Freedom, Democracy, and Secularism?

Here’s the opening to my latest Touchstone article “The Soul of Liberty.”  You can find the whole text here.

You can find a lot of interesting things on Twitter packaged in pithy statements of no more than 140 characters each. Some of you may recall that in the aftermath of the 2009 election in Iran, a number of protesters claimed that the government had tampered with the results to stay in power. Twitter was a key channel they used both to express their outrage and to receive support from sympathetic Westerners, many of whom shaded their profile pictures green as a sign of solidarity. I happened upon a number of short statements from students in Iran who asked for “Freedom, Democracy, and Secularism!”

 

Having studied the history of the West and paid particular attention to the question of religion and politics, this combination of concepts struck me as odd. But it obviously resonates with many Iranian students, who repeatedly use the Internet to call for this combination of political ideals. I find it again and again. They seem to believe it is the formula.

 

But do these three concepts belong together?

Read the rest at Touchstone . . .

A Theory of Deja Vu

Deja vu is the sensation that one has already experienced events that are happening in the present.  There have been times in my life when I have experienced that feeling very powerfully.  For example, I have had conversations in which I suddenly felt seized with conviction that I had already had the discussion before and thus could predict with complete accuracy what the other person was about to say.

Some think that it is just a trick of the mind, misfiring neurons or something like that, but I don’t buy that.  How can one explain a moment in which one briefly becomes capable of predicting the course of the next 30 seconds or so?

I have come up with my own explanation of this phenomenon.  Maybe time is not linear, even though we experience it that way.  Maybe everything has happened, is happening, and will happen all at the same time.  All of time already exists, but we are only capable of perceiving it as past, present, and future.  If that is the case, it seems possible that the me now could potentially access what the me in the future knows.  Somehow, this notion links up with the concept of eternity.

What I can’t explain is why it never happens with anything big.  The times I have had deja vu, it has related to knowing ahead of time things like people’s odd movements (a stumble, twist, or gesture), or a water fountain spraying up in someone’s face, or the next few turns of a conversation.

What Happened in Vegas Didn’t Stay in Vegas . . . GSA Version

Taxpayers are agog as they read tales of the General Service Administration’s junket to Las Vegas that emphatically did not stay in Vegas.

We have read about private room parties, paid mind readers, sushi bars and expensive recreational opportunities. The fun was apparently so important, the agency sent out advance scouts on multiple early runs to check out facilities.

My students and I calculated the cost per attendee. The agency spent nearly $900,000 for 300 attendees. We came up with approximately $2,800 per person. Pretty rich for government work.

Some readers look at the cost of the GSA conference and say, “Big deal. Major corporations do this kind of thing all the time.” A couple of answers present themselves.

First, big companies are private entities, and it doesn’t affect me how they choose to spend their money on employees. It is up to their shareholders to concern themselves with whether they are losing profits due to overspending.

Second, I can count on the market test to protect me from their extravagance. For example, if Procter and Gamble was to regularly waste its funds on similar activities, there is a good chance Colgate-Palmolive could find a way to exploit the mistake and undercut P&G on price.

The problem with government overspending on fun activities and rewards is multifaceted. GSA might tell us their employees deserve this kind of trip to Las Vegas. They might say they’ve done an excellent job for us. But how do we know this is true?

With a private company, it is simple to see how well they have competed in the marketplace. We can observe whether they have made or lost money.

With an agency like the GSA, we basically have to take their word for it. Instead of having to earn money, the GSA receives a large appropriation from Congress each year. The trip to Vegas looks more like a way to spend all of the appropriation and ask for more the following year than it does like a reward for great service.

Another problem is that every time money is spent, there is an accompanying opportunity cost. For example, if a student chooses to take his parents’ money and spend it on video games, then he may not be able to buy his books for the semester. The one expenditure rules out the other one. Or it causes the student to resort to taking on more debt.

What opportunities is the GSA missing because it chose to spend nearly a million dollars and many hours of employee time on a taxpayer-financed vacation? What other uses might have been superior?

A million dollars might have paid for 10 inspectors to spend a year looking for government waste. And those inspectors might have actually found a way to return money to government coffers.

Given the trillions of dollars of debt the government currently faces, a figure shy of a million is pretty small stuff, a tiny amount. But the principle, if followed elsewhere, could add up quickly.

Besides, as one student pointed out to me, the amount the GSA spent could be more than the taxes he pays during his whole working life. And it would be a shame that those taxes were spent so wastefully.

 

Downton Abbey Explains Classic Conservatism

Over the weekend, I finally took the dive into Downton Abbey.  I have been amazed to see English society of that time presented in a well thought out way.  You really see life from the point of view of a maid, a butler, a man of the middle class, etc.

But the one that really got my attention was the Earl of Grantham, played by Hugh Bonneville.  The Earl is in the unusual position of having lost two heirs in the Titanic.  His American wife’s huge fortune merged with his own when they married.  They have produced no sons.  Now, the estate (including her money) will go (by English law) to a distant cousin.  No one really approves of this result.  But when the Earl is encouraged to find some way to smash the entailment, he refuses.  Why would he not seek some device to benefit his wife and daughters at the expense of a cousin?  It makes all the sense in the world.  But he does not.

His explanation for his lack of combativeness on behalf of his nuclear family and their rights is informative with regard to classic conservatism.  He will not try to defeat the ancestral entailment because he views himself as a custodian of the estate, not as its owner.  He knows that someone else conceived and built Downton Abbey.  The simple fact that he is the current possessor does not entitle him to tear down their intent in favor of his own.  In short, the Earl of Grantham is connected to his ancestors and to those who come after him.  He has duties and obligations to both.  He may not view himself as a disconnected atom capable of doing whatever he can conceive, especially when he acts in a setting in which he stands on the shoulders of those who came before.

If you want to know what authentic conservatism is, that is it.