May 25, 2004
MUMBO-JUMBO NATION:
When Reason Sleeps, Mumbo-Jumbo Frolics: Often, it seems as though the Enlightenment never happened. (Francis Wheen, May 24, 2004, LA Times)
In 1922, just after his second term as president, Woodrow Wilson was asked for his thoughts on Darwinian theory."Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution," he replied. "It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."
Now imagine Wilson's downright astonishment had he been informed that in 2004, more than eight decades later, the state schools superintendent in Georgia would propose excising the word "evolution" from the biology curriculum.
There are few backers these days for the argument that we have reached "the end of history." However, a glance at some of the dominant ideas of the last couple of decades raises an even more startling possibility: that history, far from halting, has gone into reverse gear.
Pity poor Francis Fukuyama--his theory does take a drubbing from those, like Mr. Wheen, who completely fail to grasp it. The End of History thesis is not premised upon History ending in the 1990's but on the universal recognition that it had ended in 1776, with the visions of liberal democratic protestant capitalism embodied in the Declaration of Independence and The Wealth of Nations. The subsequent centuries proved this system so much more powerful than its rivals that there is nearly no sane person left arguing for any alternative. And, significantly, the system requires Judeo-Christian faith, not Darwinism, which proved a more useful underpinning for liberalism's enemies. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 25, 2004 2:18 PM
You would have a hard time proposing a country more Darwinian than the US.
The resulting fitness is proof of that.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 25, 2004 9:40 PMTut-tut, confusing Natural Selection and Intelligent Design again.
Posted by: oj at May 25, 2004 10:23 PMA few questions regarding the review of Robert Kraynak's 'Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politics in the Fallen World':
If the purpose of a Christian, (or religious), government is to promote order, virtue, and piety, doesn't liberal democracy do the first, manage a bare-bones framework of the second, and allow the third ?
If so, isn't it still an acceptable vehicle on the way to Enlightened governance ?
If we were to trend towards a Christian Constitutional democracy, isn't there a danger of increased bigotry ?
As you point out, slavery and Christianity can well co-exist, and aggressive faiths such as Christianity and Islam have historically built fairly intolerant societies, where minorities and non-traditional thinkers have had to tread lightly.
Harry Eager's experiences with religion in the American South cannot be dismissed, even if one disagrees with his conclusions of the society.
With the exceptions of societies created with the primary purpose of exalting God, such as the Taliban and the Puritans, when has any government come close to promoting the City of God ?
Governments exist to provide for a common defense, maintain order, (not necessarily justice), and for trash pickup.
Just as most people do, governments are usually content to get by as best they can.
Which brings me to my final point, which is that the reason that America isn't closer to what Professor Kraynak outlines as desirable is, the vast majority of Americans don't care.
Most of the changes he'd like to see made are possible right now, under our current system of government and Constitution.
All that's required is a large enough constituency demanding it.
A quibble:
Thelma was not a passive follower; The final handclasp showed a unity of vision, a combined desire.