October 2024

LOVE ONE ANOTHER, AS I HAVE LOVED YOU:

To Die Well, We Must Live Well—And for Others (Marianna Orlandi, 9/24/24, Public Discourse)

Lonely deaths are the inevitable product of our independent lives, the necessary outcome of decades spent “focusing on ourselves” as our culture mandates. They are the natural consequence of hours dedicated to running on a treadmill instead of chasing children; of hundreds of hours studying privately, uninterrupted by conversations with friends and peers who might have slowed us down; of hectic sleep schedules that prevent us from taking part in our friends’ plans and parties; of choosing solitary meals over shared ones. Such a focus on oneself is typical of today’s culture across the board. And it is by no means exclusive to single people.

Marriage and family life is not, in itself, a remedy to our egocentric cultural ethos. We all know families who leave elderly parents alone or even acquiesce to family members’ desires to give up on life. Said differently, there is little that an institution, even one as noble and as necessary as the family, can do on its own. Marriage and childbearing are paths to self-sacrifice and community, but they are not the only way, and they are not sufficient. I recently had a conversation with a psychiatrist here in Austin and she and I agreed that, at least partly, this may be what the latest surgeon general’s advisory indicates. After a life spent focusing on careers and on how to invest “our” time, and never having cared for younger siblings or older relatives, upon becoming parents, adults lack the virtues and skills that caregiving requires. Family life must be approached with a self-giving rather than a demanding heart, but there is nowhere for young people to learn the former attitude, which is not just a natural instinct. Today, this self-giving love and care are in critically short supply—from conception to natural death.


I believe the remedy is to recover our ability to see the other and to love him or her in all the different stages of life (and to allow ourselves to be the subjects of such love). We are made for communion, for relationships. Even the first man, Adam, was lonely before he encountered Eve, who was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. He had everything a man could want, but he felt lonely nonetheless. The same is true for us: we are utterly incomplete without one another. It was with Eve that Adam found joy and fulfilled his likeness to God. He became able not just to generate new life, as animals do, but to embody human souls. As one of my young students reminded me, it is revealing that sacrifice is an absolute requirement for Adam’s fulfillment: his rib needed to be taken from him (literally) for Eve to exist.

Contrary to what we are generally taught in school and popular media, we need to rediscover that a happy life requires not just the company of another, but sacrifice for the other. At the same time, we need to see the other as an end, not just as a means to our personal happiness.

To see the other and love him is the entirety of morality.

“IT’S NOT YOUR iDENTITARIANISM I OBJECT TO…”

The Rise of the Conservative Left: As the political left gets more progressive, it’s leaving behind the very people it used to champion, prompting them to search for new leaders (Michael C. Behrent, Oct 09, 2024, Discourse)


The trajectory of the left can, historically, be plotted along two axes. Temporally, the left tries to push society toward greater justice and equality, hastening the work of progress. Socially, it champions the interests of workers and ordinary people as opposed to elites. Most of the time, these axes harmonize: Political, social and cultural progress often advances the interests of society’s lower ranks. In the past, this has meant that political movements seeking to further the interests of ordinary people have tended to be liberal or progressive.

Yet in recent years, a very different situation has emerged. Ordinary people are less and less convinced that the progress progressives are offering is working in their favor. They worry not only about economic forces threatening their way of life—such as globalization, deindustrialization and automation—but also about ideologies hailing from universities and urban centers that classify their beliefs as old-fashioned and even abhorrent. Consequently, many nonelites have gravitated from the left to the right, particularly toward populist parties that, over the past decade, have flourished in many countries. In these circumstances, a space has emerged, almost by default, for an unusual political stance: a conservative left.

…it’s that you’re not valorizing my Identity.”

THANKS, DARPA!:

Fixing typos in the book of life (Stephen McBride, October 7, 2024, Risk Hedge)

mRNA (messenger RNA) technology can turn cancer from a death sentence into a mere nuisance.

Remember, “mRNA” is the tech that helped scientists develop a COVID vaccine in record time. Please, don’t hate mRNA because of how governments + big pharma forced these vaccines on us.

mRNA really is a game-changing tech with incredible promise. For cancer, it can prime our bodies to seek and destroy solid tumors not easily cured with surgery, and without the nasty side effects of chemo.

These cancer-killing jabs are only in the trial phase. But the results are extremely promising.

What’s even more promising is mRNA vaccines for pancreatic… colorectal… metastatic… and lung cancer are all showing positive results in trials, too. What if mRNA is the “skeleton key” that helps us cure every cancer?

I love how my friend Matt Ridley describes mRNA: “Synthetic messengers that reprogram our cells to mount an immune response to almost any invader, including perhaps cancer, can now be rapidly and cheaply made.”

IF IT WERE EASY EVERYONE WOULD DO IT:

Solving Our Political Disarray: The Constitution is more than a legal code. It is also a framework for union and solidarity. (Yuval Levin, Fall 2024, American Heritage)

The problem is that we have forgotten that creating common ground is a key purpose of the Constitution and that it should be a key purpose of our own political and civic action.

We too often lose sight of how the Constitution creates common ground by compelling Americans with different views and priorities to deal with one another – to compete, negotiate, and build coalitions in ways that drag us into common action even (indeed, especially) when we disagree.


This points to an even deeper problem underlying our contemporary frustrations with our system of government: we have not only lost sight of the importance of pursuing greater unity, but we have also tended to forget what unity in our free and dynamic society really involves. Unity doesn’t quite mean agreement. Americans do have some basic principles in common – especially those laid out in the Declaration of Independence. But although those widely espoused principles impose some moral boundaries on our political life, there is enormous room for disagreement within those boundaries.

This includes some significant disagreement about exactly what the Declaration’s principles actually mean regarding the nature of the human person and the proper organization of society, let alone disagreement about discrete political and policy choices in response to the needs of the day. Our politics is unavoidably organized around these disputes and requires us to take on common problems while continuing to disagree about questions that matter a great deal to us. But that disagreement does not foreclose the possibility of unity.

A more unified society would not always disagree less, but it would disagree better – that is, more constructively and with an eye to how different priorities and goals can be accommodated. That we have lost some of our knack for unity in America does not mean that we have forgotten how to agree but that we have forgotten how to disagree.

The parties to our various disputes now tend to talk about one another more than they talk to one another, and, so, even very active citizens actually spend relatively little time in active disagreement with others, let alone in efforts to overcome such disagreement for the sake of addressing some common problems in practice. This is the sense in which we have forgotten the practical meaning of unity: in the political life of a free society, unity does not mean thinking alike; unity means acting together.


How can we act together when we do not think alike? The United States Constitution is intended, in part, to be an answer to precisely that question. And it is a powerful and well-honed answer. Alleviating the disunity of contemporary America would, therefore, require not recklessly discarding our Constitution as an antiquated relic but rediscovering its fundamental purposes, grasping just how powerfully it speaks to some of our most serious contemporary problems, and finding ways to better put it into practice to address those problems.

That approach involves pushing, plying, and pressuring Americans to engage with one another and so also to understand themselves as engaged in a common enterprise. The Constitution forces insular factions to forge coalitions with others and, thereby, to expand their sense of their own interests and priorities. It forces powerful officeholders to govern through negotiation and competition rather than through fiat and pronouncement and so to align their ambitions with those of others. It forces Americans to acknowledge the equal rights of fellow citizens, and has (gradually, and thanks to the heroic efforts and sacrifices of many) come to better align the definition of “fellow citizen” with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.

None of this is easy or simple. All of it happens through politics and so through contention, competition, pressure, and negotiation. It’s a struggle. But the Constitution is rooted in the insight that this very struggle is, itself, a source of solidarity and an engine of cohesion.

BETWEEN IRRESPONSIBILITY AND EUGENICS HE’S THE FACE OF ABORTION:

Trump Becomes a Pro-Choice Champion… for Florida’s Abortion Rights Movement (Marc A. Caputo, Oct 11, 2024, The Bulwark)


MOVE OVER, MARGARET SANGER. The new face of abortion rights in Florida is . . . Donald Trump?

One of the groups backing Florida’s abortion-rights initiative is trying to attract Trump voters with mailers and a soon-to-be-released digital ad that highlights the former president’s opposition to the state’s existing six-week abortion ban.

BEAUTY IS OBJECTIVE; IDEOLOGY IS UGLY:

The Totalitarian Artist: Politics vs Beauty: After Duchamp, the art world came to view the pursuit of beauty as naïve and gravitated toward political art in their search for meaning. But this is a Faustian bargain: you can have meaning, but you do not get to make it for yourself (Megan Gafford, 20 Sep 2024, Quillette)


This deference to identity politics is an example of Hoffer’s observation that the true believer “subordinates creative work to the advancement of the movement”:

The true-believing artist does not create to express himself, or to save his soul, or to discover the true and the beautiful. His task, as he sees it, is to warn, to advise, to urge, to glorify and to denounce.


The idea that politics must have a mandate over art seems self-evident to many contemporary art students—including many young hopefuls destined to shrivel into Hoffer’s “incurably frustrated.” When they begin to learn art history, students are typically given Janson’s History of Art. About fifteen years ago, I was assigned the seventh edition, which culminates in a chapter on postmodernism that largely focuses on politics. My classmates and I dutifully tried to pick up where history left off by making political art of our own. I had long since come to my senses by the time I returned to the classroom as a university lecturer—but I was still asked to teach students how to make “socially-engaged art.”

Students often perceive the history of art as a progression towards the evolution of ever more political art.

AS Tom Wolfe put It: “All these years, in short, I had assumed that in art, if nowhere else, seeing is believing. Well – how very shortsighted! Now, at last, on April 28, 1974, I could see. I had gotten it backward all along. Not seeing is believing', you ninny, but believing is seeing’, for Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text.”

MORE:
PODCAST: Podcast #254: In Defence of Beauty: Iona Italia talks to artist Megan Gafford about how we have come to value statement-making over beauty and craftsmanship in art and architecture. (Quillette, 9 Oct 2024)

DISTAFF OBAMA:

What the Right Gets Wrong About Kamala Harris (Jill Lawrence, Oct 08, 2024, The Bulwark)

No one can predict exactly what kind of president Harris would be, but she has shown many signs that it would be nothing like what these prematurely disappointed conservatives anticipate. Their judgments about her seem based largely on geography (she’s from San Francisco) and on her first run for the presidency five years ago—a ten-month presidential primary campaign in a field of nearly thirty major candidates.

When Harris entered the 2020 race on Martin Luther King Day, January 21, 2019, the New York Times reported that liberals were skeptical about her. She ended her bid in December of that year. “Sen. Kamala Harris of California never settled on an overarching narrative and rationale for her candidacy that encompassed her life, her record and her plans. And she mismanaged her campaign,” I wrote in a March 2020 assessment of the many dropouts.

As a career prosecutor, gun owner and “top cop” of the nation’s largest state, Harris could have tried to carve out a moderate lane. Instead, she competed for progressive votes against a crush of progressive hopefuls, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, former Reps. Beto O’Rourke and Tulsi Gabbard, then-Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, and former housing secretary Julián Castro.

Fair or unfair, both the right and the left judge her by the climate, energy, and health care positions she took in 2019—positions she left behind a few months later when she became Joe Biden’s running mate. Since then, she’s been what I’d call a solidly center-left politician, by all appearances very much like Biden in her policy preferences and her openness to bipartisan compromise.

Is she a socialist, or even a progressive? Not even close. She calls herself a capitalist, she’s courting Wall Street, and she would increase the $5,000 tax deduction for business startups to $50,000. She has welcomed support from Republicans like Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney, the former defense secretary and vice president, and has said she’d put a Republican in her cabinet. Harris has also pledged to make sure that “America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” (a convention speech line that some in her family did not appear to love).

IT’S ABOUT TO GET MUCH BETTER:

Let us pause to appreciate the remarkable U.S. economy: It really doesn’t get much better than this, folks (Noah Smith, Oct 05, 2024, Noahpinion)

Essentially, there are four things you want from a macroeconomy:

You want high employment rates, so that everyone who wants a job has a job.

You want low and stable inflation rates, so that people know how much a dollar will be worth a month from now.

You want fast wage growth, so that regular working people are taking home their share of economic growth.

And you want fast productivity growth, because ultimately that’s what creates durable gains in living standards.

Right now, the U.S. economy is giving us all of those things.

Only the last matters and it will be driven by the trend towards zero of labor and energy costs.

REDUCING LABOR IS PRODUCTIVITY:

Automate the Ports (Eric Boehm | 10.4.2024, reason)

But whether they are open or closed, many American ports rank among the least efficient in the entire world. The ports in New York, Baltimore, and Houston—three of the largest of the 36 ports that could have been shut down by the ILA strike—are ranked no higher than 300th place (out of 348 in total) in the World Bank’s most recent report on port efficiency. Not a single U.S. port ranks in the top 50. Slow-moving ports act as bottlenecks to commerce both coming and going, which “reduces the competitiveness of the country…and hinders economic growth and poverty reduction,” the World Bank notes.

That so many American ports are struggling to keep up with the rest of the world should be unacceptable.

NO APOLOGY REQUIRED:

An Apologia for ‘Doubting’ Thomas (Zach Hollifield, 9/05/24, Mere Orthodoxy)

Jesus’s Commands
“See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray…Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.” | Matthew 24:23-26

Question: What is the general command here? Answer: Don’t be had by those claiming to be the returned Christ, and don’t believe anyone who tells you they have found him.

Scenario: You are one of the 12. You return from being out and about and the other disciples tell you, “We have seen the Lord!” Immediately, the above teaching of Jesus that you heard earlier that very week, bursts into your head: “See that no one leads you astray…If anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it…If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ [the disciples saw Jesus while hiding in a house] do not believe it.”

What do you do? You have not seen him for yourself. All you have to go on is the testimony of others claiming to have seen him–the very situation presented in Matthew 24. What do you do? It would be entirely reasonable for you to conclude that to believe the claim would be in direct violation of Jesus’ command in chapter 24.

If this is the case, then rather than doubting, Thomas did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Ultimately, he only doubted the fellow Doubter. How could a mere man not?