Hillsdale Ed Article

I think I found the common thread. See how this strikes you. Both the Tea Party (and Ron Paul’s supporters) and the Occupy movement are reactions to the bailout. The Tea Party knows that the bailout was wrong. They believe it was morally wrong. They tell this truth to everyone that will listen. The yell, “No!!!” When the government contemplates more relief because they rightly see it as theft (either from us in the present or from future generations).

Occupy is also a reaction to the bailout. It also says that the bailout was wrong. It believes that it was wrong, however, not because it was morally wrong or because it was theft, but because it was unfair. They are steamed that Wall Street Bankers who made idiotic decisions were protected by the full faith and credit of the government (i.e., by the wealth or selling of present and unborn taxpayers [if you read slavery when you see this you are probably closest to the truth]). We all should be steamed about this! They are most steamed, however, because the government helped those folks, but is not helping them. They want their own bailout so that they can avoid foreclosure, or so that they can be given a job, or so that they can have whatever they want. They reason that if the government gave someone a cupcake, then it has to give everyone a cupcake. Of course, this is insanity because we can’t afford any more cupcakes—nor could we afford the cupcakes that we have recently bought (i.e., recently in the last thirty years).  

These movements are not consistent. How does this relate to a classical Christian education. It is an application of what Sayers says about the Logic Stage—in which we teach students to think critically and clearly—when says that its aim is that we Distinguish! We see the differences between one thing and something that sounds (at points) very similar, but is, at its roots, quite different.

I have watched this Occupy movement  . . . .

I have watched this Occupy movement with a level of disdain (really mainly for the media that is so happy covering them) and intrigue because I had no idea what these people were saying and how they could all be saying such seemingly inconsistent things and call themselves a movement.

My main experiences had been mediated through TV which makes the movement look like a something akin to an role playing game called “Democracy” where the people are setting up social services and having governmental meetings in the evening (which I think is neat) and the protesters in downtown Lancaster (who I think of as quaint). In Philly, I got to see them front and center and the picture was substantively different. They were a few hundred people marching up Broad Street with placards chanting curse words (in unison loudly) and calling for “REVOLUTION!” I was so thankful that I had not brought my children to Philadelphia. It was ugly. As I got to the restaurant (a French one), I walked by a bust of Marie Antoinette and did a double take. She had struggled with the same sort of folks.

I believe this country needs change. I think we need more change than most people. (In fact, sometimes I despair just thinking about how much change we need.) Positive change cannot come from  groups like the one I saw on Friday. What I saw was not law abiding citizens asking for redress of their government or moral citizens confronting rulers with God’s righteous standards, it was angry people cursing and calling for destruction. It felt nihilistic. They are camping out around City Hall (that beautiful building with William Penn’s statue looking down toward the place where he landed). The folks I saw were not one’s who could found or maintain a government. They will not be able to call our government to justice if they will not even restrain their passions to the point of common decency. I am no prude, but the baseness displayed publically with the imagining that sincerity cleansing it magically is bunk. Our leaders need to be held accountable. They cannot be held accountable by people who won’t start by holding themselves accountable in the simplest of ways.  

As a classical Christian school, as readers of Thucydides (Thucydides: The Civil War at Corcyra), we can see that revolution tolerated eats away the heart of a culture. We know this…or we should know this! We have forgotten it, however, and there might be a terrible price to pay for forgetfulness.

What could lead the proudest, most stubbornly democratic and independent group of people in the history of the world to fall in line behind an Emperor effectively surrendering all power to him? This is the difficult question that Holland poses. He artfully works you toward his answer. Characters such as Marius and Sulla, Cicero and Cato, Pompey and Caesar are all explored.

Roman success is actually the first problem. The Rome of the early Republic was a place of virtue and class. Patricians ruled, gave patronage and expected obedience. Romans struggled to be the greatest. Men bent their bodies and pens and armies to do their duty, out think their foes, or conquer new lands. Everyone struggled to the top. Eventually, however, Roman armies filled the city with gold. Suddenly, the amounts of money at play in Roman politics tempted those with it to buy office and to buy justice (or receive reprieve from charges).

As money flowed in, vices replaced virtues. The sections of the book dealing with Roman luxury read like a chronicle of today’s lifestyles of the rich, famous, and infamous. Senators drilled holes through mountains to get salt water from the sea for their prize fishes. People begin eating and craving things that were unspeakable. Sexual promiscuity became the rage of gossip amongst the highest families.

Politics became polarized—viciously polarized. Street gangs were used to strike fear into the heart’s of Senators. These groups reminded me in an eerie way of political pressure groups in our day. Politicians stopped acting in the interest of the people and began acting in their own (or their fabulously wealthy patron’s) interest.

The army was also divorced from the populace. Caesar’s men became loyal to him—not to the Republic or its ideals. Pompey’s were the same. The Republic had lost its force as a vision that held men to a common purpose. When this was lost, the greatest men began to serve their own glory in a sum game that ended at the Rubicon, the creek that marked the territory of Italy proper. Generals were forbidden to cross the Rubicon with an army. As Caesar contemplates casting his dice, one can see (from the previous story) why he will do, why he must do, what he does next.

Moral decadence and political polarization leads to chaos. This chaos is crushed down by factions—usually led by generals with troops loyal first to them. This chaos drives people from the city, leads to mass murders, and makes life both unpredictable and, at points, savage. When this happens, people begin to be willing to give away any and all freedom if they can just have safety. When Brutus finally murders Caesar believing him (rightly) to be the final murderer of the Republic, he walks through the Forum with his bloody dagger raised. He is proud that he has murdered a tyrant—just as his ancestor, the original Brutus, chased the last king from the city. Brutus thought that the people would rise to greet him with cheers because he was restoring the Republic. Instead, they ran to their shops boarded up the windows and fled. They believed that a new round of chaos and civil war was about to begin (they were right). During times of chaos, people stop clinging to freedom and only always want peace.  

Republics die because they lose force in the imagination of their citizens. In Rome, the Republic eventually became for people a symbol of prosperity and pride. It ceased to be, however, what it was meant to be—a way of life that challenged men to bear responsibility for their actions, limit their government, and live as free men. When this later view of the “republic” ceases, it is a matter of time before tyranny (usually at first subtly) replaces freedom.

Rubicon is a chilling reminder for those of us living in a republic that looks more like Rome every day.

If we are to survive as a country, we must plan an escape from Nixonland.

This will be challenging and, I must admit, on the surface of things I see only a faint reason to be hopeful that this escape could happen. (I really worry that the forces of deep division, selfishness, and the lust for power in our country will pose frightening challenges for our future.)

If we are to escape, this escape begins with a recommitment to classical Christian education or sometime like it. Here is why:

Nixonland is built on continual sins against truth. These sins are deft misuses of some of the most brilliant tools that God has given us—logic and rhetoric. We are mixing up convincing sounding arguments that move the passions and obscure the truth. This has always happened. Today, however, as a result of our schools ceasing to teach logic and rhetoric (i.e., giving up a classical liberal arts education) most people are duped by slick sounding language. (We have ceased being free men and women and we are now told that we are free even though we don’t have the tools that it would take to be free.) If we would return to classical education—at least for a significant number of our children—there would be more accountability for telling political lies.

Also, classical education connects us to the past and helps us to put issues into some sort of priority list. Today, politicians typically bang the gong in “whatever way necessary” to drum up support, humiliate a rival for power, or, most often, raise money. Nixon was a savant in this arena. He was the “law and order” president approving criminal break ins to get the scoop on his rivals because he was convinced that they were planning to humiliate him. Classical education with its emphasis on the great books frees us from the tyranny of the urgent present and the shouts of the 24 hour news cycle.

Finally, the skills taught in and the content of a classical education helps people see the shallowness of the great technological catalyst for political lying which is the television. I am not against TV. It is good, but it is only good for one thing—entertainment. It enables political mischief because (like text messaging) there is never time to tell the whole truth. It was TV used thoughtlessly as a political tool that led us into Nixonland. Nixon lost the first presidential TV debate to good looking, articulate, witty JFK. By losing this debate (mainly because he did not understand the medium where his five o’clock shadow had more to do with truth than his arguments), he probably lost the presidency. Nixon learned his lesson. He obsessed over TV, hiring the prodigy Roger Ailes as a 25 year old to run his image (Ailes now runs Fox News). He scripted (or tried to script) everything. He won the presidency and won re-election. Lying on TV is too easy. By amplifying someone’s ethos over a short period of time, or by making one mistake something that can be replayed an infinite number of time, it makes politics inhuman and keeps us from making good decisions.

But, one mights say, “Can’t all of this be done by simply having a classical education? Does the educational reform need to also be Christian?” These are excellent questions. So far, all that I am suggesting could be done at a classical school that is not Christian. An escape from Nixonland, however, cannot happen without a return to Christ and to the Christian ideas that built this nation.

First, we need repentance and forgiveness. This seems like an easy thing. Can’t we all just get along. In truth, we cannot. Only in Christ, in His blood, can wrongs be washed away.

Second, we need to be reminded that it is the thing that counts—not the sound of the thing. God looks on the heart. Slick words and unjust measures are abominations to Him. Politicians weighing out words that they do not believe so that they can confuse or convince or co-opt half the people plus one is an outrage to Him. It must become repugnant to us as well.

Third, we need to have a vision for where we are going. Taking the road out of Nixonland is not an answer. We need to be headed somewhere. (This is the main problem with our present educational system right now, I believe, there is no ultimate aim for students outside of their own personal peace and prosperity.) And we need to be headed somewhere as a people and as a community. This can be found outside of Christ. We could become (and are becoming or are) an economic empire where profits and unemployment rates are more important than prophets and righteousness. We could adopt some other religious vision of life—lslam or Hinduism. It is only upon Christ that an ongoing foundation for civilization can be laid because He is the reason for this world. He created it. It reflects Him. The false gods and our idols (like Mammon) crush and disappoint. Jesus dies to save us from our sins and is raised again to found an order that promises the restoration of the world. In the Lord’s Supper, we see a hint of this coming world (that is already here and is growing). In this service, we offer thanks back to God for the world and for the redemption that He has given to us in Christ. As we do this, the very order that was established in the Garden is restored. Man, with thanks, praises His gracious Father. God with joy pours out blessing on His children.

It is in the power of God that we hope. It is in the power of God that we trust. It is His grace and mercy and power that can bring us out of Nixonland.

During that time challenges that still haunt us today began in our culture (they really started much earlier, but came to fruition then). For a while, maybe since 1824 Western people had been tampering with words. We wanted to break free of their limits—particularly the meaning of biblical words. After we freed ourselves from the Bible, we looked to burn through the restraint of all other binding words. We wanted to keep some words and denude the power of others. The laws and the Constitution were gutted during the 20^th Century. Suddenly, however, the thing turned on us (we should have known that it would). All of our words stopped having force. We had tried to dissolve the chains around our wrists, but we ended up dissolving the wrists and floor and the ground and the world.

As a result of this loss of faith in words, we stopped trying to persuade and started grasping for power using words to shout down and drown out (loud words = noise) rather than speaking to others and trying to earnestly persuade them. Today, we have corrupted words thoroughly. This can be seen in our pulpits where clear biblical condemnation of particular sins (presently in vogue) is obscured by preachers who use their voices to cover the text with an impenetrable fog. We see this in our courts where words are stretched (see “Interstate Commerce Clause”) or clipped to fit our present desire. Finally, we see this in our politics where words are twisted mercilessly on both sides of the aisle to misrepresent and slander the speaker. This trade, however, is deadly. When words lose all meaning, people tend to gravitate toward shouting, sticks, and, eventually, bullets. Thus, the peaceful protests of persuasion gives way to the shouting riots where force is used instead of good reasoning. Our world is darkening because of this failure to protect words.

This, however, points out one of the great tasks of classical Christian education. We believe in rhetoric (good rhetoric not empty “rhetoric”). We believe in words. We believe that they have or can have power. We must—it is an imperative for the survival of our civilization—learn to love and protect and value words. I have been blessed by my interaction with our students recently—particularly our seniors. They speak persuasively. I look forward to seeing what God can and will do with and through them. Please pray that we would again turn our hearts back to words and to the Word, that we would begin to listen to each other, and that we would have good words to speak. Words, persuasion, willingness to listen, and ability to reasons are prerequisites rather than results of democracy.

Right now, it is in vogue to think that if we just get rid of Arab dictators that Jeffersonian Democracy will take root all over the Middle East. This was the second justification for the War in Iraq (when no weapons of mass destruction were found). This assertion is not just dubious—it is most assuredly false. It can only be made by a culture who has no clue about how we arrived at the place of blessing that we inhabit.

Democracy, shared power, checks and balances, and servant leadership did not happen by random in America. They occurred here because we had a thousand years of training in Trinitarian living. The Trinity shares power. Each person gives Himself in loving sacrifice for the Other. Christ, by His humility, took up the cross, sacrificed Himself for His Bride and laid the foundation for a civilization built on the reflection of this sacrifice. The church has been called to reflect this self-sacrificial glory in the world. The West has imperfectly reflected this truth. Now, however, we have jettisoned Christianity and we still have some of the blessings won for us over the last millennium of Christian discipleship. These are fading. Our Constitution is becoming more a symbol of past freedom rather than a protector of current freedom. We think—because we have the blessing without the Blesser (Jesus)—that everyone can have it this way. It will not be. It cannot be. Islam is very different than Christianity. Allah is not a Trinity. He is an all powerful unity that crushes down all around him. In Islamic countries leaders tend to use power in this way. We tend to look at this use of power and call it corrupt or we shake our heads in disgust. We should not be surprised. They culture is their religion externalized. Our culture is our religion (or the vestiges of our former religion) externalized. Islamic democracy will take one of three directions. All are bad:

1. It will be bloody until one party gets enough power to grind the others into submission. The party most likely to do this are the radical Islamist parties. They have the advantage of believing that violence is sometimes a necessary means to bring in the kingdom (they join Marxists and Fascists in this). This radical will attain power and crush opposition (and anyone else) with it.  
2. Secular forces will take power, but will find it hard to ever get popular support. They will be like the seeds on the rocky soil. The people are not Trinitarian or Jeffersonian. These secular forces will align themselves with the West and have their hand out for money and military aid. Mubarak is this right now. Saudi Arabia is another example. These leaders align with the West, attain power, and crush their people with it.  
3. They will slide into chaos. This is what will happen in Afghanistan whenever we leave. Afghanistan is not a country, but hundreds of little Islamic countries (some as big as a valley) led by warlords who use power to crush other warlords—and, sadly, the people.

A classical Christian education (and a study of history) helps you see the hubris that passes for international policy now on the left and right. We must be careful in how we handle this situation. Islamic democracy might be coming. I wonder what we will think of it when it arrives!

1.  The political left uses tragedies to take swipes at the right even when—maybe I should say especially when—there is no cause. The left wants gun control. All facts are used to prove that it is necessary. Of course, let me be clear, this fellow should not have had a gun! The idea that somehow mass restriction on guns will keep guns out of the hands of criminals is dubious. I believe that the left has learned (maybe it is just instinctual) that they should toss accusation at the right whenever something like this happens especially if there is no reasonable connection between the action and anyone on the right. They do this because…
2. The political right (in the case Governor Palin) does not handle these sorts of swipes well and too often ends up looking petty as they react to these baseless attacks. Governor Palin is not to blame for this event. The fellow was deranged. Communist Manifesto was one of his favorite books—which, of course is not one on the Glenn Beck approved list. Governor Palin, I am sure, got angry because she was unjustly smeared. Sadly, she released her video response at the same time that President Obama was at the bully pulpit. She is justified in her anger. Her response was unwise. Any sort of reaction that rebuts personal concerns looks petty—particularly against Obama’s excellent and uplifting speech. I am not sure why she did it, but, politically, I do not think it was wise.
3. Finally, both sides of our political spectrum seem immune to both history and reason. The chant arises that our political rhetoric is over the top. It is. This “over the topness”, however, is not new. It has been a characteristic of American politics (and American life) since the third election (Adams v. Jefferson). We are given to overstatement. In some ways our political dialogue is fruitless today, but not because of its vitriol, but because of our penchant for having hurt feelings. We cannot argue with each other. We preach to the choir and stir them in a froth. Real political gains happen when leaders focus their rhetoric more broadly but still resonate with their base—see Ronald Reagan on this point.

Some of the most disturbing words in this whole event have come from the media.

First, on the left, there is a blindness to the logic of the Constitution that is sort of stunning. I heard one fellow (I believe it was Chris Matthews) say something like—“What does bearing arms have to do with free speech?” This sort of disconnect is pitiful in the media. They must know that the very reason that arms bearing is in the Bill of Rights is that a populace that has no way to protect itself from the government is ripe for tyranny. Our Founding Fathers knew this because a government pointed guns at them and told them to hush up. The truth is, of course, that deranged lunatics are the reason for the 2^nd Amendment. Our Founders were worried about the government having all the guns. They knew that this would lead to tyranny and the end of free speech and every other freedom. In the 20^th Century, too often, it led to mass murder.

The right wing media, however, does little better. They understand the reason for the Constitutional right to bear arms, but struggle to react well to masterful rhetoric on the left—especially by President Obama (the best speaker to hold the office since, at least, Reagan). They pick at his speeches. They look so petty and make him look so magnanimous. His speech was brilliant. I do not agree with all that he said in it, but the tone was uplifting, appropriate, somber, and hopeful. The right would do well to just tip their hat to the President when he makes speeches like this and then move on. Do not oppose speeches like this one. Oppose policies! President Obama’s flaw is that his rhetoric and his actions are not congruent.

Now, for education. A classical Christian education spends a lot of time helping students with their rhetoric. Our 10^th through 12^th grade students are called rhetoric students. Why do I focus on this so much? Barak Obama’s use of the bully pulpit at the memorial service in Arizona is a superb example of why rhetoric matters. Appropriate rhetoric (good words) presented well is a force that moves people and changes things. Good rhetoric is the closest mimic I know of to God’s power in creation. Words and ideas expressed well have an impact.

The right, if it wishes to have a representative in the Oval Office after the next election, must recognize the kind of candidate that can beat Obama. They need someone who will fight on the issues and match, or at least compete, with the sort of transcendent rhetorical flair displayed on occasion by President Obama. People—especially those outside of the choirs on the left and right—long for a President to have this sort of rhetorical power. The right should realize that they need someone who looks and acts more like a President than President Obama. This will be a tall order, and I do not know that person’s name.

Remember, however, rhetoric is important—very important—and this is why Veritas spends so much time on it.

Representative Denlinger’s message

Please pray for Representative Denlinger and our new governor as they seek to stem the tide of government spending.

First, I was proud of our school community. Our students did well at the service. Our parents were a blessing. The veterans, both grandparents and community members, were also a blessing. Dr. Laudermilch, as always, was brilliant on the trumpet and Mr. Reese was super. Hats off to Mrs. Reed who organized the event and the wonderful lunch afterward. So much for the present. A special thanks to Representative Gordon Denlinger representing our board and for commemorating the day with us.

Second, I am struck by the importance of a day like this, but of the difficultly that an unbiblical culture, like ours, has making days like this meaningful. We are not people who give homage to our ancestors. We are self centered—and this selfishness harms us.

Third, we need people with a memory of sacrifice and of national unity—and too often they are passing away. Today, our speaker, Captain Roger St. Germaine was “39 year old…plus 50.” The World War II generation is really the last generation that knows and appreciates that feeling of national unity. We need to learn from them in order to remember what whole communities felt like—over and against our collection of individuals which feel like so many pieces of a smashed watch instead of a working timepiece in which all of the pieces worked together. We are a broken community. Hell is a place of isolation. Our world and our places are much more like Hell than they used to be.

Finally, I was struck today the fact that the veterans see the brokenness of our community—they see that the world in the main has forgotten them and does not acknowledge or recall their sacrifice. The veterans I met today were thankful of our efforts to honor them. They were conscious, however, that the culture is blind to their sacrifice. I cannot imagine how galling this sort of forgetfulness would be.

So, if you know a veteran here is what I recommend: Sit down with them. Ask them about their war time stories. Honor their wishes if they don’t want to talk, but talk with them if they will. Learn about their battles and their fallen friends, their moments of courage and despair. Break bread with them and then say thank you. If you can, read a little before you meet with them. Here are a few of my favorite war books:

David McCullough’s 1776

John J. Pullen’s The 20^th Maine

Barbara Tuchman’s masterpiece The Guns of August (on WWI)

Stephen Ambrose’s Citizen Soldier (on WWII)

James Brady’s The Marines of Autumn (on the Battle of Chosin Reservoir which is as close as Americans get to the Anabasis)

David Halberstam’s Ho (on Viet Nam—controversial but riveting)

If you read these, you will have something to talk about with the veterans and they will enjoy the conversation.