I Am Endorsing . . .

Let’s get one thing out of the way.  I will not be endorsing a Democrat.  I have voted for one Democrat in my entire life.  He was an African-American man running for Sheriff in Jacksonville, Florida.  He ran a tough on crime campaign and did become the top cop.  I hope this lack of endorsement for the party of the left will not too much disappoint my friends who think I am almost reasonable enough to go Democrat.  I’m not.  Not even close.*  :-)

Now, on to the matter of my endorsement (which I imagine may move ten voters if I am lucky, but I am an optimist).  I have to hope that some of those ten are in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina.  This choice is an agonizing one for me.  I like practically all the candidates in the field.

Trump is an outlier.  He has his charms, but not as a GOP standard bearer.  In any case, Trump is out for me in the primaries.  Talk to me again if he becomes the nominee.

Ben Carson is also out for me.  He is not prepared on a policy level.  Neither is Trump, actually.  My question to Ben Carson is whether he would perform surgery with the level of preparation and understanding he has on policy.  He wouldn’t and shouldn’t.  He’s out.

The rest of the major candidates are live options.  I don’t easily eliminate any of them.  I will tell you honestly that up front I was a Bush man.  I deeply regretted Jeb Bush’s loss in the 1994 Florida governor’s race because I thought he was the best Bush and had the most to offer.  I also had great hopes for his appeal to Hispanics given the make-up of his nuclear family.  But he has either been out of the game too long (since 2006 after two terms as FL gov.) or the field has been too much disrupted by Trump for him to win.  I am not endorsing him because victory appears to be impossible at this point.

I am also not endorsing John Kasich and Chris Christie because I think they are too limited to get enough votes in state after state of primaries.  They can do damage in New Hampshire where they can camp out for weeks, but as the primaries pile up, they will be left behind.  I like both men and think they are well-qualified.  Christie would have run best in 2012 when we were all joyfully watching him blast his detractors in New Jersey on Youtube.  (While I’m at it, Huckabee would have been something in 2012.)

In different circumstances, I think Rand Paul would have done better.  Part of his problem is that he has Ted Cruz pushing for an originalist view of the constitution and for federalism and doing it in a much more interesting way.  That hurts Paul.  In addition, I don’t think he is a match for his father, Ron, as a libertarian evangelist.  He’s out, too, but there is a future for him or someone like him in national politics.  Libertarianism will gain traction in a low-consensus society.  It will also grow in reaction to the burgeoning socialist-lite movement Bernie Sanders is leading.

Carly Fiorina is out because her resume’ just doesn’t match up.  In many ways, she’s Mitt Romney, but less successful in business and not a former governor.  She is really good on the campaign, though.  She needs to run for Congress or find a friendlier state than California.  The future is there for her if she wants it.  She also has been struggling to be on the big stage.

All of this leaves me with Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  At the beginning of the race, I would have told you that I didn’t want a senator and certainly not a first term senator.  I wanted a governor.  President Obama, in my mind, has demonstrated that executive experience is a must.  But here we have Rubio and Cruz like Kennedy and Nixon.  A couple of young guys rising fast.  Both good at getting votes.  Both men who overthrew establishment opponents.

I like both men.  They are excellent on the debate stage.  Neither will be victims who run around apologizing for their conservative views.  Having been to law school and understanding how our constitution has been warped and twisted, I feel real affection for Ted Cruz because I know he gets that.  Watching him go off on the moderators for their questions in the CNBC debate was amazing.  In addition, I have felt angry with evangelicals who treat Cruz as though he is some theocratic monster.  It isn’t that hard to know what he’s really about.  As I’ve said before, he is really just a Reagan conservative.  Pure and simple.

However, I have decided to endorse Marco Rubio.  My reason is simple.  He is the most conservative candidate who can win.  It’s the old William F. Buckley formulation.  I have been watching politics my whole life.  I still remember watching the 1976 returns come in as I sat on the couch with my mother.  I was so in love with Crossfire in the 1980’s, a friend and I would call each other at the beginning, at the commercial, and at the end to talk excitedly about what we’d seen.  My fascination never abated.  Marco Rubio is the most talented candidate I have ever seen.  Cruz is awfully good.  Rubio is awfully good and then some, plus he doesn’t attract as much enmity.

It is crucial to win now.  We don’t need any more HHS mandates.  Obamacare must be reformed and improved upon.  Perhaps most pressing for me is that I don’t want to see a bureaucrat at the Department of Education issue a regulation that will block access to financial aid for students at Christian colleges and universities.  We also need to win now if only to preserve some balance in the federal court system.

Marco Rubio has the greatest chance to improve the state of the union and to prevent and roll back overreach from an emboldened left.  For that reason, I endorse him.

(There is one caveat to all this.  Ted Cruz has made the point that he is the only candidate who can beat Trump in Iowa.  It seems to me that it would  be wise to prevent Trump from winning Iowa AND New Hampshire back to back.  If I lived in Iowa, I think I would vote Cruz to try and prevent Trump from getting the win.)

Marco Rubio is my guy for the nomination.

 

*Why can’t I vote Democrat?  Two main reasons.  The first is that the Democratic party is decidedly pro-choice.  Morally, I equate that view with something like segregation.  That means it has massive priority that cannot be ignored.  There used to be plenty of pro-life Democrats, but they are nearly extinct.  The second is that the Democratic party is increasingly secular and uninterested in religious liberty.  That again is a situation that has changed.  If we go back 25 years or so, the Democrats probably valued religious liberty more highly than Republicans.  Secular, left-wing liberal values are too antithetical to my own.  I can’t vote that way.

The Year’s Reflection: Writing, Fitness, Life Changes

I turned 45 this past year.  It is hard for me to believe because moments in my memory are so accessible.  I remember sitting in the front row in first grade, being threatened by a bully the next year, listening to a fourth grade teacher rave unhappily about our bad behavior, having a fight at a bus stop in middle school, sitting nearby when a big kid snapped and pounded his tormentor . . . Some of these memories are violent, aren’t they?  Well, they are from my time in public school.  But I also remember my mother’s Christmas cookies, my dad catching probably hundreds of thousands of balls thrown by me in the backyard, and spectacular stained glass windows in an Episcopal church we attended for a while.

These memories are so fresh and yet at 45 I am feeling my own mortality.  I may have sleep apnea.  My knees are a mess.  I have a vicious caffeine addiction that I have nearly extinguished (for the fourth/fifth time?).  I had massive back problems which seem to be largely solved by getting a new mattress.  That’s a long way from the days when I could crash on the floor of a friend’s house.

2015 began and ended with the flu.  I had a severe version about year ago and a much attenuated round this December.  Thank God for a wife and a primary care physician who pushed me to get the vaccine.  It worked this year.

I tried something new in terms of working out in 2015.  I have long been a big walker.  One of my favorite things is to walk about five miles while I listen to music or podcasts.  There were two problems.  One is that I got tired of having to protect my increasingly vulnerable skin from the sun.  The other is that all the pavement pounding seemed to be exacerbating my back problems.

As a result, I finally acceded to my wife’s desire to join a fitness club.  We started going to Gold’s Gym.  It has the advantage of having treadmills with television.  That way, we can get our kids to walk while the Cartoon Network plays in front of them.  They appreciate it since we cut the cord this year.

I thought I was going to be a bike and treadmill guy, but it just didn’t capture me.  Walking inside is not as good as walking outside.  So, I ventured into the room with weight machines.  Since June, I’ve been lifting.  And I have to say — listen my fellow chronic fat fighters — nothing has been better for me in terms of reshaping my body than lifting weights.  My arms, shoulders, and chest are bigger, while my waist is smaller.  I feel taller, more like a healthy beast (at least when I’m not waking myself up with some titanic snore in bed).  The bottom line is that I have had years where I put an enormous amount of walking miles on the scoreboard, but didn’t experience nearly the body improvement I got out of lifting.

The great thing is that it didn’t even require much in terms of overcoming intimidation.  I have done most of the lifting in the room with the nice, padded machines.  Only in the last month have I begun to venture down into the basement where the hulks of Gold’s Gym dwell.  I had to go down there because I made it to the point of using 30 pound barbells and everything upstairs is lighter.  It’s a little weird being down there with people who feel like dedicated professionals, but they go about their business and you go about yours.

A lot of my writing this year translated into speaking.  I began the year speaking at Trinity International University (at the seminary) in Chicago (with snow!) and ended it at a small, start-up great books school in South Dakota.  In between, I delivered a presidential inaugural address at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho.  The place is often a hotbed of controversy because of Douglas Wilson’s amazing ability to generate it. I have to say, though, that the town was beautiful and the community around the college seemed very warm and productive in terms of learning. One stop took me back to Houston Baptist University where I had the chance to give “A Graduation Speech before Graduation.”  I’ve sat through so many commencement addresses, I have developed a pretty strong sense of what I’d like speakers to say.  So, I said those things to students at a chapel service in the beautiful Dunham Theater.

In addition to the speaking, I wrote online mostly for The Federalist, which is a website created by Ben Domenech.  Ben is well known as the editor of The Transom (a daily email service) and increasingly as a national media personality.  I recruited him to create and edit The City back in 2007.  He and I collaborated on that publication (with me writing the back of book reflections) until this year.  Now that neither Ben nor I are at HBU, the college decided to put it under the control of its own personnel.  We had a nice run of about seven years.  Some folks might be curious about my choice of The Federalist as an outlet because it can be a bit edgy (despite being conservative and Christian friendly) in terms of some of the items it publishes.  My logic has been to go where the readers are.  And The Federalist has readers.  One piece I wrote a couple of years back on the liberal arts was shared thousands of times of Facebook.  Bill Buckley quit writing for Playboy when he figured out there were very few actual readers for him to influence.  I don’t have that worry with The Federalist.  Its readers are thinkers and the content is about the text, not pictures.

The dominant theme of the speaking and online writing had to do with Obergefell.  During these last several years, I have been somewhat unique as a Christian conservative in the sense that I worried very little about gay marriage (in and of itself), but worried a great deal about the impact of gay marriage on religious liberty.  I think those concerns have been well-founded.  Gay marriage has the potential to be a lever for removing Christian institutions (other than the churches narrowly as churches) from the entire non-profit charitable and educational life of the country.  While the majority decision in Obergefell offered some reassurance on that score, the warning issued by the Chief Justice in his dissent has a piercing ring to it.

I wrote a chapter for a book put out by the Gospel Coalition on whether Christians can still change the world after Obergefell.  In addition, I wrote essays for the Journal of Christian Legal Thought (“Was Carl F.H. Henry Right?) and for the Journal of Markets and Morality (on whether the idea of Christian America was invented by corporations).  Both of those are forthcoming.

Finally, but not comprehensively in terms of the work, I served as a judge for the Christianity Today Book Awards.  One thing I have learned from that process is that if you think you have a good book to offer, then you should encourage your publisher to nominate it.  While all the books I reviewed were quite good, I’m sure several others would have been worthy of inclusion.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, I agreed with practically everyone else that Russell Moore’s Onward deserved the nod.  But I also liked Stanley Carlson-Thies and Steven Monsma’s recent effort on religious liberty.

On the personal side, I had two opportunities to spend time with Rod Dreher.  His book, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming, absolutely wiped me out emotionally when I read it.  We met at an ERLC event and then again when he came to Union University.  He suggested I drive through Louisiana and visit at some point.  Maybe he’ll become our conservative version of Wendell Berry with folks driving over just to take in the spirit of Walker Percy amid the pines and set a spell.

Leaving work aside, I think I’ll finish with something that meant a lot to my wife.  Ruth wants to travel.  I don’t like traveling.  Too much fuss for me.  But I recognized that I needed to go along with it this year.  We planned a trip to Colorado.  Denver was a lot of fun, but the really special part was the YMCA in the Rockies.  Possibly the greatest real estate purchase of all time.  And guess what?  This is a YMCA where the C still stands for Christian.  Most people were there with conferences, but we were just there as tourists.  We hiked, saw wildlife (such as elk and moose), fly-fished (where I caught nothing and Ruth caught seven), heard a John Denver tribute band, played Bingo, and sat by as son Andrew pursued Josh McDowell into a bathroom to ask if he knew his dad.

See you in the funny papers.  (I just realized everybody under 40 has no idea what I mean . . .)

 

 

The Idea of the “Worthless” College Degree

new york public libraryI keep seeing stories about “worthless” college degrees. That’s hard for me to understand when I look at the comparisons between the economic lives of those who have a college degree and those who don’t. College is obviously worth something on the market.

Now, is the college graduate always going to have a better economic future than a technically trained person (such as Rubio’s welder or a plumber or what have you)? No. But in general, the college educated person has a much easier time navigating the job market than those who don’t have such a degree. To choose one indicator, those who have college degrees experience a much lower unemployment rate than those who don’t.  It’s silly to keep arguing that college is worthless.

But let’s go a little deeper.  Let’s assume that you think the content of the learning at college is worthless.  So, take a history major and assume that you believe the information transmitted is of zero worth.  I disagree strongly, but let’s assume it, anyway.  The student who majors in history spends four years showing up on time to class, learning how to take notes, reading, writing, observing how professors think and work, and hanging out with a group of people who are pursuing their education.  At a minimum, the habits and raw skills picked up in the course of such an experience are worth something.

This is where grades come in to some extent.  If you take a student who has majored in something unrelated to the job for which they are applying, I would ask about their grades.  If they have proven they can satisfy their professors through on-time performance, following instructions, and showing up (which is a big deal), then that means something to me.  It means they are willing to learn, can do what they have been asked to do, and can do it successfully.  That’s a person who can function well in the workplace.

Let’s take it further again.  I double majored in economics and political science as an undergraduate.  My learning in those subjects have enriched my life in many ways.  My life as a citizen is better.  I know more and understand more than I otherwise would.  I have a broader range of things I enjoy reading and watching beyond just popular entertainments.  I encounter the world in a more sophisticated way.  The way I evaluate institutions, the things I think about when interacting with a salesperson, the way I think about incentives . . . these are all things that are positively influenced by my education, whether or not I ended up using it in a direct, professional way.

We could go on.  Education is good.  It just is.  The only reason we are getting these stories about it being “worthless” is  because tuition prices are high.  That’s a valid complaint, but don’t make the mistake of turning a dissatisfaction with price into a critique of the substance of higher education more broadly.

But you know what worries me?  The people who write these stories about “worthless” college degrees appear not to appreciate their own education.  But that’s okay.  They’re in good company.  Peter Thiel (who co-founded Paypal and was an original Facebook investor) pays young people not to go to college.  He doesn’t seem to recognize the good his philosophy degree at Stanford did for him.

Socrates at Sportsclips

I put my glasses down on the counter and sat down in the barber’s chair.  Sometimes, it feels as though that act will preclude conversation, as though I had removed hearing aids instead of eyewear.  The young woman cutting my hair in this case felt like chatting.  She asked the standard question about my occupation.  I answered that I teach politics at the local university.  And when you say politics, they tend to get interested.  Everyone has an opinion about politics.

She observed that now must be a big time for me because of the upcoming presidential election and the debates.  I told her that’s true, but that most of my teaching these days has to do with political thought from another age.  One of my colleagues took a job in another city.  Now I find myself teaching Plato and Aristotle.

“How is that different?” she asked.  As an example, I told her about Plato’s proposal for a community of wives and children for the guardians of his city.  He thought it would create greater love and unity.  Every boy will have many fathers.  Fathers will have many sons.  I followed that by explaining Aristotle’s objection to the idea.  He said that a son in such a community would not really be a son, but more like 1/1000th of a son.

Most people I know react by agreeing strongly with Aristotle.  But this woman surprised me.  She said, “I’m a single mom with five kids.  I think I like Plato’s idea where everybody takes care of each other’s children.”  I didn’t stop her to clarify that nobody in Plato’s proposal really has their own children because her admission hit a nerve.

I thought about what it must be like to be a woman with five children, a job, and no husband.  From where she’s standing, a society pulled in much closer by government plans and ideology seems like a good idea.  I don’t blame her.  She’s going to want the government daycare, the public after-school programs, the universal healthcare, and the rest of it.  She feels alone and is looking for allies.  Government is one answer to her vulnerability.

If you are a person who prizes liberty and who wants to keep the government limited (which is where I have always been), it is important to realize that there are a lot of people like the woman who cut my hair.  The challenge she poses is a serious one.

Don’t write her off.  She’s out there working and striving.  The question is whether both sides have something compelling to say to her . . . or only one.

Chubby 44 Year Old Goes to Yoga

Yesterday, after hearing a colleague extol the experience of yoga at Gold’s Gym, where I am a member, I decided to attend a class.  My wife, Ruth, was going to meet me there at 5:30.  Somewhat assured by the idea of having Ruth and a colleague in the class, I decided to commit to the venture.

Upon arriving, I quickly learned two things.  First, this would be HOT yoga (with the thermostat turned way up).  Second, every other person in the class (Ruth didn’t make it and neither did the colleague) was a prime physical specimen.  No body fat on the men or women and bulging muscles on the men.  That left me to serve as the “before” picture in the group.

Nevertheless, I was there and wasn’t going to back out, even if I did look silly in my pleated khaki shorts with a big leather belt.  I forced myself to abandon my reserve just enough to remove my white athletic socks.

The teacher turned down the lights and turned on the soft, global  village sounding music.  I prepared for an experience that I hoped would be relaxing and would help my chronically sore lower back.

Our instructor led us through a series of poses.  With each one she offered us four options.  The first option was the easiest.  I adopted that pose each time (and did not find them all that easy).  Every other member of the class went for the fourth and most difficult pose.  I was generally okay with that dynamic except when it came to our default position.  The rest of the class returned each time to downward dog.  I had to be content with what the instructor called “the child’s pose.”  I must have adopted the child’s pose 20 times or so during our class, which lasted for a hot and difficult hour.  I spent a lot of time as a 44 year old child.  I kind of thought that they should call it “the rickety, stiff, middle-aged person’s pose.”

As a political scholar, I reflected on what we were doing.  It seemed to me that the positions involved a lot of subordinate-seeming bowing and scraping along the floor.  I wondered whether yoga related in some way to the tendency of people in the east to go low before some mighty ruler who commanded worship.  But then we began going through the various warrior poses  in a standing position and my theory was shot.

The verdict was ultimately positive.  My back pain was gone, though temporarily, after we finished.  The resting time at the end of the hour was truly blissful and would have been more so if I’d been less self-conscious.  And I noticed that for at least a couple of hours after the class, I seemed to have a bit of a vibrant buzz.  I wondered if some magical alignment of the spine had plugged my brain into a new power source.

An Open Letter to Christians in the Wedding Trades

Also available as part of a double essay presentation at The Federalist.

Dear fellow Christians in the wedding trades,

I write first to let you know that I understand your plight. You have derived joy and satisfaction over the years by providing cakes, flowers, and photographs for couples getting married. In the rare circumstance that a same-sex couple came to your place of business, you simply politely declined and knew that other providers would happily take the work.

Unfortunately for you, you happen to be trying to make a living during the exact tiny slice of the history of world civilization when gay marriage has become the laser focus of our culture (and especially our cultural elites). In 2008, the current president shared your view. Now, he stands with the folks on the other side of the issue looking askance upon you and your convictions. Hillary Clinton also endorsed traditional marriage. She, too, takes a new view today. The really tough part is that everyone who has changed their opinion, which is a lot of people in just a short time frame, seems to expect you to perform the mental flip, as well. They don’t want to hear your reasoned explanations about the biblical text or about how you will serve gay customers in any regard other than a wedding. They just want you to shut up and adopt the new consensus. Despite their constant complaints over the years about soulless corporations, they deny that your personal convictions and morality should have any application to the way you do business.

You would expect some solidarity from your fellow Christians. And many have chosen to stand with you and to try and protect you from having your faith and conscience trampled. But others have done everything they can to rationalize why you should get with the cultural program. They say that Jesus would bake the cake or that you are simply wrong in thinking that you should abstain from same-sex wedding work. Somehow, they fail to understand that they are effectively establishing themselves as the equivalent of some kind of pope who infallibly interprets the faith for others. There must be more chairs at the Vatican than you think there are. I suspect the reality is that they are embarrassed by you. They are tired of looking out of step. It doesn’t help that here you are trying to be faithful. You’re preventing things from going more smoothly. What are you, some kind of fundamentalist?

At the same time, you are the perfect target for petty bureaucrats looking to make a mark and for policymakers who would rather focus on anything other than balancing budgets, solving pension crises, improving schools, and other difficult and energy-draining tasks. Better to do something that might get a mention in the latest Profiles in Courage volume. And it really doesn’t cost anything. Well, it won’t cost the taxpayers. It will cost you, sure (maybe $135,000 or more), but you’re just a bigot!

The good news is that many people do care about your plight. They rally into crowdfunding opportunities and even find new ways to help when some fundraisers are hounded into dropping you by zealous opponents. But I doubt that there is enough crowdfunding to protect all of you, especially if the witch-hunt attitude continues. These neo-Puritans in the service of a new kind of religious zeal probably occupy enough regulatory and judicial positions to generate extraordinary costs and punishments relative to the “offense” of which you have been or will be accused.

Some of you may already be looking to sell your business or are thinking about simply finishing the current lease and choosing a new occupation. Before you do, I would like to suggest an alternative. It doesn’t seem right to accept that one cannot be a baker, florist, or photographer unless you compromise convictions that were well-accepted and widely shared until about five minutes ago.

The easy way out is to simply stop doing weddings. But I think you can probably be a bit more subtle than that. The problem for you is that you believe it is wrong for you to participate in a same-sex wedding. Here’s an alternative to getting out of the wedding business. I propose that if you are a baker, you no longer offer “wedding” cakes. It doesn’t mean you won’t make cakes that are suitable for weddings, but to you it will just be a cake and the client can use it in any way they like. Since you are not offering it as a wedding cake, you can say with integrity that you are not selling a “wedding” cake for a same-sex ceremony. The same logic applies with regard to florists and photographers. Just stop marketing packages as wedding packages or offering wedding arrangements.

Perhaps this strategy seems a little too clever to you. Maybe that is the case, but I believe that if no one else cares about your conscience or integrity, then you are obliged to take steps of your own. This strategy may resonate with the biblical injunction to be “wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove.” Many of us in a variety of occupations may eventually be in need of such stratagems.

Of course, it would be better . . . AHEM (let’s hope some others are paying attention) . . . far better if our fellow countrymen were to decide that conscience is important. Perhaps they could realize that Sweet Cakes not baking a wedding cake for a same sex wedding is hardly Apartheid or Jim Crow at work. Maybe they could distinguish isolated objections based on conscience and faith from massive, formal, and systematic systems of oppression. Maybe they could come to that conclusion. But in the meantime, I offer you my sympathy and my advice. Some people like throwing the book at you, you know? It’s tough when you’re up against someone with a little authority who enjoys their work.

With my prayers and friendship,

A fellow citizen (and a brother) who shares your burden

Forget Grover Norquist. Here’s the Pledge Every Candidate Should Take.

I offer the following language for every candidate for office.

I hereby pledge that I will not accept speaking fees or any other kind of payment for services related to the fact that I held office.  I will also not set-up a personal foundation to which contributions that might benefit me or my family can be directed. Neither will I become a professional lobbyist.

Americans and others should be rightly suspicious if office holders can be tempted through speaking fees, payments for services related to politics, or “charitable” contributions.  If those payments are made in the time after a politician has exited office, they remain potentially tainted.  Holding office is an honor and a privilege.  The work of a public official is intended to be a service performed for fellow citizens and the republic.  It should not be an on-ramp to wealth generated by the hope of courting favor or access.  I will not participate in a culture that perverts the elected and appointed offices of our country by turning office-holding into a business.