Two updates

Be sure to check out two new blogs/sites on the sidebar: one from Dave Nevins, who leads a prayer/worship/fellowship group here in Alexandria. His site is worth perusing in some detail, as he lays out "Charismatic" (Catholic) Christianity in straightforward language. Ha, "Charismatic" and "Catholic" -- two terms sure to terrify many, especially in combination.

Also joining the blog roll is Marti Smith's site Telling Secrets. Marti led EC and I on a venture to Turkey a few summers ago with Caleb Project. In addition to being one of the most well traveled people I've every known (Marti is literally all over the world, all the time), she is a first-rate (and published) writer.

BC

Once upon a time, in Dublin

A rare love story that doesn't peddle cheap sentimentality, Once is one of the best movies we saw this year. Not only will you hear good music, you'll also see great footage of Dear, Dirty Dublin. Cheers. -BC

Root and Branch

After some thought and discussion, EC and I have decided to stop writing posts about politics and public policy.

The writer of this blog, which I read regularly, happened to notice The (humble and meek) Wild Olive, and offered to have us listed on his site's blog roll. Given the new office I am working in and, frankly, the general area in which EC and I work (politics, government, policy), we've decided to pull all political and policy-related topics from The Wild Olive, in the interest of safeguarding ourselves and our workplaces from any unwanted attention. And incidentally, we had to turn down the good man's offer for increased blog readership.

Instead, we will focus primarily on issues of religion and culture, especially as they relate to our own lives. If society (or a country, state or city) is like a tree, politics and policy are a bit like the branches. Religion is the root, and culture the trunk. If someone wants to improve a tree's health, they can do all the pruning of branches and leaves they want. But if the trunk, or worse yet, the root, is rotten or diseased, any pruning is largely in vain. If anything, the pruning is delaying the inevitable death of the tree. By focusing on religion and culture, at a personal level, I think we are addressing a more fundamental level of life than politics and public policy. As Christians, we know this to be true.

This is a difficult thing in an election year. But nonetheless we will avoid the low-hanging fruit of Presidential politics on this blog.

The first 1/3 of Plato's Republic consists of a debate over the definition of justice. Much of the heated discussion is couched in terms of the local politics of the day in Athens, including the politics following the Peloponnesian War that eviscerated Greek civilization.

After going several rounds of defining precisely what justice is not, Plato's character Socrates turns the discussion in a completely different direction: In order to discover the nature of justice, he says, we should build a city in our minds (or "with our words."). Only by seeing the ideal community in practice will we apprehend this slippery virtue, justice. Joining with a couple worthy students, Socrates verbally creates what he considers an ideal city from scratch.

I propose something similar. Every time I am tempted to discuss politics or policy on this blog, I'll try to see if the issue transfers to the more fundamental level of the family. For example, I had a blog post in mind for the next few days on education policy. Instead of public education policy, I will instead focus on what might be called family education policy. How should we educate our child(ren)? In order to prepare them for the challenges of the 21st century, what will they need to know, and what skills do they need to acquire? What would the ideal education of our children consist of?

Family policy over public policy. Of course we all know the former is more important than the latter. But at some level, it takes more work to discern the former.

If anyone wants to ask a direct question or start a direct discussion on politics, government or public policy, shoot EC and I an e-mail or drop us a line on Facebook. I know the change will annoy some (including me at times), but it's all for the greater good.

See you on the front lines,

BC

Breakin' up (a coalition) is hard to do

Jonah Goldberg, mainstream Republican and intellectual rival of Crunchy Conservative Rod Dreher, wrote in Sunday's Washington Post a concise and funny summary of the current cleavages in American political conservatism, circa 2008.

Goldberg is grumpy because the Reagan Coalition is disintegrating. But coalitions are meant to be temporary, not permanent. That fusionist Republicanism held on this long is a bit surprising. Just a few years ago, Karl Rove was talking convincingly of a "permanent Republican majority." How distant that now seems. I suspect it's all for the best, as soul searching always is, especially for political types.

It's hard to say what direction post-fusionist political conservatism might take, but I for one do not want to join a populist movement. I think any new iteration of conservative politics could, as David Brooks said, "embrace capitalism but be suspicious of capitalists," without descending into the victimology of economic populism or delusional isolationism.

BC

"For this hour, and for this trial..."*

As of this week, I have worked exactly one year in legislative government - one session with the Colorado state legislature, and the past six months on the Hill. After my brief months here, I've observed a Washington, D.C. composed of regular people from all over country, many of them in their 20s and 30s, who are exerting as much power as they can in their own little fiefdoms, their own little corners of the Beltway.

After hearing people's stories (either in the news or from colleagues), it seems most these run-of-the-mill young people work hard at their jobs, even if the work is sometimes aggravating, occaisionally seems trivial, or requires unreasonable hours for an unreasonable salary -- Though often, very often, at some point many of these folks find themselves at moments of tremendous consequence, when the decisions they make have national or international significance.

I notice this all the time now when I read the newspaper. The people in the pages are real - they are not fictional. And sometimes they fail. They didn't know they would be put in these critical and complex situations, but there they are all the same. It's a sobering realization.

EC has been auditing a Navy warship that Robert Kaplan thinks could play a role in determining U.S. military and economic power in the 21st century. I remember once EC told me who her team was interviewing for the week, and I had a moment of remarkable clarity -- she was interviewing him, and his staff? Any job quickly becomes routine, but at that moment I was struck with how important EC's team was, not just for us as a family, or just for her, but for the country.

Charlie Wilson's War, which EC and I saw recently, captures this phenomenon with humor and intensity. Charlie Wilson, a party-loving Congressman from East Texas ends up funding and prosecuting a covert war in Afghanistan in the early 1980s. His East Texas, all-female staff works with Charlie and a rogue CIA agent to supply the Afghan Mujahadeen with shoulder-fired missiles capable of bringing down Soviet attack helicopters. Wilson got elected because he was able to help elderly East Texans with their Medicare and Social Security. But he ended up with his fingers deep in a secret war in a faraway country.

It helps to remember that regular people put in extraordinary situations is nothing new.

On Spengler's elite forum (made up of academics, retired military, intelligence buffs and religious scholars), a young serviceman in Iraq -"Ehud" is his avatar- comments regularly, and is a youthful anomoly in the forum. Sagacious Spengler's words for Ehud follow:

Ehud, Stay safe. A lot of people are reading -- I am surprised how many and in what places. If there is any merit to what we do (and Providence will decide that, not us), it will take ten or fifteen years to have any impact. It won't be the present generation of power-brokers who pay attention, but young people starting their careers with a sense of dissatisfaction at what they have learned. As they rise through the ranks, these ideas -- if they are borne out -- very gradually will rise with them. I don't see how the Republicans can win this year's election given their poor showing in economic as well as strategic matters. That will give traditionally-oriented politicians four years to wander in the desert, with an open mind, and for a new generation to get involved.

Americans became complacent and underestimated the difficulties and the demands on them from the world of the 21st century. As always, they will have to learn the hard way. The one consolation is that they always have learned.

So here's wishing you a complete 2008.

There's nothing like a desert experience to focus the mind. As a wise man said a couple of nights ago in Alexandria, "God didn't just need to get the Jews out of Egypt, he needed to get Egypt out of the Jews." Amen. And here's to wandering.

* "I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial." -Winston Churchill on his appointment as Prime Minister in May of 1940; The Second World War, Volume I : The Gathering Storm (1948)

BC

Republicans are so five years ago...

...at least, according to the uber-respectable Pew Research Center, which calls 18-25 year-olds "the least Republican Generation."

BC

"The Republican Reformation"

Wow! The only thing more shocking than Mike Huckabee's startling ascendancy in Iowa was the former Governor of Arkansas' wide margin of victory over Manchurian Candidate-like Mitt Romney.

As I was telling a co-worker yesterday, I support Huckabee and like him a great deal, but not enough to defend him on all counts (who could support a national smoking ban? Are you kidding me?). I think the criticism of his lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience is valid -- but seriously, did Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or (ahem) George W. Bush have a lick of international affairs experience when they walked into the Oval Office? I think not. One way to remedy this problem and assemble a more bullet-proof ticket would be a McCain-Huckabee combo. Only a McCain-Huckabee candidacy would provide the necessary jump-start to what David Brooks (resident conservative columnist at the New York Times) calls the upcoming "Republican Reformation."

As usual, Brooks has his finger on the pulse of change -- this time on the upcoming Republican Schism. Last week, Brooks penned two columns -- one on Mitt Romney's "Power Point-mentality" and the other on the conventional-wisdom busting Huckabee -Obama victories in Iowa. Both are worth a read. From the Romney column:

If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism. But Romney has tied himself to the old brand...The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.

And from the Iowa column:

Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition....A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending...Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0.

The old guard, fusionist Republican will be crushed in the near future. Young people are turning against the GOP in droves. Immigrants, primarily from Latin America and seemingly a perfect fit for small government, traditional values Republicanism, are repulsed by the "Send the dark people home" rhetoric spewing from mainstream GOP politicians. (FYI: Most recent immigrants to the U.S. are socially and fiscally conservative -- they are not the enemy!). Political and cultural conservatives who dare to espouse a belief in, um, conservation -- are finding the life of an Independent, or even a Democrat, more palatable. The old three legged stool of economic liberalism, social conservatism and hawkish national security is populated by old men, who will all fade away in the next 20 years. That doesn't mean the old men are wrong -- but it does mean a new iteration of conservatism is necessary. Or maybe more accurately, a recovery of the older meaning of conservatism deserves some fresh faces. The Republican Reformation is still waiting for its Martin Luther, though Huckabee and McCain are probably forerunners to that candidate who will fully articulate the new conservatism.

BC