Michael Barone & Brett Kunkle
The year was 1994. I was about 11 years old. My father, as he was wont to do, was watching his favorite weekly news program The McLaughlin Group. As I sat and tried desperately to understand what was being said on the television screen about the 1994 mid-term elections a man named Michael Barone chimed in with an anecdote about Newt Gringrich and former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. I went and looked up Mr. Disraeli in the family encyclopedia and thought to myself, "Who was that smart guy who knew how to bring this dead British politician into a conversation about an American election?"
That man was Michael Barone. He's on my podcast this week. The circle is closed.
This week's episode of The R.J. Moeller show starts with R.J.'s candid interview with AEI Resident Fellow, Michael Barone. Mr. Barone is a political analyst and journalist who studies politics, American government, and campaigns/elections. The principal coauthor of the annual Almanac of American Politics (National Journal Group), he has written many books on American politics and history. Michael is also a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner.
Topics covered include: the electoral college's relevance, the likelihood that the GOP takes back a majority in the U.S. Senate, and what brought a young Michael Barone from idealistic liberal to sober-minded conservative.
In the second segment, R.J. chats with his friend Brett Kunkle, Student Impact Director for the organization Stand to Reason in Los Angeles.
Brett is passionate about seeing students and adults “transformed by the renewing of their minds.” He has more than 18 years of experience working with junior high, high school, and college students. He spent 11 of those years as a pastor to students and young adults at Chino Valley Community Church in Southern California and Creekside Church in Colorado. A dynamic communicator who engages both heart and mind, Brett speaks to thousands of students and adults at churches, conferences, and college campuses across the country.
R.J. talks with Brett about the work STR is doing, and some of the challenges people of faith are confronted with when it comes to equipping young people with the intellectual and rhetorical tools needed to articulate and defend what they believe in the public square. You can follow Brett on twitter at @BrettKunkleSTR!
Stream the episode live below, or find (and subscribe to) us on iTunes!
------------------------------
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
G.K. Day: Dogma Matters
By: A.E. Carnehl, Guest Contributor
--------------------
The turn of the 20th century was marked by a number of new philosophies that had grown out of the Darwinism, Marxism, and scientific skepticism of the 19th century. Theosophists, or individuals following the ideas of Helena Blavatsky, maintained that personal spiritual ecstasy and open-mindedness were the means of encountering the Divine. Others, like those following Tolstoy (among other prominent writers), were rebelling against the Church and Catholicism declaring that Christian dogma was constricting and out of date.
In philosophy, the focus began to shift more and more toward individual subjectivity when it came to truth and morality. Communism, materialism, atheism, anarchism, pragmatism, and many other "–isms" stood in the path of common sense and Christianity.
Straddling this path with a sword cane and a pen stood G.K. Chesterton.
Chesterton tirelessly defended the idea that a human being was an animal that created dogmas, or to put it another way, a human was an animal in the Image of God. As a dogmatic creature, human beings had in their nature to make judgments and have beliefs. All the talk at the turn of the century of having an “open mind” for no other reason than to have an open mind was sheer nonsense to GKC. To hope, to dream, to pray, to love, to hate – all these human actions require basic beliefs, and the sum of one’s beliefs make up his dogma.
Chesterton is famous for declaring, “Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
The following excerpt from a 1909 essay shows in more detail what G.K.C. meant by all this:
“In a vast number of cases, an adjective is ornate or exquisite to the point of artificiality; but that the word it is applied to is entirely forgotten. Thus, when they [free-thinkers] say, “Give us a broad religion,” it is reasonable enough, since one religion is really broader than another. But every religion is a religion; that is, it ties a man to something. A faith can be free up to the exact point where it is unfaithful. Or, again, there are politicians who call themselves “independent” politicians; and who boast that they are not attached to any part. They are not; but they would very much like the party to be attached to them. They have some theory or proposal or other; they cannot be any broader than that theory or proposal.
The truth is that if a man wishes to remain in perfect mental breadth and freedom, he had better not think at all. Thinking is a narrowing process. It leads to what people call dogma. A man who thinks hard about any subject for several years is in horrible danger of discovering the truth about it. This process is called becoming “sectarian,” also “hardening in later life”; it can also be described as “giving up to party what was meant for mankind.” It is a terrible think when a man really find that his mind was given him to use, and not to play with; or, in other words, that the gods gave him a great ugly mouth with which to answer questions, and not merely to ask them. The crocodile finds it easy enough to open his mouth and wait for a [tribesman] or an explorer. It is in knowing the exact moment at which to shut it that they really fastidious and dexterous crocodile shows his training. In the same way the modern man fancies he has reached supreme culture because he opens his intellect. But the supreme culture (in the forcible modern phrase) is to know when to shut your head.
There is one odd aspect of the man with this sort of open mind – a man whom one imagines with an open mouth. It is that being thus gaping and helpless, he is really brutal and oppressive. He tyrannizes; he forces on all other men his own insolent indecision. He forbids his followers to come to any conclusion till he has done so. He will allow no one else to find the truth, as Peary will allow no one else to find the Pole. He is the worst tyrant that the world has seen; he is the persecuting skeptic. He is the man who has held up the whole world now for over a hundred years. I thought of one or two examples, but there is no space to mention them. Perhaps it is just as well.”
-Illustrated London News, October 16, 1909
A Different Time, But The Same Place
By: R.J. Moeller
--------------
We're roughly a year away from the next Inauguration Day. At this time next year, one of three men will be sworn in as our president for the following 4 years. For all intents and purposes, it's between Mitt and Newt for the Republicans, and then obviously between Barack Obama and the winner of the GOP family feud.
It's a frustrating and nervous time for many voters - especially conservatives. Many people who share my worldview are disheartened by the prospect of having to vote in the primaries for someone they aren't thrilled about, followed by 6 months or more of wall-to-wall partisan quarreling. Added to this is the fact that all Americans are frustrated and nervous about things like the economy, education, and foreign policy time-bombs that appear on the verge of massive explosion.
The hard, bitter truth is this: all of those worries are legitimate and justified. No sense in denying it. Acceptance is the first step to recovery.
But alas, all is not lost. Not yet, anyway. I stumbled upon one of my all-time favorite YouTube clips this evening and it reminded me of something very important: This is a special place, our country.
The ideas, ideals, and values we have built our society and government on are different. They are special. We aren't individually special or better than the people of other countries. We're all God's children. We're all fallen men and women, no different than Americans of any other age. The times in which the Founders or Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan lived in weren't special.
The beliefs those men lived by, governed by, were special.
It's easy to grow nostalgic when you watch a clip like this one above. It's easy to grow discouraged when you step back and take an honest assessment of the political and cultural landscape of our time.
But I still believe that this is a special place, made so by our ideas, ideals, and values. The capstone of the American experiment in self-government - one which the progressive builders of a secular welfare state have rejected - is simply this: "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." That's it. That's everything. With it we may still fall, should it be God's will. Without it, we cannot help but fail.
Americans still claim a faith in God, however weak the beating pulse of true religion in this country may be. We still acknowledge the importance of family, even to the point where we have contentious on-going debates about how "family" (and its precursor "marriage") will be defined. We even still have huge swaths of young men and women who volunteer their lives to serve and protect their fellow citizens. (Thanks Brent and Matt!)
God, family, country: and in that order.
It may be a different time, but it's still the same place. We don't need another Reagan. We need an intellectual and spiritual revival - a moral resuscitation.
We need 300 million "Reagan's" who share in the vision articulated above. Or - and this is in closing - at the very least can agree on the moving words from a WWI soldier's diary that The Gipper quoted that cold, blustery Inauguration Day 21 years ago:
We are told that on Martin Treptow's body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, "My Pledge," he had written these words: "America must win this war. Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone."
Prager University: Men and Women are Different!
Men and Women live in the same world, so why do they see it so differently? Renowned relationship expert, Alison Armstrong, provides answers that are provocative and profound in this entertaining fully animated Prager University course, the first in a new series.
Hope you like it! Let me know what you think!
Tim King and Eric Teetsel
It's here. It's what you've been waiting for. Joining R.J. and Eric Teetsel on American Enterprise Institute's "Values & Capitalism" podcast this week is our first liberal Democrat!
And who did we bestow this sacred honor upon, you ask? Why, none other than Tim King, Director of Communications for Jim Wallis' Sojourners organization.
A native of New Hampshire, Tim is a graduate of North Park University, a former community organizer (on the South Side of Chicago, no less), and has been with Sojourners since 2008. He frequently posts thought-provoking pieces at God's Politics Blog. Tim is a young man who takes his faith very seriously and has committed his life to affecting real change in matters of poverty and justice. Follow our friend Tim King on Twitter at @tmking.
You are going to enjoy the conversation R.J. moderated between the free-market Teetsel and social-justice King. Topics discussed include: caricatures of the "Religious Right", how Sojourners views a place like AEI (and vice versa), and what common ground can be found among Christians who differ in their views on economic solutions to our nation's current troubles.
The goal was to engage in a serious, thoughtful, and civil dialogue. You can judge for yourself, but as far as the three key players in this exchange were concerned - mission accomplished!
Stream the episode live below, or subscribe and listen for free on your iTunes!
----------------------------------
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Andrew Roberts’ “The Storm of War”
Few things interest this blogger more than WWII history. It is the single most important event of the 100 years, and perhaps well beyond that. Andrew Roberts is a fantastic historical writer from Great Britain and has penned an excellent new book, The Storm of War, for which he sat down with Peter Robinson and Uncommon Knowledge to discuss recently.
Here's the entire interview, but even if you only have time to watch part of it, watch some of it!
I also highly recommend Roberts' Napoleon and Wellington. He is England's David McCullough.
ProLifeCon 2012
Stream ProLifeCon 2012 live below!
Follow me on Twitter at the hash-tag #ProLifeCon
All Glory Is Fleeting…
From the movie Patton:
"For over a thousand years, Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of a triumph - a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeters and musicians and strange animals from the conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conqueror rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children, robed in white, stood with him in the chariot, or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror, holding a golden crown, and whispering in his ear a warning: That all glory is fleeting."
Very sad to hear about Joe Paterno's passing. He wasn't a bad guy, in my estimation. He was, however, proof that "all glory is fleeting." Decades of doing so many right things at Penn State - of being a great coach, upstanding citizen, and leader of men - can be brought crashing down by a few key poor decisions. It's a lesson we can all learn from (in so many ways).
Being a young man myself, it's hard for me to even ponder what my "legacy" might be one day (hopefully) far into the future. But the primary lesson I will take away from the saga of Joe Paterno is this: Worry about doing the right thing in every situation and not about your legacy. The former will take care of the latter.
RIP, JoePa.
No Love For Wal-Mart?
Over at AEI's Values&Capitalism.com blog today is a post that I co-wrote with my friend Jacque Otto about the anger many in our generation misdirect at successful companies like Wal-Mart.
One often hears that shopping at a "mom-and-pop" store is the better option when considering how to spend your time and money. We don't disagree that local shops and restaurants are important pieces of a healthy community, but we do disagree that retailers like Wal-Mart and Target must be diminished (or even demonized).
Here's an excerpt:
To the untrained eye, there seems to be a contradiction in a free market conservative who preaches the superiority of limited government, de-centralization of powers and charity localization (i.e. churches, neighborhoods, families) while at the same time defending multi-national corporations like Walmart that dominate their respective markets. Things seem even more convoluted if the free-market conservative and his or her liberal chums are all Christians (or even simply “religious”).
Where is compassion to be found in the face of a faceless corporate juggernaut?
Are not more localized markets and businesses better suited to meet the needs of the people and areas they know best? Isn’t it unfair for a neighborhood sporting goods store to have to compete with Dick’s or Sports Authority? Or a local grocer or retailer to compete with the Walmart Supercenter?
To find out our answers to these questions, click right here.
The Plumb Line: Immigration (Part 4)
By: Caitlin Doemner, Contributor
(For Part 3, click here)
----------------------------
In My Opinion
The Alabama law hits on two large issues in the immigration debate – the relationship between the federal and state government in immigration enforcement, as well as the proper scope for public benefits offered to illegal immigrants.
Federal Authority vs. State Power
As in many other cases, the lawsuits that the Department of Justice has brought against Arizona, Alabama, and other states will bring an issue that ought to be resolved in Congress to the Supreme Court’s docket. Congress (a body of 535 elected officials with distinct views) has exclusive authority to determine immigration policy; not the Supreme Court, a body of 9 appointed members with fairly predictable viewpoints and almost no public accountability. What I fear is that when these lawsuits are brought before the Supreme Court, regardless of what they decide, it will set a significant precedent that will dramatically affect the legislation Congress is able to pass in the future.
In my view, the states are currently within their rights to establish enforcement policies that do not conflict with the federally-established immigration laws. I believe one of the greatest advantages of living in a states-based country is the freedom it allows; states can respond to the different needs of their citizens while remaining unified. If some states, like Oregon and Alaska, wish to become “sanctuary states,” and others, like Arizona and Alabama, wish to practice “attrition through enforcement,” it falls within the rights of the people. Now, by definition, this practice will result in an inconsistent enforcement of laws, with the almost inevitable result of frustration and confusion, but these are secondary to the constitutionality of the matter. My Conclusion: So long as Congress does not prohibit the states from establishing legislation regarding the enforcement of federal policy, they should be allowed to do so.
Education for Undocumented Residents
What I find ironic is that opponents of states’ rights to enact harsher legislation that is in keeping with federal law are the same people you find supporting states’ rights to enact legislation that opposes federal law, i.e. individuals who want to keep Alabama from passing legislation that mirrors Title 8 advocate giving state funding to undocumented residents which is prohibited according to Title 8.
In order to be consistent, I feel that states should have a right to establish their own legislation regarding college tuition for undocumented students, and therefore I support the DREAM Act’s initiative to eliminate the federal provision denying postsecondary benefits on the basis of residency.
My Conclusion: Let each state’s citizens decide how to allocate their own resources, but these applicants should not be eligible for federal financial aid because it suggests an unsupported unity by the states on this matter.
If you noticed, I didn’t touch deeply on the economic consequences of providing benefits to immigrants, and that is because my research indicated (1) a lack of hard numbers substantiated by actual data, and (2) even where the numbers were available, they were nuanced and difficult to interpret alone. For example, regarding the Alabama state law, Alabama spent an estimated $298 million on immigrants; but immigrants paid an estimated $130 million in state and local taxes (personal income, property, and sales). Add to that the value migrant workers provide farmers in labor alone, and you have very likely evened the cost-benefit playing field. Therefore, I do not feel that economic arguments lend themselves decisively to either side of the debate.
General Thoughts
I knew very little about the immigration debate before embarking on this series of articles and honestly did not know where I would land on the issue. Now, at the end of my research, I have decided that I favor making it increasingly difficult to enter the country illegally and increasingly easy to enter legally. As an example of what I mean: Build walls. Increase funding for border security. Allow states to enact harsh measures against illegal immigrants. But also enact the DREAM Act. Create programs that enable migrant workers to work seasonally in the United States and return to their homes when done Streamline the citizen application process to get people through as quickly and safely as possible.
I believe we would see a large increase in economic fecundity if we established a quick and simple tiered approach to working and living legally in the United States. This report about the effect of immigration on American jobs published by AEI supports my belief that immigration has a positive impact on domestic job growth.
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard