Citizen Tom

So what set me off today?  The Tenacious Poodle decided to repeat some nonsense from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the SPLC Urges Congress to Investigate Extremism in the Military.  Here is the SPLC article, and here is their letter to Congress.  The SPLC would like us to believe that white supremacists threaten to take over the United States Armed Forces.

Apparently, the SPLC is trying to stir up trouble for the US military.  Why?  I fear is that the SPLC wants to take advantage of the inability of some people to think critically.  Its article is designed to stir up an emotional attack.  That “works” against some people.  After all, who amongst us wants to be harassed and called names?  When the corporate news media takes up the cry of “bigot” and “homophobe,” how many of us have the moral fortitude to stand our ground?

So what is wrong with the SPLC’s “advice” to Congress?   Look at the size of the United States military.  We have about 1.5 million people in the active military and another 850,000 in the reserve (see here).  What about those in the military not involved in a white supremacist group?  Since the SPLC’s “evidence” is entirely anecdotal, we know nothing about the vast numbers not involved in a white supremacist group.  Because the SPLC did not consider the military as a whole, its “evidence” is meaningless.

Moreover, the SPLC has an axe to grind, homosexuals in the military.  Aside from the fact the military does not have any use for either group, there is no relationship between our military’s treatment of homosexuals and white supremacists.

Anecdotal Evidence

Here is the definition.

Anecdotal Evidence:  If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, you are committing the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence.

Example:  Yeah, I’ve read the health warnings on those cigarette packs and I know about all that health research, but my brother smokes, and he says he’s never been sick a day in his life, so I know smoking can’t really hurt you.

As evidence the military is being swamped with white supremacists, the SPLC provides a bunch of websites, and we are suppose to take this “proof” at face value.  Why?  How sure are we that what we see on the websites is even true? Relative to the general population, what does the SPLC’s “proof” tell us about the percentage of military personnel  involved in white supremacist groups?

Instead providing logical and substantiated evidence, the SPLC has provided “evidence”  aimed at swaying our emotions.  We should regard this an insult to our intelligence and integrity.

Apples and Oranges

Supposedly, the military is throwing out homosexuals and allowing radical white supremacists to stay in the military.  That is not the way things work.  What the military (and for that matter, the government) does is investigate just about everyone it accepts into its ranks.  Before the U.S. Army gives anyone access to a gun or its computer systems, an investigation is required.  Investigators ascertain the following qualities (from here):

• Honesty
• Trustworthiness
• Character
• Loyalty
• Financial Responsibility
• Reliability

Any applicant who belongs to a group demonstrably hostile to the United States, including certain white supremacist groups, will not be able to get a security clearance.   On the other hand, security investigations do not discriminate based upon sexual orientation.

Because it believes homosexuality would undermine good order and discipline, the military discriminates against homosexuals.  The military does not allow admitted homosexuals within the ranks. Because military personnel must work together closely, and because they rely upon each other for their lives, the military discourages what it calls fraternization within the ranks.  The preferential treatment that lovers give each other has no place whatsoever within a battlefield unit.

Conclusion

What SPLC has done with its cheapshot “report” is give itself a lame excuse to complain about the military’s discrimination policy against admitted homosexuals in the military.  Nonsense such as this should serve as an object lesson.  This is how people with an agenda try to fool those of us who have lost objectivity.  When we are unwilling to think critically, we can be taken in and used by those without scruples.

This is the last post of a three-part series.  The connecting thread?  What is the enemy of Conservatism?  This post proposes to answer that question.  In the process, I will first answer another question.  Why don’t our leaders practice Conservatism?

Why don’t our leaders practice Conservatism?

What is wisdom?

When we elect our public officials, what is it we say we desire from them?  Is it not wisdom?  What is this quality we call wisdom?  Are our elected officials wise?  Do they actually practice wisdom on our behalf?

These are difficult questions.  The problem is defining wisdom, that is, what is wise in actual practice.  This problem is why we have elections.   We cannot agree what constitutes the application of wisdom.

Consider, for example, how a professor of philosophy might approach the definition of wisdom.  After a long and laborious explanation, the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy finally reaches this conclusion (from here).

S (meaning Socrates) is wise if

1. S has extensive factual and theoretical knowledge.
2. S knows how to live well.
3. S is successful at living well.
4. S has very few unjustified beliefs.

Each of the four propositions above cannot be measured.  So even if we accept the above definition as true, we still have a problem.  Because the measure and the relative importance of each factor lies in the mind of the beholder, we cannot agree who is and is not wise.

• When does one’s knowledge become extensive?  What kind of knowledge is relevant?
• How do we define living well?
• What constitutes success at living well?
• Which beliefs are unjustified?

Benjamin Franklin, stated the problem more concisely.

Who is wise? He that learns from every One. Who is powerful? He that governs his Passions. Who is rich? He that is content. Who is that? Nobody. — Benjamin Franklin, “Poor Richard’s Almanack,” July 1755, The Complete Poor Richard Almanacks, facsimile ed., vol. 2, p. 270 (1970). (from here)

Do our leaders have wisdom?

Conventional wisdom suggests that we gain wisdom as we grow older.  Unfortunately, there is nothing that suggests gaining wisdom with age is inevitable;  experience seems to do many of us very little good.  Many of us never learn from our “mistakes” or the “mistakes” of others.  Why?

Christians have an explanation for this problem.  Believing that wisdom comes from God, Christians regard the Bible as wisdom.  The Bible says wisdom is the gift of the Lord, and the Bible says we gain wisdom only when we have the right attitude. What is the right attitude?

Mark 10:13-16 (New International Version)

The Little Children and Jesus

People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Little children are not “too clever.”  Their wants and desires are simple and readily seen.  They do not deceive others or themselves.   Without any awareness of pride, little children return the love of the adults who love them.

We call little children innocents for it is as adults we become captives of sin.  With experience, we have the opportunity to become either foolish or wise.  We struggle to choose correctly, and too often, we fail.

Although they may have degrees and well padded resumes, our leaders are only human.  Just like the rest of us, our leaders struggle to choose between good and evil.  In fact, our leaders, when driven by hidden ambition and pride, may be less wise than most of us.

We demonstrate wisdom with the choices we make.  We choose our leaders, and we choose only with such wisdom as we have.  If we do not choose wisely, then we do not have wise leaders.

Are we as a People wise?  If our choice of leaders is a good measure of our wisdom,  then our dissatisfaction with our political leaders indicates we are not.  The political philosophies and practices of our leaders range widely.  Because the majority of us are uncertain how our government should work, we do not know how to pick the people who should run it.  Instead, we end up with a popularity contest, and we end up with a leadership as foolish as ourselves.

What is the enemy of Conservatism?

Modern American Conservatism is a modest political philosophy.  It is advocated principally by those who believe that the American Dream is freedom, that the sole mission of government is to protect the liberty of the People.  From the Conservative perspective then, wise leadership is that leadership which is able to restrain itself.  Instead of trying to solve the People’s problems (which Conservatives regard as impractical), Conservative leadership protects the People’s rights so that the People have the liberty to solve their own problems.

What does the Bible suggest is the prerequisite for wisdom?  Who is the most famous Biblical example of a wise man?  That man was King Solomon.  How did Solomon receive his wisdom?   He humbly asked wisdom of God (2 Chronicles 1:7-12).

Centuries before he lived, Solomon understood Jesus’ admonition towards humility.

Matthew 23:11-12 (New International Version)

The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Wikipedia (see here) has an interesting article that describes humility from the perspective of different religious faiths.  This article describes Christian humility as having the following features.

1. submission to God and legitimate authority;
2. recognition of the virtues and talents that others possess, particularly those which surpass one’s own, and giving due honor and, when required, obeisance;
3. recognition of the limits of one’s talents, ability, or authority; and, not reaching for that which is beyond one’s grasp.

Second to charity, humility is perhaps the greatest virtue we need in a leader.  However, when we ourselves are prideful, unwilling to be the servants of others, we will not choose humble men and women to lead us.  Instead, we will choose a fantasy.  Michael Zak, in Back to Basics for the Republican Party, describes the problem this way.

At the core of the socialist outlook on life is what Freidrich Hayek described as the “fatal conceit.”  Far from any conscious or conspiratorial intent, a socialist’s fatal conceit stems from his egotistical assumption that any problem would disappear if he were able to impose his will on it.  Government employees, whom he projects would somehow act on his behalf, serve as the proxy for imposing his will on society.  A faceless bureaucracy is too impersonal, however, for some socialists, who prefer a proxy with a face.  These people prefer to focus their aspirations on some charismatic leader, whose cult of personality attracts people across the political spectrum who might otherwise not agree on anything else.  What matters to these socialists is that they can all dream about how the great leader would impose their own will on society if only he were in charge of everything.

Thus pride, humility’s opposite, undoes us.  For the leader we choose will be like ourselves.  If we are prideful, our leader will not long act on our behalf.  For once he has secured his power, our leader will impose his will, not our own, upon society and, of course, ourselves.

The End

This is the last post in a three part essay.  Links to parts 1 and 2 are provided below.

• Part 1 — What is Conservatism?
• Part 2 — Why does experience make one more Conservative?

Note that Crystal Clear Conservative posts the latest Gallup Poll on the trend towards Conservatisms.

The Cartoons

Even Barack Obama was not sufficiently — umm, progressive — for some people.  I trust that they are happy now.

At the rate things are going, this is about the only way Obama will cut spending.

This post continues a topic that I started with this post, What is Conservatism? — Part 1.  As Smash Mouth Politics observed (here), there is an old adage that says we get more Conservative as we grow older.  Moreover, there is statistical evidence that supports this claim.  So I decided to study the issue.

Why does experience make one more Conservative?

What is experience?

If we look at the word itself, the answer is not readily apparent.  Experience can be used at both a noun and as a verb.  With the addition of a “d”, we gain a new form of the word, “experienced.”  That form is used as an adjective.  Nevertheless, in all its forms, the normal dictionary definition of the word “experience” refers to gaining knowledge firsthand from observation and participation.

How does experience change us?

No ordinary dictionary definition of “experience” will say much about what experience does to us.  For that, we must go to the Devil’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce.

EXPERIENCE, n. The wisdom that enables us to recognize as an undesirable old acquaintance the folly that we have already embraced.

To one who, journeying through night and fog,
Is mired neck-deep in an unwholesome bog,
Experience, like the rising of the dawn,
Reveals the path that he should not have gone.

Joel Frad Bink

When do we begin to gain experience?   Human life begins as a single cell in the womb of a woman.  In a period of weeks, the head and arms and the legs take form, and a clearly human form emerges.   Yet even after months have pass, it is only at birth that “experts” say the formative years of human life begin.  From our perspective, from long outside the womb, perhaps there is some small truth that demarcation.  How can a fetus be reckless?  What choices can a fetus make?  Its attitude?  Perhaps, but no one knows.

So it is that we usually think of wisdom as something we gain from the time of our birth.  Yet Jesus observed that to gain wisdom we should behave like little children.

Mark 10:13-16 (New International Version)

The Little Children and Jesus

People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

We enter the world small and needy, dependent upon large adults for all our needs.  In time we grow bigger and stronger, and others become dependent upon us.  In time we lose the humility of childhood.  In time, we become unable to receive the kingdom of God with the humility of a little child.

Yet God calls us back.  With maturity come responsibilities, misfortunes, and blessings.

• Responsibilities:  Both our conscious and the world make demands of us.  Sometimes these demands are more than we can bear.
• Misfortunes:  Trouble comes.  Sickness, accident, job loss, broken friendships and so forth unravel our peace and our confidence.
• Blessings:  Unexpected joys, help unwished for….remind us that everything does not depend upon us alone.

Age also tears at the strength of every man and woman.  Age stoops the back; age slows the mind.  With increasing aches and pains, age assures us that a  procession of funerals will eventually end with our own.  When we finally accept the certain knowledge of our own death we become afraid.  We become desperate for answers we do not have.

Why would experience make us more conservative?

Imagine being Job (The Book of Job).  You sit in ashes, mourning.  You have lost all.  Your family is dead.  Your servants and your wealth are gone.  Your body is covered with painful sores.   All that is left are your friends.  They come to share your misery, and for a time they are silent with sympathy.  Then they begin to speak, and their words are an accusation.  What, they wonder, have you done to earn God’s wrath?

Job was guiltless.  Job was so worthy God honored his faith.  He made Job’s faith an example for angels and generations of men to come.   So that we might know of Job’s example, God allowed Satan to curse Job.  Job, however, did not know of God’s intentions, and Job’s friends were unwilling to believe God would allow a good man to experience such ill fortune.  So they judged him, and they added to his pain.

Nonetheless, Job’s friends were not bereft of wisdom.  When Job repeatedly denied their accusations, they eventually grew silent.  Then a young man spoke up.

Job 32:10-13 (Today’s New International Version)

“Therefore I say: Listen to me;
I too will tell you what I know.

I waited while you spoke,
I listened to your reasoning;
while you were searching for words,

I gave you my full attention.
But not one of you has proved Job wrong;
none of you has answered his arguments.

Do not say, ‘We have found wisdom;
let God refute him, not a mere mortal.’

The young man found himself angry at Job’s denial, full of words, and compelled to speak.  God would not punish the guiltless, he thought.  Since God seemed unavailable, he decided to speak for Him.

Job 36:2-4 (Today’s New International Version)

“Bear with me a little longer and I will show you
that there is more to be said in God’s behalf.

I get my knowledge from afar;
I will ascribe justice to my Maker.

Be assured that my words are not false;
one who has perfect knowledge is with you.

When the young man had finished speaking, God decided to speak for himself.  He began by reminding Job, Job’s friends, and the young man of how little we actually know.   The Lord reprimanded Job’s friends.  Of the young man, nothing more was said.  Presumably, he was forgiven due to his age.  Perhaps he was expected to learn from his folly.

Conclusion

Experience is the difference between theory and practice.  As we get older, we accumulate a record of trial and error.  Under the care of parents, children have yet to be humbled by reckless behavior and evil choices.   Children do not fully understand the benefits of careful consideration and concern for the welfare of others.   Too often, the young have the confidence and pride of perfect knowledge.  The young have yet to see how what works theory fails in practice.

The Cartoons

Yes, sirree!  It is the new hip.  It is the generosity of the filthy rich.  It is a way for huge comglomerates to unload their health care costs, and it is another attraction for illegal immigrants to sneak into the good ole US of A.  What is it?  It’s government-run healthcare!  And what does it mean?  Check out this post at Two Conservatives.

The Cartoons

Conservatives are common in our society.  As Smash Mouth Politics observed from a Gallup poll (here), we tend to get more Conservative as we grow older.   Why do we get more Conservative as we get older?   Smash Mouth Politics offered the following in explanation.

If a man is not a liberal at twenty, he has no heart. If a man is not conservative by the time he is forty, he has no brain.

Why would younger citizens be more inclined to be Liberal and older citizens more inclined to be Conservative?  Is it strictly a matter of experience?  Perhaps, but this observation leaves two unanswered questions and a contrary observation.

• Question #1:  What is Conservatism?
• Question #2:  Why does experience make one more Conservative?
• Contrary observation:  Conservatism is not the dominant ideology amongst our ruling elite.

What is Conservatism?

Political labels tend to be poorly defined.  Because politics is warfare with words, even the terms of debate become a source of contention.

An ordinary dictionary would define conservatism this way.

conservatism
n : a political orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes [syn: conservativism]

The cynic’s dictionary would define conservatism this way.

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.  — Ambrose Bierce, “Devil’s Dictionary,” 1911

While the above definitions may seem either innocuous or amusing, in the hands of the devious, they can be problematic.  For example, some will make use of the fact that societies vary considerably.   During the time of Mikhail Gorbachev, such vague definitions allowed Liberal journalists to refer to Russian Communists as Conservatives (For examples, see here, here, and here.).  Yet in the United States, Conservatism obviously has nothing to do with Communism or the investment of Czarist-like powers in the hands of one man or a small group.  Instead of informing Americans about Russian Communists, Liberal journalists apparently intended to misinform the American public about American Conservatives.

So what is Conservatism?  In the United States, Conservatism is what Liberalism was two hundred years ago.  Microsoft’s encarta suggests as much.  However, as you might expect, Microsoft’s commentary on Conservatism is not exactly favorable.

Unlike England and the European continent, the main currents of American political thought converged throughout the 19th century into a broad consensus that incorporated economic individualism and constitutional democracy with powerful restraints on the government. This had little in common with the conservative doctrines of Edmund Burke; it was in fact closer to liberalism, with the principles of individual freedom and equality taken as self-evident. Thus, the major characteristics of American conservatism emerged as economic individualism, social Darwinism, and nationalism.  (from here)

Conservatives are for Social Darwinism?  Nationalism? Of course not. In practice, Conservatism is about limited government.  Consider what the Founders observed in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  (from here)

The Founders believed government exists to protect our rights — that in order for the rights of individuals to be protected, we must have some form of government.  This was the revolution in the American Revolution.  For most of human history, the governing elite has enslaved the individuals who make up the mass of humanity.   Instead of protecting the rights of the individual, government has served as the primary tool of enslavement.  America is an exception to this rule.    Thus modern American Conservatism is principally about preserving and fortifying the hard won gains that allow Americans to call themselves a free people.

Through the rule of Law, our Constitution elevates the rights of individual over those of the government.  To preserve our liberties, Conservatives believe we must support and defend constitutional law.

In particular, Conservatism is about protecting religious freedom.  Conservatives understand that our individual liberties are the byproduct of our Christian religious heritage.  That is why we have a secular government.  To protect religious freedom, the Founders created a secular government.  Thus Conservatives oppose using the secular nature of our government as an excuse to impose Secular Humanism upon the whole of society.  Conservatives believe it is not the role of government either to establish or nullify religious belief.

To be continued.

This is the first of a three part essay.  Its purpose is to answer a question:  why do human beings have so much trouble practicing Conservatism?  Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3.

• Part 2 — Why does experience make one more Conservative?
• Part 3 — Why don’t our leaders practice Conservatism?

The Cartoons