Skip to main content

Between Foolish Youth, And Idols

 I watched 60 Minutes last night. I do that a lot; it's still a great show. Speaker Pelosi was on, talking about the attacks, and what she intended to do next. To be honest, never in my life have I felt such tenderness and affection for Nancy Pelosi. I always wanted to triumph over her politically; I don't want anything bad to happen to her, and I never did.

That's the interesting part of an early young adulthood spent dabbling in politics: on the one hand, you treat it like a sport. Win or lose, you come back and fight tomorrow. As it turned out, every question and its consequences was much more grave than a Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal Wimbledon final. On the other hand, it was never meant to be a blood sport in any case. Our loss of epistemological realism and our lack of virtue now means that a great many people can't fight it out in good faith in the political arena, and come back and do it again tomorrow.

Our political system was never meant to bear the weight of the total meaning of our lives, and our place in society. Perhaps that is the greatest lie of classical liberalism: that it could bear that weight, and tell us exactly who we are.

We can say that we want politics as such to matter less, but what does that mean? We cannot easily reclaim the ground of meaning and purpose which politics is now filling for most people. Family bonds are strained or broken, solidarity and mutual care has been replaced by market mechanisms. We tell people that they are worth what we pay them to do, and then we pay most people almost nothing.

And how exactly are we going to tell generations of people that their sexuality--which we treated as just one more consumer choice in the marketplace--isn't as fluid as some would like to think, and that part of their confusion is due to the idol of Choice?

Generations of people have now believed that government should not legislate morality, and now there is no morality for any purported government to legislate. Our selfish individualism that masqueraded as a political ideology has revealed some people's reliance on an older underlying philosophy, while they took great pains to deny its relevance.

And maybe our system never deserved all its praise, premised as it was on individualism, conditional peace, and insurrection, from the very first.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...