'76 Blog

(Denver Post, Jan. 1) “Let us eat and drink,” said the beautiful people at last night’s glittering parties, “for tomorrow we shall die.”  Maybe they thought their insouciance fitting as 2011 ticked away, but they could not have thought it original.    It was Obama’s favorite economist, John Maynard Keynes, the original Mr. Stimulus, who remarked coldly in the 1930s that in the long run we’re all dead.  And Keynes was echoing the dissipated elites of ancient Israel 2700 years ago, says the prophet Isaiah.  Fatalistic irresponsibility endures though nations rise and fall.  Our fall may now impend, as 69 percent of those polled believe America is in decline and 57 percent expect our kids will live less well than we do.  Yet you saw little evidence of that somber outlook in the prosperous holiday bustle at suburban malls and downtown theaters.  A psychologist might call it cognitive dissonance. I’d call it either rank denial or good old American gumption.  But which? On this first day of a fateful election year the choice is entirely ours – and I choose gumption. Notwithstanding our fiscal and economic woes, political polarization, slumping demographics, nukes in Iran and North Korea, global jihad and sharia, the USA has the potential to come roaring back in 2012 and onward to 2020.  It starts with deciding we can. True, historians warn that great nations seldom make it to age 250, and we’re now 235. “Pessimism, materialism, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, the weakening of religion, the love of money, and the loss of a sense of duty,” Sir John Glubb’s checklist for a country in decadence (from his 1976 book “The Fate of Empires”), fits us all too well.  Our advantage, though, is that there has never been an America before. Are we exempt from the undertow of history and the underside of human nature?  Absolutely not.  We do possess, however, resilient free institutions and an indomitable fighting spirit.  From this fortunate combination – representing for our generation a trust to keep, not a charm to boast on or coast on – a victory for the United States over decadence and decline, against the odds, remains possible. I’m no Pollyanna. Our state and nation are ill-led by Democrats and Republicans alike.  Judges flout the Constitution, producing tyrannous rulings like Colorado’s Lobato school case, and making it unlikely the Supreme Court will annul the disaster that is Obamacare. The spiritual poverty in today’s public square would appall the pioneers who put “Nil Sine Numine,” nothing without the Spirit, on our state seal. We face a stormy year.   But like many Christian and Jewish conservatives, I enter 2012 with a survival kit of ideas and ideals that keep me buoyant, storms or not.  Here on the shelf by my desk are wisdom-books giving timeless encouragement in the toughest times.  Enemy attack, economic crash, electoral defeat?  I hope and pray not.  Still in such volumes as these, there is sustenance to persist regardless. Of course my list of ten titles, compiled years ago for a friend, won’t match yours.  But I do recommend compiling your own.  It will ground you on bedrock and make 2012 go better. And what are the books on my shelf?  First is the Bible, alongside Chesterton’s “Everlasting Man” and Lewis’s “Mere Christianity,” for an anchor in eternity.  Next, “The Federalist” for politics and Bastiat’s “The Law” plus Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” for economics.  Weaver’s “Ideas Have Consequences” and Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” diagnose America’s travails since 1945.   From literature, though a hundred come to mind, I complete my ten with Bolt’s “Man for All Seasons” and Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings,” epitomizing moral integrity.  We’ll need a lot of that, and divine help besides, as beleaguered America turns the calendar page.  Happy New Year.   

As conservatives, we feel that we are right. We feel as though the leftist agendas have been practiced to failure, exhaustion, and are not even viable solutions. However, many conservatives lack the ability to communicate with those of opposing viewpoints. I have been to countless conservative speaking-engagements, summits, think tanks, classes, et cetera, but these venues shed a “preach to the choir” ambience. What about those who are different, who vehemently disagree with conservative policies, and/or who label us evil, bigots, fear-mongers, callous, immoral, and barrages of other words? If conservatives’ pervasive trait of “realism” is to be tapped, we must realize these are the real people who need to be reached—and the way we communicate with them is crucial. Now, in the wake of a climacteric political race, conservatives need these skills more than ever. I write this not to accuse conservatives, because all of us are different in many ways, but merely bring some thoughts to attention that may help augment our platform. First, know that tone and listening are two invaluable communication tools. I once had someone tell me, “You have two ears and one mouth. Do the math.” Listening twice as much as you speak and keeping your tone to an acceptable, “non-threatening”, and un-condescending volume is a great way to carry yourself throughout a dialogue with a Leftist. Just as the left seems to enjoy discerning faults in the world, they also will find fault in your communication if done improperly or “threateningly”. Second, understand what differentiates Left from Right. Conservatives believe in less government whereas the left believes in more. This is simple but must always be consciously remembered. Third, be ready for an isolated example. Leftists consistently highlight the unfortunate scenario of a small number. For example, people in favor of Obama-Care, socialization of healthcare, and/or other variances of healthcare entitlement programs often use the “cancer-ridden homeless man” story. Essentially, there is a homeless gentleman who is diagnosed with cancer and goes to emergency rooms (since he cannot be turned away) regularly for some sort of panacea because he cannot afford an oncologist (which is what he needs). Two things are routinely pulled from this story by the left: (1) thousands of dollars are being spent treating the wrong problem and (2) this is an atrocity no one should have to go through. The conservative generally responds in a manner viewed as callus and insensitive in the leftist’s eyes—therefore, how can we, as conservatives, avoid less of these unsuccessful conversations? The answer is simple: articulation, tone, and engagement. Thomas Lock’s “Second Treatise on Government” suggests that no civilization will ever be perfect as a result of the fall of man—sin. Sin corrupts all humanity. Therefore, if two humans cannot exist in a perfect Utopian society, how can 320 million? Bring something like this to the Leftist’s attention using tone and calmness and ask, “What do you think about this?” Leftists will generally respond uniquely, since, let us be honest and genuine, every person has a slightly different worldview, another detail that must be kept in mind. All differences accounted for leftists will generally not find it moral to allow the “atrocity”. Maybe then suggest what NGO’s can do for these people and why pry at why this has to be the government. From here, use discernment and follow similar principles. Not using leading questions only, per se, but helping the leftist see how many of these Utopian dreams are merely unfeasible and that conservatism seeks to implement what works best as nothing will ever be “perfect”. Fourth, strive to instill a sense of trust of humanity as opposed to the government. For absolute power corrupts absolutely. Always keep an understanding that leftists are going to consistently be compassionate, Band-Aids to the broken, and speaker forthe unspoken-for. Leftists may have a stronger desire to be humanistic, humanitarian, and philanthropic than many conservatives. Although this is not true in most cases, it helps going into a dialogue with a leftist assuming that is their perception; helping the Left understand that conservatives consistently fund non-profits but merely prefer the right to choose where their money goes if the next step.  Leftists routinely argue that “corporate greed” will prevent money from being distributed and that humanity’s proclivity to sin inhibits our giving, hence why the government is needed. Here, I suggest the theories of expectancy and dependency. For example, a teacher wrote into the O’Reilly Factor saying (paraphrased), “I had a student today respond to what he wants to be when he grows up with, ‘live on welfare and get free healthcare’”. Unfortunately, the “hard-worker” who receives entitlements becomes lost amidst those who treat it as free-money, entitlement, and eventual dependency. Perhaps continue this conservative-leftist dialogue by catechizing a leading question such as, “Obviously this is not right, yes? What would work better?” Last, as a conservative, you already feel as though self-responsibility is becoming a disappearing attribute of the common man and is being juxtaposed with a nurtured sense of entitlement and being “owed something”. Face it! We are owed NOTHING except life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. Entitlement comes with an innate sense of “owed”, and entitlements breed dependency more often than not. The government of the United States of America was not established with the mission statement of granting happiness to all. Fellow conservatives, when you return to your lives, embark with a sense of understanding toward the Left. Understand they want to help, fix, provide, and save but many their ideas are simply unrealistic. Telling them they are unfeasible is impractical and ineffective—as is throwing accusatory statements or putting them on the defensive. When Pilate accused Jesus, Jesus did not respond with the ferocity of the common-Roman-man’s perception of Him. I rest my case in that it is not what you say, it is how you articulate, engage, word, and say it.

A dozen scholars and commentators convened as guests of the Centennial Institute on May 17 for a luncheon seminar on Benjamin Wiker's survey of modern intellectual history, Ten Books That Screwed Up the World.  After Wiker, formerly a professor of philosophy and ethics at several Catholic colleges, lectured about his book at CCU on April 15,  Centennial director John Andrews suggested there should be a followup discussion to probe the validity of his thesis.Two CCU faculty members, political scientist Greg Schaller and historian William Watson, reflected afterward about some of the differing perspectives that emerged at the luncheon.  Their comments included the following: =======================SCHALLER:Some at the table seemed to desire the absence of state interference in soul-craft. In my opinion, this is not the same good they seem to think it is. While I certainly agree that the absence of brutal states is superior to the cruel dictator, I disagree that it is an either/or proposal.  The state can and should play a role in the forming of social mores that are essential to self-government success.It is indeed a great thing that we have the liberty to debate and discuss these ideas, free from state persecution and I wouldn't want to live under a different regime.  The problem with the absence ofguidance is that the liberty that was won, based on the principles of natural right, has been corrupted into license.  And this is a terribly dangerous development, that does indeed connect back to Wiker's argument.  There is no denying the fact that Hobbes does indeed refer back to Machiavelli, and Rousseau to Hobbes, and Marx to Rousseau, and Nietzsche to Marx.  To ignore how this lineage has built on itself, and the negative impact it has had, is wrong.===========================WATSON: I was surprised there weren't more voices supporting Wiker's understanding of historical causation, that ideas have consequences.  Have we dispensed with Intellectual History?  Is there no historical development of ideas?  Didn't Rousseau influence Robespeirre and Marx, or Darwin and Nietzsche influence HItler?  Isn't there an assumption in teaching Western Civilization, in the way CCU is now doing, that Western ideas developed gradually over the centuries by the influence of Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and Christians?  Didn't positive developments like the Magna Charta, Martin Luther, John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and the founding fathers culminate in the production of the rights, freedoms and democratic institutions we enjoy?  Couldn't there also have been negative influences leading us astray of these values, influences like the authors mentioned by Wiker: Rousseau, Marx, Darwin, Hitler, Freud? I differ on a few particulars of Wiker's positions, but his general thesis of a drift away from the worldview that produced human dignity, rule of law, free markets, limited government and individual freedom cannot be written off.  We should defend (and train our students to defend) the ideas that have produced our liberty.   It seems to me impossible to deny the historical development of ideas which had consequences --specifically, the catastrophes of the 20th century.  If someone claims, for example, that there was little or no difference between Genghis Khan and Adolph Hitler, I would say there is a great difference for the worse on Hitler's side, not only quantitative in terms of the death toll, but also qualitative in terms of the evil ideology 

As conservatives, unlike the left with its belief that material causation is all, we know that ideas have consequences.  To gird for the battle of ideas, I recommend not only Richard Weaver's 1948 classic by that title, but also Benjamin Wiker's excellent companion volumes, Ten Books That Screwed Up the World (2008) and Ten Books Every Conservative Must Read (2010). Centennial Institute brought Wiker to Denver for three lectures this week.  He lit up the room every time - first with CCU students, then with donors and trustees, then with faculty and staff. The titles on his bad list, actually 15 in all, include The Prince by Macchiavelli, Discourse on Method by Descartes, Leviathan by Hobbes, Inequality Among Men by Rousseau, Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, Utilitarianism by Mill, Descent of Man by Darwin, Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche, State and Revolution by Lenin, Pivot of Civilization by Sanger, Mein Kampf by Hitler, Future of an Illusion by Freud, Coming of Age in Samoa by Mead, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Kinsey, and The Feminine Mystique by Friedan. On Ben Wiker's good list are another 15, though he terms the last one an impostor.  They include The Politics by Aristotle, Orthodoxy by Chesterton, New Science of Politics by Voegelin, Abolition of Man by Lewis, Reflections on the Revolution in France by Burke, Democracy in America by Tocqueville, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, Servile State by Belloc, Road to Serfdom by Hayek, The Tempest by Shakespeare, Sense and Sensibility by Austen, Lord of the Rings by Tolkien, the Jerusalem Bible, and (coincidentally timed with the new movie just out) Atlas Shrugged by Rand. Your turn now: Which books don't belong where Wiker put them, and why?  Which books would you add to the all-time bad list and all-time good list?  Or on a more personal level, what are some titles that you would nominate as particularly magificent - or awful - because of what they have meant in your own life? Let the games begin. Benjamin Wiker at Colorado Christian University on April 15 lauding Jane Austen or excoriating Jean Jacques Rousseau; I forget which.

(Denver Post, Feb. 27) So Facebook brought down the Egyptian regime.  Until now, the only thing I knew it had brought down was my productivity – and that of many other Republicans old enough to know better, after we all stampeded there upon hearing how Democrats rode it to victory in 2008. Obama in, Mubarak out, Zuckerberg to megawealth, and “Social Network” to the Oscars. Such is the Facebook scorecard so far, and there is 90% of the human race yet to be tapped – er, “friended.” Well, call me a dinosaur, but I still believe the front line of self-government in a free society is citizens reading newspapers.  Your pretty pixels on a shimmering screen are fine.  But ink on pulp, served up at the breakfast table for Printosaurus Retrogradus to devour, digest, and act upon, remains the superior medium for effective political engagement in my book. If you are reading this on newsprint – and about half the total audience of the Denver Post now may not be – you probably agree.  Our task is to bring along enough of our fellow Americans, especially the next generation, so that newspapers can survive economically and the country, with their help, can keep renewing itself politically. He’s gone apocalyptic, some will say.  He’s a curmudgeon trapped in the 1950s, a technophobic troglodyte.  He’s mad because his email service, America Online (itself pathetically passe’), has merged with the Huffington Post – and ISP wasn’t supposed to stand for “incessant socialist propaganda.”  His prejudice for the fish-wrapping, birdcage-lining news medium of yesterday over the wild and woolly Web of today is groundless. Maybe; the 1950s charge isn’t actually that far off.  But the prejudice none of us who love newspapers should apologize for is simply a matter of setting value on their more comprehensive, structured, and reasoned interpretation of current events – in contrast to the fragmentary, fleeting, and impressionistic patchwork one is likely to get from the unedited maelstrom of online sources. I want, and we should all want, the neighbors who share with us the duties of governance in city, state, and nation to be thinkers equipped for deciding responsibly.  Does democracy carry the inescapable risk that your carefully considered vote will be cancelled by that of some shallow-minded flake?  Boy, does it – which is all the more reason to work for a civic ethos where informed consent is encouraged and impulsive irresponsibility is frowned on.  Editorial gatekeeping and quality control in our news and opinion media cannot be mandated (thank God for the First Amendment), but they must not be lost. Twitter mustn’t become the only game in town.  Newspapers didn’t lose their dominant agenda-setting and chaff-filtering function as radio and TV arose in the last century, and we need to hope they don’t lose it as the Internet burgeons today, even though electronic delivery may far outpace print delivery. Election 2010 would have gone better here, in my opinion, if the Rocky Mountain News had still been around to compete with the Denver Post.  But heaven help us if the people’s momentous decisions on candidates and ballot issues had had to be made with only the help of dueling websites and water-cooler gossip, and no Denver Post at all. What keeps vital democracy-facilitating businesses like this one afloat as the new technology sorts itself out, I don’t know.  I do know government subsidies are not an option.   My personal crusade is more on the demand side, building readership. That’s why, at every opportunity in my work on a college campus, I brace these laid-back millennial students to arm themselves for citizenship by reading print journalism and lots of it – the local paper, national papers, newsmagazines, opinion journals.  Nothing else feeds your head in quite the same healthy way, I tell them.  Please help me spread that message.  

(CCU Student) Yesterday I took part in a meeting with John Andrews, director of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, and others for a planning and update session on the direction of the Centennial Institute and our effectiveness of spreading the principles of freedom and the values of 1776. In my time at CCU, I have had the privilege of watching the Centennial Institute act as a beacon of truth and a forum for healthy debate and political discourse that is gaining popularity in Colorado and is growing on the radar screen of the Conservative movement. In our session, we had a preview of things to come such as policy briefs, guest speakers, and our capstone event of the year: Western Conservative Summit. I cannot divulge much but I will say that it looks like we are in for a treat this July. Sitting in on the meeting was a Fellow of the Centennial Institute, Kevin Miller.  Formerly dean of the CCU Business School, he is the author of the recently published Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally - or Socialism. In his book, Miller proposes that for too long the Conservative movement has focused entirely on instilling virtue on a federal level. What is really needed is virtue on a local level and freedom on a national level. Looking at Miller’s argument, I could not agree more with his thesis.  Even since the Great Society of LBJ, the conservative movement has attempted to instill virtue into the national government. Because the Progressives have done it for so long, we now believe we have to take the virtuous Conservative agenda to courts and to congress. However, they have failed to recognize a very critical truth, that without local virtue, we cannot hope to initiate a virtuous government. If the government is a reflection of the people and the society, then create a virtuous society at the local level. The federal government will follow. The American system as the founders intended is a two way street of freedom and virtue that begins with the individual. It would seem that in recent history that the Socially Conservative movement has been on a crusade to such proposals as gay marriage. As long as these pillars of the Liberal agenda remain, nothing else matters. However, what these well-meaning individuals fail to recognize is that you cannot put a virtuous law into place without a virtuous society to hold it up. Any engineer will tell you that this method could never work in setting upon a structure, so why on earth will it ever work in the structure of the American legal system? We cannot make government the champion of a moral cause because government was never meant to be a judge of morality. Morality can only be left to God and his relationship with an individual. When written into law, virtue is no longer virtuous. Compliance with a law and doing the right thing are totally different things. Do I follow the speed limit out of the goodness of my heart and concern for the safety of others? No. I don’t speed because I don’t want to pay a ticket. The same goes for trying to instill virtues into the government. Are we going to get rid of homosexuality in America by banning same-sex marriage? Are we going to eradicate abortion (which some call murder) and broken families by repealing Roe v Wade? To think so would be foolish. Where many in the Conservative movement are missing their mark is thinking that stopping symptoms cures the disease. What is needed in the United States is true freedom on the national level. Only in this environment can true virtue exist. If Conservatives and Christians want their government to reflect their virtues, then they need to get society to reflect those virtues first. So rather than waste time at a protest of an abortion clinic, perhaps I should simply witness to others and attempt to win them into the kingdom of God. History has proven the effectiveness of God’s word on a society. But such occurrences as the Great Awakening or the Enlightenment occurred within societies and on an individual basis before they impacted nation-states in a political manner. It is when Christians try to make theology political and cultural that counter movements arise and take the government in a different direction. If our desire is for America to be a great nation, we first need to make Americans great people. When our society is great, the government will be forced to follow. But unfortunately there is a massive moral deficit in this country that is far more dangerous than the economic deficit. By and large, Americans have allowed themselves to become materialistic and shallow. Our society operates in the realm of instant gratification and entitlement. We allow our role models to be upstanding individuals like Tiger Woods, Miley Cyrus, Justin Beiber, and the cast of Jersey Shore. Rather than study men like John Locke and Jesus Christ, we study the latest scandal coming out of the NFL or the latest news from the stock market. And yet Americans are surprised when individuals in government and power behave in a base and immoral manner. Why are we surprised when politicians are found to be living in infidelity when many American families are falling victim to unfaithful spouses? When many American citizens are guilty of frivolous spending and accruing debt, we should not be shocked to find our government in a similar state.  What is needed is a return to virtue on the part of the average American. Without such action, we can never hope to recover our government and restore our nation. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this about America; that our government fostered the freedom to choose virtue and virtue allowed for a free people because virtue restrained the desires of the flesh. Without this unique relationship, neither virtue nor freedom can ultimately succeed. Without it, America cannot hope to succeed.

(CCU Student) Recently, I was able to attend the first public showing of “I Am”, a documentary film directed, conceived and funded by Tom Shadyac.  Mr. Shadyac was able to fund his film through his enormous success in directing blockbuster comedies such as; “Ace Ventura”, “The Nutty Professor” and “Bruce Almighty”.   The screening was shown at Denver University (free to all Colorado students) complete with a Q/A session with Tom Shadyac himself. What made a successful director choose such different and dangerous production? After a serious concussion, leading to severe bouts of depression and detachment, Tom Shadyac has decided to pursue a different type of film.  “I Am” is attempting to answer two questions, “What is wrong with our world? What can we do to fix it?” In solving these mysteries Shadyac employs the wisdom of scientists, academics and historians. The result is a documentary spliced with beautiful scenery, inspiring scientific research, apolitical & political arguments and quotes of Jesus Christ and Gandhi lumped together. The danger of this film comes from the base concept which Shadyac subscribes to… ‘We are perfectible; if every person just gets on board with an idea we can end humanities struggles and pains.’  As a Christian this concept is very dangerous.  I understand that we are fallen beings.  We are destined to fail.  But does this mean any attempt to improve the world is to be rejected?  No.  We are to do the best that we can on this earth with the understanding that any good we do, of our own creation, is not impermeable.  The only lasting deeds are those that are of Christ. What I fear of Shadyac’s mantra is that it more proficiently steers people away from Christ’s redemption than calls to immorality and depravity.  “I Am” and it’s ideologies fit perfectly in our world.  If one were to full heartedly subscribe to Shadyac’s progressive call to action, one will never be discouraged by the continued imperfections of the world do to sin, rather one will blame them on the fact that not everyone “gets it” as they do. Now to be fair, Shadyac is very sober and has a greater understanding of the world than much of his future audience, who will undoubtedly embrace his movie as the new ultimate blueprint for humanity.  Shadyac is very introspective, and his movement does focus on individual deeds, resistant of government intervention.  However, having gone to the screening, I was able to witness how quickly the audience at Denver University brushed over that point and persisted in asking how they could start getting everyone else to do this, and how to change everyone else, not for a moment assessing their own righteousness.  The company Shadyac employs in his pursuit of a perfect world is also worth noting.  Noam Chomsky, a true source of wisdom in this film; a man who claimed that Communist leader Mao did not really mean to kill any of the 76+ million Chinese that died under his reign.(Rummel)  Shadyac also turns to Howard Zinn, a documented communist. Zinn, despite being widely discredited and having stated in his celebrated book that, “if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity” Howard Zinn is shown in this movie as a Historian who knows best.  Shadyac rounds off his ‘unbiased’ political perspective with the liberal/progressive talk show host, Thom Hartmann. The world is not what God intended for it to be.  Instead of a place for Him to walk with man, sin has corrupted all of the earth.  To ignore the inherent nature of our sin and envision a utopian way of human existence void of God is quite reckless.  An attempt to create a “heaven on earth” by ignoring our nature of sin is a clear subtraction from the glory and salvation that we all need so desperately.  “I Am” makes a nearly convincing proposal for actually obtaining that utopia.  That is what makes this film the most dangerous fill of the year.   References ** Zinn, A People's History of the United States, p. 646 ** Rummel, R.J. "DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER." University of Hawaii. 1994. Web. 09 Feb. 2011. <http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM>

(Centennial Fellow) Energized by the Tea Party, a conservative comeback ostensibly rolls into Washington this month. But are the results desired truly going to happen? Conservatives have two well-established, honorable impulses: they want a free country and they want a virtuous country. Unfortunately, the strategy of numerous conservatives in acting upon these impulses has been failing for decades. That’s because of this important axiom: when Americans ask their Federal Government to deliver both freedom and virtue, they will ultimately get neither. The problem is this: a key number of Christian conservatives ask their Federal Government to deliver both freedom and virtue. And Washington’s obliging, persistent installation of coerced, often fake, “virtues” reduces the freedom of all Americans. Decades ago, Washington started assuming that an essential purpose of the Federal Government is to define and enforce the personal virtues of Americans. So, by now, Washington is deeply committed to ensuring that Americans’ personal behaviors are conformed to “government standards,” like Americans buying the “correct” light bulbs, purchasing compulsory health coverage, and teaching six-year-olds “enlightened” sex education in public schools. In this way, America is inexorably moving beyond economic socialism to “virtue-socialism.” Not content with just the leveling of economic resources of Americans, Washington relentlessly works to level the virtues of Americans. Simply stated, the Federal Government is in the “virtue business.” That’s because Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution says, “Congress shall have the power to define and enforce personal virtues to be adhered to by the people.” Just kidding, of course. That provision of the Constitution doesn’t exist. But you couldn’t prove that by perusing the voluminous laws and regulations conforming citizens’ personal behaviors to Washington’s whims. Key leaders on the supposedly conservative side, including Christians, have often bought into the assumption that the Federal Government should be in the virtue business. Hence: The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. No Child Left Behind. The latest “family-friendly” Federal policy. But the results are clear: Federal policies simply entrench the Federal Government’s power and its constituent base. The long-standing strategic mistake is to agree that the Feds should be in the virtue business at all. So, a crucial number of well-meaning conservatives who think they are fighting the good fight are instead fighting the wrong fight. Rather, there is a truly conservative, Constitution-honoring strategy: “freedom nationally, virtue locally.” Virtue is not generated by Federal Government policy. Virtue percolates effectively bottom-up, by a clarion call to individuals, and by inculcation of values in families, churches, local associations, and communities. Americans own their own virtues—apart from the Federal Government. That’s part and parcel of their religious liberty. Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Well, contrary to conventional wisdom, in America “Caesar” is not the Federal Government. Caesar is “the people, bound by the Constitution.” And the people, via the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, did not delegate the defining and enforcing of Americans’ personal virtues to the Federal Government. So, is self-inflicted defeat of their own political goals once again likely for conservatives? Not if the elected officials substantively endorse the American people’s local discretion and strategically install “freedom nationally, virtue locally.” That’s the only clear path for American greatness. Perhaps meaningful change will start with the 112th Congress. Godspeed.  Kevin Miller is the author of the just-published Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally—or Socialism and a Centennial Institute Fellow.© Kevin Miller

Decades ago, I was a reporter in Albany, N.Y., working for a newspaper at the foot of a hill that could be ascended only with huffing, puffing, knee endangerment and sweat unless you employed a trick. It was this. You first went down a flight of stairs from the newsroom to the composing room, left by a backdoor, went across a metal walkway and a littered stretch of earth to the bottom floor of an adjacent office building and took the elevator up several levels. You then emerged minus wear or tear out of a front door to a sidewalk on the top of that now humbled hill in the otherwise proud capital of the Empire State. The best part of this electronically eased conquest, however, was not exiting the elevator at a happy height, but rather a poster on the wall of the floor where the elevator was entered. “Today,” it said, “is the first day of the rest of your life.” Everyone has encountered that saying many times, right? I hadn’t until someone showed me the shortcut. And while the sentence initially struck me as somehow too cute to be profound, it worked on me as a positive, energizing reminder that unsullied beginnings and novel opportunities could be as much a matter of attitude as of circumstance. It even got to where those words would automatically prod a cheerful meditative moment figuratively consonant with my rise in the elevator. If there are many excuses besides a poster for that attitude to announce itself — and I think there are probably quite a few — none quite equals the advent of a new year. What’s this number I keep hearing? 2011? Wow! That’s the first year of the rest of my life, a perfect pretext to shed the past and put on the future. While the past for most of us has multiple grand attributes, all manner of personal regrets may reside there, too: Things that should not have been said or done, missed chances, pointlessly sour moods, self-destructive habits, a stale, wearied outlook that pushed us from the adventure of life, and, sadly, more, much more. We are nonetheless like mythical Phoenix birds. It may not always be easy to locate it, but we do seem to have a capacity to rise from the ashes of the old self to a revitalized self, to see the world bright, shiny and new as it engages us with its fascinating plenitude and we discover possibilities both in and outside ourselves where we previously thought the road had come to an end. We then wake up as if from sleep with hope and a determination to make more of all that comes our way. Enter the practice of framing New Year resolutions, of the terrific things we want to do for ourselves and should do for others, and yes, I know, some pooh-pooh this, saying you hardly need a calendar convention to fix issues that you probably won’t fix anyway. Maybe, but maybe not, and here’s the thing: The counsel of defeatism is always with us, and if you heed it — guess what? — you will be defeated for sure. Back in Albany, I first off wondered who was this Pollyanna busybody who put up the bottom-floor poster, thinking it OK to intrude on gloom and negativity, gratuitously lifting spirits. If the person is still around, I’d like to say I not only forgive you, I thank you. And I would also like to express my gratitude for many of the New Year traditions — those resolutions, the fireworks, for everything that adds up to a widely conveyed sense that something great is around the corner, that the past is past and now we have a new year as full of potential as an infant, a sunrise year, a virgin year, a year allowing for a fresh start for those eager to give it a try. Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado and a Centennial Institute Fellow. E-mail him at speaktoJay@aol.com.  

“A prison cell, in which one waits, hopes - and is completely dependent on the fact that the door of freedom has to be opened from the outside, is not a bad picture of Advent."  Those words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian prisoner and eventual martyr in Hitler's Germany, were the concluding line in remarks at a world religions panel on Dec. 10 by Ryan Murphy, CCU Assistant Professor of Christian Thought.  Addressing a convocation of faculty and staff two weeks before Christmas, Murphy pointed out that Advent is unique for the same reason Christianity itself is.  His talk began this way: One question we were each asked to address was: “What is the most serious misunderstanding of you by outsiders?”  It would have to be that Christianity is yet another variant of religion.... Why?  Because in Christianity we have a fundamentally different assessment of the human condition.  That’s what sets Christianity apart.   The assessment is not that vice is ignorance (as per the classical conception, Plato, etc.); it is not that we have corrupted our revelation, lost knowledge of God, and we required simply a better prophet, a more sound revelation, as per Islam, or Joseph Smith). What’s unique, is that Christianity posits that humankind is unable to bridge the gap between ourselves and God – not just ignorant of how, in which case further instruction would be necessary;  Not just unwilling, in which case a helpful example would be called for.   Unable.  In which case, if this gap is to be bridged, it will be bridged by God himself.    This is Anselm’s conviction – Man owes a debt he cannot pay, God wishes to pay a debt he does not owe – the elegant divine solution?  The God-Man.  God incarnate in the person of Christ, reconciling the world to himself.   Read the full text here. Ryan Murphy - This I Believe - 121010  And have a blessed Christmas, a liberating time in the highest and holiest sense of that word, a passage through that door of ultimate freedom of which Bonhoeffer wrote and Murphy spoke.