markets are back to normal, employment is growing, and our economy is healthy again:

All tax increases on capital, dividends, and business income are OFF THE TABLE.

All protectionist legislation, including increased tariffs and import duties, are OFF THE TABLE.

All new regulations, mandated costs and taxes on businesses, including export businesses, are OFF THE TABLE.

That is all. Thank you.”

If Obama were to give this speech, you’d see explosive market rallies, and everyone would heave a big sigh of relief.

So how about it, Mr. President-elect?

Sounds like some first class “Nixon goes to China” action to me.