In Which I Cathartically Point Fingers

Trump Is the GOP's Fault

For years and years, the GOP has disappointed certain members of the base. First it was Bush 41 and "no new taxes", then George W. Bush and "compassionate conservatism". Then in the Obama era we nominated in John McCain a man many saw as a RINO and then in Mitt Romney a man who had championed a version of Obamacare when governor of Massachusetts. Anger built. The Tea Party was supposedly a response to that anger, and had some potential to change things. But Tea Party candidates were either defeated or, if elected, quickly co-opted into the dreaded establishment (whisper the word). Elements of the base grew increasingly disenchanted with Politics As Usual.

Enter Trump. No conservative. No angel. Not merely not politically correct but deliberately offensive. But he promised to overturn the apple cart, end squishy RINO-ism for good, and he found enough support running on that platform to win the GOP nomination.

Trump Is the Democrats' Fault

For years and years, Democrats have (usually unfairly) slandered GOP candidates for being racist, anti-woman, anti-working-class, etc. These attacks come as regularly as the sun rises in the east. You can set your watch by them.

Enter Trump. He actually is all those things. But the Left's boy who cried wolf routine has sapped the strength of their attacks, clearing the way for his ascendancy.

Trump Is the Modern World's Fault

For years and years, the world has been defining decency down. It was a minor scandal that Ronald Reagan had once divorced (he is still the only U.S. President ever to have done so). The public has generally punished politicians who attacked too vehemently, went after their opponents' families, or generally behaved in a way too different from what we usually view as public decorum. But in a world of internet trolls, sex tapes, and reality television, we seem to have become hardened to them.

Enter Trump. There was a time not that long ago when Trump's behavior would have kept him out of business altogether, not to speak of politics. Trump has divorced twice, and openly bragged of seducing other men's wives. Kennedy (and others) may have practiced seduction, but at least he had the decency to keep it a secret. Many of Trump's obvious negatives are thus blunted.

The Single Life

This is heartbreakingly difficult to read.

And tried to remind myself that when we first met I thought he was an arrogant, presumptuous little man. I tried to think about my conversation with Steven. I tried to remember that I was actively seeking to practice some Zenlike form of nonattachment. I tried to remember that no one is my property and neither am I theirs, and so I should just enjoy the time we spend together, because in the end it's our collected experiences that add up to a rich and fulfilling life. I tried to tell myself that I’m young, that this is the time to be casual, careless, lighthearted and fun; don’t ruin it.

This is Brilliant

What I can I say but: Wow.

The Closing of the American Mind (Jazz Version)

Whenever I listen to my Ella Fitzgerald CD, I want to comment on this. Here are the opening lyrics of the Cole Porter song Just One of Those Things:

As Dorothy Parker once said to her boy friend,
"Fare thee well,"
As Columbus announced when he knew he was bounced,
"It was swell, Isabelle, swell,"
As Abélard said to Héloïse,
"Don't forget to drop a line to me, please,"
As Juliet cried in her Romeo's ear,
"Romeo, why not face the fact, my dear?"

This was written in 1935, the depths of the Depression. At that time, these references were considered intelligible enough to use in popular culture. Can you imagine such a thing today?

On Same-Sex Marriage

I've written before that I find arguments both for and against same-sex marriage to be about equally inane. That leaves me, net-net, against codifying the practice into law, because as a conservative I favor a millennia-old tradition over a newfangled idea unless significant evidence can persuade me otherwise.

National Review's recent editorial "The Case For Marriage" is the best argument I've read to date bolstering my default position. Is there a similarly persuasive case in favor of same-sex marriage? If so, I haven't read it - and as I've said, it would have to be even more persuasive to swing me against tradition.

How We've Changed

Remember the last time you heard the "Star-Spangled Banner" at a sports event? There's a good chance it was pretty bizarre, jazzed up in some way. I can understand the motivation for this: the song is played at every such event, so it's ubiquitous in our culture. Any artist is going to want to personalize it a bit. But usually the results are, as Tom Friedman might say, suboptimal.

Think about that when you read this story from 1940: Stravinsky Arrested for Rearrangement of National Anthem.

Green Rockers

NPR has a story on how modern rock-and-rollers are obsessed about their green footprints, contrasting this with their traditional reputations as cocaine-snorting hotel-room-trashers.

I suppose this could be interpreted in either of two ways: either rockers have elevated themselves to a higher moral plane, or the modern environmental movement provides them with the same self-indulgent narcissism they've always craved. You decide.

"No Problem"

Does it bother you when you thank someone and the response is an airy "no problem"? This is increasingly common, especially among the younger crowd. As a not-terribly-old adult, I find myself succumbing to the same reflex all too often. But is there really anything wrong with "No problem"?

It's true that it somewhat undercuts the original thanks. Spelled out in full, "thank you" essentially means: "I appreciate you going to the trouble to help me." The response "no problem" expands to: "There's no need to thank me because it was no trouble." The implication is that you may continue to ask for help as long as it remains no trouble, but please piss off if you really do anticipate causing a problem. Compare to the traditional "you're welcome", which says that you are welcome to continue to ask for help when you need to.

Confusion between gratitude and praise may be part of the explanation as well. When praised, it's certainly not impolite to self-deprecatingly deflect the praise somewhat. It can be embarrassing to be praised. But being thanked is not the same thing, and deflection can create the impression that perhaps the gratitude was misplaced. If it really was no problem, why extend thanks at all? We do not thank someone for stopping at a red light.

How do other responses to "thank you" stack up? "My pleasure" is an ambiguous one. It could be taken to mean, "there's no need to thank me because not only was it not a problem, it was actually a pleasure." This goes even beyond "no problem" in its deflection of the gratitude proffered. Or it could mean, "it was my pleasure to serve you," a statement beyond "you're welcome." Then there is "not at all" and "sure thing" and the like, which are essentially along the deflectionary lines of "no problem."

These contemporary social formulae reflect our increasing preference for casualness. It's no longer cool to care greatly about much of anything. "You're welcome" indicates that you cared and appreciated the thanks. "No problem" indicates just the opposite: you're a laid-back fella, for which nothing much is a problem. It was no problem to pass the salt. Oh, you ran over my cat with your car? No problem.

That casualness is the real problem. To digress for a moment, I like the story of the premiere of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring by the Ballets Russes in Paris in 1913. The performance was so radical both musically and choreographically that a riot broke out, so severe that the dancers could not hear the orchestra playing, and police had to intervene to break up fistfights in the aisles. Can anyone imagine such a scene today? Not that I wish for more fighting during music performances, but it would be nice if people cared that much. There was a welcome outburst during the last intermission of a performance of Götterdämmerung I attended a few years ago: some intepid audience members yelled out please not to applaud at the end until the opera was entirely over (rather than applauding over the final few notes, as had happened in the first two acts).

I didn't yell out a "thank you" to them, but I'm pretty sure that if I had, I would not have heard back: "No problem!"

On Gay Marriage

On the Leonard Lopate show on NPR today, guest Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of Empire State Pride Agenda, discussed strategies for bringing "marriage equality" to the entire nation. I'm not particularly opposed to gay marriage as an idea. But I do find that many of the arguments of its supporters, including Van Capelle, range from the weak to the absurd.

One argument is that gays do not have "equal rights" because they are not allowed to marry. That's not true, of course. They are allowed to marry in exactly the same way that anyone else is allowed to marry, i.e. one man is allowed to marry one woman. What they seek is not an "equal right" but a new right. The only way an equality argument could be made is if rights inhered, not to individuals, but to couples. If that were the case, then an entity composed of two men or two women would in fact be denied a right granted to an entity composed of one man and one woman. But, in fact, rights inhere to individuals, so that argument is not sound.

On the other hand, some corporate entities are granted rights similar to those of individuals. But the rights so granted are granted to the entity as an individual; that is, if marriage were a right granted to a corporate entity, then that entity would have a right to "marry" some other entity. This is not what gay marriage supporters seek, obviously. It is quite clear that they seek a new right, not "equality."

An argument that Van Capelle trots out - one that I had not heard before - is that "human rights should not be subject to vote." One can understand, in the wake of California's, Maine's, and other state's rejections by referendum of gay marriage laws, why a supporter would say such a thing. Philosophically, such a statement is as incoherent as is the line between human rights issues and other issues (for example: are income taxes, which are the legalized taking of your property to fund state-directed projects, a human rights issue? if not, why not?). But even ignoring that problem, the statement is simply incorrect in our Constitutional democracy. The Bill of Rights is certainly subject to vote, for example: any item in it could be overturned or modified by Constitutional amendment.

The best argument for gay marriage is that the government really should not be in the business of granting benefits or preferential treatment to persons based on marital status. But that has less to do with gay marriage per se than it does with actual marriage, and its differences with non-marriage. Van Capelle today mentioned that a New York State marriage license grants 1,324 (I think it was) rights and responsibilities. One quick way to bring unmarried gay couples closer to equal status with any other person, couple, or group of people would be to reduce this number, ideally to zero. That's an unlikely outcome politically, though, so gay marriage might be the lesser of two evils.

The problem with all arguments for gay marriage, though, is that they have trouble with this question: What principle would prevent marriage between three or more persons? Or between brother and sister? If it is a human rights issue, which presumably trumps other considerations (and should not even be subject to vote!) then such marriages should be allowed. The objection I generally hear is that these types of marriages are not being called for and would not be required - which is true, at least for now - but if no principle would prevent them, then how would we as a society object if such a right ever is demanded?

Getting back to the realm of everyday politics: the most distasteful part of the pro-gay-marriage movement is its disdain for popular opinion. If a clear majority wants gay marriage, let them approve it in law. That is how democracy works. Ramming it down our throats via the courts is not the way to resolve the question any more than Roe v. Wade resolved the question of abortion rights. Comparing gay marriage as a "human right" to the anti-slavery movement in the 19th century is both disrespectful and inaccurate, and unnecessarily raises the temperature of the debate. Gay marriage advocates should concentrate on convincing voters, not bypassing them.

The Role of an Elected Representative

In an interview with the Washington Post, HHS Secretary (and former governor of Kansas) Kathleen Sebelius says:

...[T]he Archbishop in the Kansas City area did not approve of my conduct as a public official and asked that I not present myself for communion.

Well, it was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced in my life, and I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and I feel that my actions as a parishioner are different than my actions as a public official and that the people who elected me in Kansas had a right to expect me to uphold their rights and their beliefs even if they did not have the same religious beliefs that I had. And that's what I did: I took an oath of office and I have taken an oath of office in this job and will uphold the law.

There is much to unpack here. Let's start with the "separation of church and state" bit. There is nothing in the Constitution about separating church and state; the closest there is is the First Amendment, which states (in part): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." There is certainly nothing that says, "Elected officials must not inform their actions by their religious beliefs." Wouldn't that be a silly requirement? Other beliefs are not so proscribed. You might as well require a separation of philosophy and state.

Perhaps Sebelius simply means that, while there is no Constitutional requirement, she personally believes that her religious beliefs should be subordinate to the wishes of her constituents. But those who elected her presumably knew she was Catholic and that the Catholic church proscribes abortion, yet they elected her anyway. Furthermore, nowhere is it written that elected officials must always be perfectly aligned with their electorates (which would anyway be impossible). Edmund Burke wrote: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Finally, there is the bit where she says she will uphold the law. Perfectly fine, of course, except that the issue of abortion is hardly settled law. There is much activity in various corners that does not fall afoul of Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions, which is one reason why abortion remains a major issue in elections to this day. A Catholic can oppose abortion to the extent possible under the law and presumably would not draw the ire of her Archbishop. The reason Sebelius got in trouble is that she did much to oppose pro-life positions in contravention of Catholic teachings.

Ultimately, Sebelius wants to portray herself as a heroine who remained loyal to her constituents and to the law even when disciplined by her church. But this is clearly not the case. She made a choice and paid the price.