Safe Haven

Dr. Deneen continues the discussion of democracy and its underpinnings by citing Santayana to the effect that virtue and virtuous citizens are necessary for the preservation of democracy. But as we have seen, if the division of labor and autonomous "liberty" have severed people from their sources of knowledge and morality, the "virtues" actually inculcated are personal desires, and self-preservation. Indeed, Deneen argues that self-preservation is the motivating force in the liberal political order, if its assumptions about humans in the state of nature are correct. A contradiction is introduced, then, between fidelity to professed virtues such as self-sacrifice, and that which liberalism actually rewards. The occasion of the commemoration of noted Union general Robert Gould Shaw provided William James the opportunity to reflect on the difference between more conspicuous virtue, such as dying in battle, and less conspicuous virtue, in this case, a willingness to b...

The third essay in Dr. Deneen's collection is called, "Citizenship As A Vocation." (There appears to be some confusion between the essay titles, and the table of contents.) Deneen picks up Tocqueville's contention that democratic man is "restless" or "restive" (depending on translation) and uses that as a starting point, and more like a central hub, to which he returns multiple times from various angles. Tocqueville elaborates that democratic man is flighty, for lack of a better term, inconstant, owing to his fear of death, which even wins out over a desire for contentment. The problem, says the French theorist, is the openness of democratic societies, and democratic man's materialism in a double sense: a belief that most things have a natural explanation--as opposed to a supernatural one--and in the accumulation of things, ostensibly to distract from the fear of death. Before we go on with Dr. Deneen's application of Tocqueville, and...

Here's the Catechism, specifically on immigration. These are a challenging couple of paragraphs. But I understand that by the use of the words "natural right" in the first paragraph that it is ordinarily not morally licit to deny entry to a foreigner, absent evidence of a concrete threat to the common good. That is, the mere fact of being a foreigner does not make one a threat to the common good. Moreover, if all people possess the natural right to emigrate from one place to another, then it cannot be morally licit for a government to forcibly remove an immigrant from its territory, for no other reason than he or she is in a country "illegally." It is morally acceptable or licit to treat citizens and non-citizens unalike, provided that the natural right to move to a new country and make a life is not unduly impeded. I do not make any bold claims that any Catholic who happens to be wrong about this does not love Christ or the Church. But I can say for certai...

Dr. Deneen's second essay is called, "Patriotic Vision: At Home In A World Made Strange." It's significant that this was a talk given shortly after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. After a brief reflection on the excesses of patriotism, and the elite suspicion of it, Dr. Deneen takes us back to the origin of the word "theory". He says that the idea comes from the Greek meaning, "to see," and it noted a specific office within the city-state, occupied by a person charged with traveling to other places to report on how they lived. Such a person was well-versed on the idioms and customs of his own culture, and indeed reported on the other in that language, as it were. Insofar as he offered critique to his own culture, it was carefully tempered by his appreciation and love for his native place. The critics of patriotism do naturally ask whether the love of one's own in patriotism is in irreconcilable conflict with universal values like tr...

Can America be conserved? Dr. Deneen begins his collection of essays with that question. There is a logic in posing the question so starkly, because the problems Deneen identifies warrant the question. He notes that 70 percent of Americans believe America is moving in the wrong direction, and half of us believe our best days as a nation are behind us. Analysis of the situation is colored by two related tendencies, he says. Firstly, we tend to believe that our problems and solutions are to be found in the sphere of politics; and secondly, we find value in a strict binary American "liberal/conservative" axis. Deneen says that such a binary doesn't only note disagreement, but an irreconcilable conflict of worldviews. As such, the stakes could not be higher, and total or near-total control of the branches of the national government is viewed by all as imperative. And yet, Deneen argues, the deep philosophical and ideological divide is "fundamentally illusory," b...

I've started to read, "Conserving America? Thoughts On Present Discontents" by Dr. Patrick Deneen of Notre Dame. I'm not very far in, but I'm going to tell you that you should read it. Setting aside the explosive thesis which I won't share here yet, I still actually believe we can do better in political engagement than we have. I don't think we're too far gone, and that's because little things make a huge difference. One person who takes the time to make an opponent's argument better than they have, or toxic words not spoken improves the climate just a little. Usually, when a candidate for office says they want to add to the national conversation, that means he or she has no chance of winning that office. And maybe that's still true. But what if candidates saw themselves as caretakers of the civic space? We cannot simply mean a desire to serve the public in some general way; I am aiming for an idea that candidates for office safeguard and...

I have always liked Barack Obama. I have spent most of my adult life in academia; I like the life, I like the people. I don't sneer at credentials; I covet them. The former president is an academic, from his ears, to the tips of his toes. He is familiar to me, and he speaks the language of which I am familiar. I get why people don't like him; after all, the sexual libertinism and murder that are now the defining characteristics of the Democratic Party were underlined under Obama, as opposed to muted. Moreover, the former president was not content to simply advocate those things, but to use the government to conscript participation in them. Most of the other stuff is made up. But I don't carry around a similar affection for the sitting president. I just don't. And I might even admit that a person who is known for thinking and speaking well will get a break from me, even if he is terrible. I'm an academic, if not in profession, then in manner of life. I don't ...

My thoughts turned to my father the other day, because some friends on the internet had asked what songs make us cry. We had a pretty good list, and this  was my choice. The context of the song doesn't fit me exactly, because it tells the story of an adult father and son struggling to understand one another. But the verse which begins about 4 minutes in really hits me: I wasn't there that morning When my father passed away I didn't get to tell him All the things I had to say I think I caught his spirit Later that same year I'm sure I heard his echo In my baby's newborn tears I just wish I could have told him In the living years [Me talking] I think one of the truly great benefits of being in full communion with the Catholic Church is being able to take these deep hurts of life, unite them to the cross of Christ, and give them back to the Father. When this becomes real to you, then you understand a little of what it means to live in anticipation of the ...

I'm seeing "dishonest" as an appellation to the word "media" now, even more than I used to. We Republicans always complain about the media. I think now is different. American conservatives used to have a different interpretation on publicly available facts; now, "facts" are created for consumption, to confirm what people already think they know. It wasn't long ago--if you can believe this--when we accused Democrats of emotionalism, of making things up to fit an agenda, and not without justification. If we dare raise it now, they deserve to laugh at us. I watch and read mainstream media, and I'll tell you why. Because I don't need someone to tell me what I think. I'm not insecure in my philosophy, or in my plans. Furthermore, if I attempt to put forward an idea that cannot be grounded in publicly available facts, then I am seeking to advance an ideology, not pursue the truth. And that would be a shame. I don't find most media d...

I have no idea what, or who, "The Left" is any more. It's a swear-word you hear, if you hang out with Republicans enough. It usually refers to people, which ought to be the first clue that there isn't an argument coming. Those people, who hate everything I stand for, are at it again. How exactly do you articulate a governing philosophy, if your default is ostracizing "those people"? How do you know you have a philosophy? And there are some really bad ideas well to my political Left; there are even some people who are evil, who cannot even fathom that goodness emanates from anyone who has ever voted Republican. But not as many as we might be tempted to think. And I don't care if it's Dennis Prager, God bless him, or the reanimated body of Ronald Reagan himself; if you attack people, rather than ideas, you deserve to be ignored.

There has been a lot of normalization of evil lately. Especially in partisan politics. As long as we can be convinced that the other side is worse, we let our side get away with almost anything. We can't do that anymore. Still no-one has told me exactly what Megyn Kelly did wrong, besides ask a question. And it's a question that deserves an answer. The women of America deserve a straight answer, not hostility from Newt Gingrich, that paragon of virtue. But, you know, life goes on, and Hillary was worse. And let's get something straight: I read books. Maybe not steadily or quickly, but I do. And I believe the President of the United States should read them. I wouldn't want bullet-point summaries; I am the expert; I would consent to your expert opinion, if your analysis convinces me that I should. That's how it would go. I also have never heard Jorge Ramos say anything deserving getting thrown out of a room. Even if he is liberal. Isn't it a journalist...

He seems like a great pick. Better than I thought the president would choose. But I have concerns. My questions are these: Why have you consistently backed the government, rejecting 8th Amendment claims in several botched executions? What level of error or mismanagement would change how you ruled? What would make you vote to abolish the death penalty? Also, what if anything in your judicial philosophy presupposes the correctness of economic liberalism? Do you have a positivist conception of law? That is, laws are morally right because they are duly enacted? Why or why not?

We'll call him Mr. M. I was in the 9th grade. He was the civics teacher. He always liked me, and appreciated my curiosity. When I followed up on something outside of class, he'd get a little twinkle in his eye and say, "Knowledge for knowledge's sake!" He was cool. He made me feel like my thoughts and opinions mattered. He taught me to question everything. He taught us to think about unintended consequences. Feelings are one thing, and arguments another. He was libertarian, which ironically means he'd support the elimination of his own job. But he was charismatic, passionate, and articulate. I have absolutely no doubt that he indirectly impacted the course of my higher learning. Failing public schools? I don't think so.

Try harder. We don't like it when people say this. But if we salute sports heroes for digging down deep and finding that extra gear, I don't think we have much room to complain in the spiritual life. Just to be clear, Christ has done everything to bring us to the Father. There is no striving anyone could do to please the Father in our own power. But those who are not strangers to the covenant know about the gift of faith, and of grace. We know the precious promises of Sacred Scripture; we know that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. We know of the ministrations of holy Church, our many celebrations and recollections. We are not the faithless; in the face of our ongoing failures, call upon the Holy Spirit, and try harder.

They came from 25 points down. No one had ever done that. No one had ever been to 7 Super Bowls, either. No one, in 51 years. Frankly, I saw it, and I'm still having trouble believing that it happened. The first Super Bowl to go to overtime was last night. I won't bore you with the recap. But it ended 34-28, in perhaps the greatest title game I've seen. I say "perhaps," because there have been some doozies. And a few involve the Patriots. One thing I wanted to note, a thing many people might miss, was the time of possession. TOP is usually crucial in a football game. It's hard--and nearly impossible--to score points without the ball. TOP tracks how often a team's offensive unit has the ball. I noticed that the Patriots were leading the TOP even in the first half, although they trailed 21-3. If they could somehow get back in this thing, that could pay off later.  Tired defenses do two things: Jack, and Squat. Tom Brady is arguably the greatest player--l...

"Imagine a lawyer returning his fee when he loses a case; imagine a television pundit suddenly admitting that he doesn't know what he is talking about; imagine a Hollywood starlet speaking English; imagine the Cubs winning the World Series; imagine anything most absurd, and you have not yet approached the absurdity of those who claim that Catholic Social Teaching implies the existence of a vast welfare state, bureaucratically organized, unanswerable to the people, undermining families, rewarding lust and sloth and envy, acknowledging no virtue, providing no personal care, punishing women who take care of their children at home, whisking the same children away from parental supervision and into schools designed to separate them from their parents' views of the world, and, for all that, keeping whole segments of the population mired in a cycle of dysfunction, moral squalor, and poverty, while purchasing their votes with money squeezed by force from their neighbors." --A...

Now, I haven't read "Silent Spring" yet, but that's the person we're talking about. I saw a PBS show about her. [PBS? Just fill out your Democratic Party membership card now.--ed.] It was fascinating. In broad strokes, the debate surrounding DDT pitted progress and economic development against long-term sustainability. The aspect of her viewpoint that struck me the most was her argument that we are part of our environment. We are its masters, perhaps, but if we damage the biosphere, we damage ourselves. How much of the inability to hear environmental advocates' concerns is because of abortion? Those hippies care more about birds than defenseless children.  Why choose? And Dr. Naomi Oreskes was on the special, discussing and defending Carson's major themes. Carson may have gotten more strident as powerful interests came after her,--and as her fatal illness progressed--but I was struck by her utter lack of theatrics or sensationalism. I need to read ...

He said something today on social media, and I reproduce it here, for your consideration: "One may disagree on the seriousness of Trump's executive order, its necessity, its effectiveness or its moral character. But I've seen some pretty appalling stuff being said here on FB, not just about the EO but about immigrants in general. So let me say this, in case it's not evident: I'm an immigrant. Like many before me, I came to the U.S. seeking a better life. I happen to be from Portugal. It doesn't matter. I could have been Chinese, Mexican or Iranian - the basic motivation to come here would have been the same. I feel a deep kinship with all immigrants who left their language, their families, their identity, because their country simply did not offer conditions for them to thrive, because there are no jobs there that pay enough to pay rent or put food on the table, let alone raise a family. I don't mean unskilled jobs. I mean engineers, nurses and medical doc...

Nothing harmful to the common good or to the dignity of human beings created in the image of God can be condoned by the State. To punish evil or not, and to what extent is a prudential decision, and one we could discuss for ages. But the key point is this: The State has no authority to command what is evil. We may not think we are dealing with evil, but indeed we are. Perhaps we have become accustomed to thinking of "individual rights" and nothing else. But this is a mistake. We could even come to agree in principle that a government could do something immoral as such, but folks forget this when they have sexual sins themselves, or they have come from broken (divorced) homes, and it's cool and popular to be "open-minded." Even if you hear a Bishop of the Church say other than what I'm telling you,--I tremble even to say it--he's dead wrong.

I do not believe Roger Federer's record for the most Grand Slam men's singles titles will be under threat any time soon. But just in case, he added another. The pieces fell just right in the draw: Djokovic had a shocking early loss, as did Murray. Roger is still so great that no one else really scared the Fed fans. Then again, he had to beat none other than #4 Stan Wawrinka, and Rafael Nadal, of all people, to finish it off. As it happened, he ended up beating 4 top 10 players en route to the title, which no man has done since Mats Wilander did it at the French Open in 1982. Of course he did. It's as close to an encyclopedia entry for Roger Federer as you get, to say: "He's the greatest player in the history of our sport," as John McEnroe does on every occasion of a major. But if you think about it, does it lurk in the mind of a legend that the glory days are in the past, that while he still contends on the biggest stage, he's a museum piece of sorts? If...