Dear Mr. Obama: Please, I Beg You, Stop Inspiring Me

[This first appeared at RedState.com this morning.]

Dear Mr. Obama,

You probably don't know that I am a relative new-comer to RedState, though my recent subscription, so to speak, does not mean that I am new to conservatism. If it means anything, it means that I am relatively new to expressing myself in an explicitly conservative forum. Hence, I ask for your patience as I, a conservative, struggle to make sense of the movement you've permitted to snowball around you. For surely it is a movement -- and not really a campaign -- and you have, indeed, fomented this fervor, this great adulation.

This morning I imagined running for president myself, which is perhaps my wont these days, since you and I are the same age and I can't resist feeling inadequate when I witness the phenomenon which is you. I can hardly manage the complexities of domestic living at my age; you, on the other hand, are ready to "issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth" (or so you said when you announced your presidency on 2.10.07). In my apparent weakness before your apparent strength, I wonder: How can this be, and are you really certain a presidential candidate should be talking about "new birth"? Are you here to help the world be born anew a second time?

Forgive the digression. As I said, I was imagining running for president myself. And part of my reverie included a debate between us; I imagined that great moment in the debate when I could make my concluding remarks:

"I am not here to save your souls, America; I am not even here to tell you that your souls are broken. But Mr. Obama has used such rhetoric, and hence I will as well, but only for a moment.

"I am here to tell you that we have forsaken the greater institutions of church and creed, of temple and Torah; we have rejected so much of the inherited wisdom of the ages that we have gutted our lives. The state, I am afraid to say, cannot fulfill you; political and public service will not give your life meaning and purpose. Meaning, as the prophets and poets have always told us, does not come from institutions or governments, nor does it come from prosperity. My opponent in this election, who has indeed invoked many times such imagery and metaphors that can only be described as religious, has offered you a hope that no prophet would promise: he has offered you hope in the very things the poets proclaim cannot give hope. God gives hope; Christianity proclaims that hope is in a Risen God. But there is no hope in hope; there is nothing optimistic in mere optimism. We need hope to come from something not only external to ourselves, it must be bigger than our own collectivized efforts. Hope is in transcendence; meaning's domicile is not in a group effort, it is in the transcendence of a personal relation with the God of the universe.

"Alas, forgive this foray into religion, but religion is what Mr. Obama is all about. Note that my political campaign is merely promising that I will work hard to execute the laws of the land, and the principles which you have entrusted to my care. I am not here to lead you; I am not taking you to a promised land. That land is already here; my job is to preserve this land so that YOU might enjoy the abundance at your fingertips. Moreover, I am not here to make your life easier; I am not here to remove barriers -- other than those that are unconstitutional or illegal -- that have thwarted your personal quest for purpose and fulfillment. I am not here to suck out of life all of its adventure and risk, which is what my liberal peers want to do; for I know a life worth living is only that which is filled with enough risk to make living interesting. That which is dynamic is so because it works against the forces that would knock it off course; a dynamic skier is one who utilizes the forces working against his success, turning them to his advantage. Modern liberalism wants to destroy what makes living dynamic; to the skier, Mr. Obama's promise is that he will remove gravity. To such noble pursuits, I say that Mr. Obama actually wants to destroy the skier's mountain.

"My job as president is to preserve the mountain I've inherited, one that is open to all, of all abilities. I will not make the mountain flat. I will merely make it public. For it already is public, and all you need is to take a risk and discover what makes that mountain so thrilling: It is up to you.

"Finally, I am here tonight to say that while Mr. Obama calls himself a Christian, I announce that I find his Christianity wanting. For any Christian would not permit the cult of adulation surrounding him (or her) to last a single minute. That Mr. Obama is seemingly blind to his deification does not bode well for his aspirations as president, for a man of clear vision should not be blind to such idolatry. A serious Christian would stop this enthusiasm, directing his admirers to the true deity this candidate claims is "redemptive."

"And a candidate for president would urge his supporters to show some degree of proportion: that what a president does is not as important as some -- even many -- believe.

"I am here because I am seeking inauguration, not coronation. I do not offer you inspiration, but I promise you my perspiration: I shall serve you with blood, sweat, and if necessary -- and may God spare us tragedy -- the tears of compassion and grace. I will not be your idol, nor shall I for any instant be idle. I am not like my counterpart -- who is building his Obama Nation. Instead I am here to serve a united nation, one united not in a "vision" but in a time-proven creed, the creed which is greater than any visionary, and yet not so great as to exclude anyone who has vision: that creed is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. Permit me to serve you according to law, the laws WE have made, and I promise to execute the demands of this great nation with honesty, integrity and wisdom. But do not elect me if you want me to direct this nation according to some vision, some dream or hunch or audacious hope. Please, spare me that. I am seeking a presidency in a country ruled by law and an informed and free people. I am not seeking a crown and a throne, or a people I must lead to a coming kingdom.

"Thank you, and good night."

Of course, my reverie must come to an end. It ends, I think, with the realization that perhaps the only votes I could ever get would come from that very odd set: politically conservative downhill skiers.

And my daydream also ends with this simple fact, Mr. Obama: I don't want to be inspired, for it implies that I lack inspiration. I don't. But if I do, such business is none of yours.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

How Sad This Is Funny†

[Let me begin by begging forgiveness: I know this set-up is too long, but what the heck.]

Boston radio talk-show god Jay Severin often says that "liberals always lie to get elected, while conservatives can only tell the truth, which often costs them elections." Well, he may not say exactly that, but my paraphrase is quite close to the pure Severin doctrine. Liberals conceal their true intent; to be transparent is to doom themselves to unelectability. Conservatives, on the other hand, do NOT conceal: they tell you what they will do, and what they believe, and this openness often proves politically fatal.

Note, then, how Severin's words seem to ring true in this general election cycle. Barack Obama, the apparent Democratic front runner, is chided for not being specific; he's accused of being all form and no substance. Of course, if Severin is right, then Mr. Obama, a true liberal, MUST be evasive; he must be veneer and can never be solid redwood.

John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, at least gives the appearance of substance, despite how much his more conservative peers disagree that he is one whit candid. But one can hardly think of a less appearance-oriented candidate: image CAN NEVER be John McCain's campaign strength. Moreover, McCain has told America what he thinks -- substantively -- on many issues, and his opinions (and actions) have hurt him. But few would say that McCain is from east to west all veneer. I may be wrong, but I don't think either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee has accused Mr. McCain of being all "hope" and no ideas, or all seduction but no commitment.

All this to say that perhaps Severin is right. Perhaps. But what this is really about is something James Taranto notes in yesterday's "Best of the Web": the media cannot tell the truth about Fidel Castro. At least here the Severin doctrine is found to be infallible and inerrant (nihil obstat!).

Check out item #4,"Who Was Fidel Castro?", at this link.

Rarely is something this sad so funny.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

†This first appeared at RedState.com on 2.20.08

Obama's "Plagiarism": Shouldn't This Matter?

[This post first appeared at RedState.com on 2.20.08, with slight differences.]

Barack Obama's alleged plagiarism of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick's 2006 campaign speech has been rather easily dismissed by many pundits, which surprises me. On Monday night's "The Special Report with Brit Hume", for example, The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer snickered at the notion that Mr. Obama's failure to make due attribution was at all significant. Others I've listened to have also been rather dismissive.

Thankfully yesterday, James Taranto, the master of the brilliant "Best Of The Web Today" at the Wall Street Journal's website, at least treated Mr. Obama's deed -- or misdeed -- with more than a cupful of glee. Mr. Taranto said that what some folks failed to notice was that Mr. Obama (and Mr. Patrick) defended himself against the charge that he was all wind and no sail by giving us more wind. That the Clinton campaign failed to properly jump on this Mr. Taranto also notes; he avers that Mr. Obama's critics failed to quickly and effectively make the case that Mr. Obama's reliance on someone else's words proves that he is -- as the Clinton campaign has charged -- something of a breeze (a "fresh, clean" one, no doubt, in Joe Biden's mind).

(ALERT: Response from the Obama campaign: "The wind bloweth wheresoever it willeth. So it is every one who is born of the spirit ...")

But why would I bother here with this story? Surely it has nothing to do with me; surely we are outside this discussion, no?

First, I believe it is important because of what smacks of a double standard. Call me paranoid, or simply call me annoyed; but my sense is that if Mr. Obama was a conservative, we'd never hear the end of this story. If Mr. McCain lifted words from anyone, there would be countless discussions about his competency, trustworthiness, or moral authority.

Second, I believe it is important because of what is quite clearly overlooked, namely, that the Clinton campaign has again injected the race card into the presidential race. Surely you've heard of that other plagiarist, Martin Luther King Jr., no? You know, the one who apparently fudged most of his doctoral thesis at Boston University or lifted major portions of others' speeches for use in his own? No doubt the Clintons are disparaging Mr. Obama's penchant for borrowing phrases when they throw out the key word "plagiarist"; but they are also suggesting, are they not, that "black" leaders have a history of doing this?

Imagine if a conservative opponent to Mr. Obama had made a similar sort of accusation against him. "Racist" would be somewhere in every (related) headline in every major paper in the country ... for days. But since the accusation comes from a Democratic campaign, well, the issue can be largely ignored.

Finally, what also concerns me is that this sort of thing reveals the man behind the curtain: who we often elect is really the speech writer we never see. I recently read former George W. Bush speech writer Michael Gerson's book, Heroic Conservatism; the book made clear to me that Mr. Gerson was at times far more presidential than any president. This aspect of politics is troubling for what it suggests, namely, that who we see is more often a front man (or woman); more phantom than fact. (It is noted that among Mr. Obama's chief advisors is Deval Patrick's former campaign manager, indicating that Mr. Obama is perhaps not his own man.)

I am quick to accept Mr. Obama's explanation of what transpired: that he and Mr. Patrick are friends (they are) and that they exchange and share ideas all the time. I also accept that Mr. Obama admits that he should have given Mr. Patrick credit (though in a speech like Mr. Obama's, that can be somewhat awkward). What I fail to accept without some struggle is that this whole thing is rather insignificant.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Is Knowledge Midwife To Ignorance?

How Can It Be?

In Patricia Cohen's interesting New York Times article, "Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?", writer Susan Jacoby ponders America's apparent penchant for anti-intellectualism or, perhaps more accurately, its antipathy toward knowledge. When dealing with such a topic as this, where hard-as-nails knowledge is concerned, we can expect to find some mention of Christian fundamentalism, and our expectations are indeed met. But how Christian fundamentalists have succeeded in convincing "nearly two-thirds" of the country to give equal weight to creationism is not something we can expect to explore in this sort of discussion. That omission is, sadly, something most of us could have also predicted.

Besides Ms. Jacoby's probably accurate but overstated charge against fundamentalism, she avers that the "failing educational system" is to blame (one wonders if Ms. Jacoby connects that deterioration with the largely liberal, largely Democratic teachers' unions), as are various progressive political goals in the restructuring of university academic policies in the post-civil rights era.

Though I admit that Ms. Jacoby may enlarge upon her thesis in her book, The Age of American Unreason, one suspects she ignores the utilitarian ethos that permeates the American dream. Utilitarianism is, in part, the personal pursuit of happiness as defined by each American; knowledge is useful insofar as it advances any person's particular pursuit. That "American Idol" finalist and successful country music singer Kellie Pickler deserves to be chided (by Ms. Cohen) for not knowing of the existence of Hungary, may indeed signify something, but surely it is not a sign that Ms. Pickler has been debilitated by her ignorance of European geography. Ms. Pickler's seemingly doing quite fine, and while she is not prone to writing books, she is no doubt au courant in those knowledge schemes that give her expertise in her field. To the frustration of many an intellectual, pragmatism often trumps idealism.

What seems to be lacking in Ms. Cohen's article is any query as to why knowledge -- however it is defined -- should matter. How DOES knowing of the existence of Hungary help anyone who will never travel to that fair land? What purpose does knowledge serve? Surely Ms. Pickler is an expert in her field; she might even be a country music genius. Does she really need to score well in a Trivial Pursuit match against her financially less-successful peers? What is the purpose of learning? Do we learn for knowledge's own sake -- or for our own edification -- or is learning tied to praxis, to what we will DO with our lives?

I bet Ms. Cohen and Ms. Jacoby both have some compelling reasons why knowledge matters, but we are not permitted access to those reasons here. Perhaps they believe knowledge prevents one from being deceived; perhaps knowledge is a great defensive weapon against the zeitgeist. Perhaps.

What is also lacking in this discussion is any apparent exploration of the elevation of expertise -- call it the apotheosis of expert witnesses, if you will -- that pervades intellectual life in America. One repercussion of this pervasive habit is the signal it sends: I don't need to know "it" -- some bit of knowledge -- because someone else does. Nary a day goes by, I am sure, when debates on a loading dock, or around a coffee kiosk, or on a sports bus, do not include some assertion made by an eager interlocutor who substantiates a bold claim by referring to "they say" or "everybody knows" or "I read somewhere," or some similar appeal to an external locus of control. Implicit in these statements is not just the self-interest in appearing right; what is also implied is that some other thing is all-knowing, authoritative, binding ... and right. Sadly, this other thing takes many a modern form: a panel or commission, an encyclopedia or news agency, a think-tank or the Internet, or a poll or survey or "peer-reviewed study." Why is this sad, you may ask? Because it reveals the deep disconnect modernity and prosperity have created: there is a divide between memory and knowledge stored. Once memory and knowledge were practically synonymous. But now, knowledge can be stored elsewhere, like in the brain of an expert, the opinions of a panel, or the servers of a search engine. One need not apply oneself as vigorously as in years past, since so much can be recalled with a few typed words.

One could say, then, that America's ignorance, if it is indeed so ignorant, is not the result of ignorance; America's ignorance is the result of its knowledge. After all, it is knowledge that has given us the edge over nature; it is the learned person who has given us all sorts of ways to live without needing to know how we do what we do. How many people understand the keyboard beneath their fingers, the screen before their eyes? Why memorize poetry when poetry can be this morning's digital wallpaper? All such things are given us by knowledge; it is the advances of the age that have allowed us to live unfettered by the annoying need to know. Finally, ignorance is bliss -- given to us by what we know. (It's all a twist on T.S. Eliot's line from "Choruses from 'The Rock'": All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance...)

Lastly, we forget that the appeal to expertise -- which is what journalists and pundits and researchers and politicians do all the time -- is also the fallacy of appealing to authority. Surely not a few Americans are cynical and hip enough to know this fallacy intimately; surely too, the American pedagogical ideal of "questioning authority," an ideal that might even be foundational to postmodern liberalism, has unwittingly led to the broader disinterest in knowledge (and left children confused as schools parade authorities through every corridor). In other words, those allegedly declining schools to which Ms. Jacoby refers have given Americans -- especially young ones -- permission to be their own authorities ... on everything. (See Raphael Demos' quote here.) How we who are products of American pedagogy choose to exercise that authority is by definition personal and private, for it is all about our utilitarian pursuit of happiness.

Who's to say dumb is not happy?

Peace.

BG


©Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Twopence pensées, v.2

__________________

MIND YOUR S's and B's

St. Peter -- long before he was ever a saint -- denied Jesus Christ three times the night his Lord was arrested.

Not that this has anything to do with the gospel, but a reporter for Reuters seems to have "slurred" a new saint -- Barack Obama -- three times in one story. It is all rather innocent to me; I have made the same typing and editing mistake. And I've probably done it at least three times.

Really, writing Osama when you mean Obama is not that big a deal, is it? Well, to Jeff at Ohio Daily Blog it is a very big deal -- Reuters has no doubt surrendered to the far right.

_____________________

NOW, IF THIS WAS ABOUT A REPUBLICAN...

I don't pretend for a second that politics is a game where fairness prevails. There are no official referees holding politicians accountable, though one might make the case that the press is an unofficial judge. Unless you're talking about a leading Democrat. Untoward behavior? Yes, it makes the front page news for a cycle or two. But if such behavior is linked to a Republican, well there'd be no escaping the trope, "culture of corruption."

A $31.3 million secret donation to a library? Well, that's gotta be one amazing library.

Too bad you can't get what you need at the reference desk.

_____________________

A NEW DIRECTION CAMPAIGN SONG?†

Rumor -- that reliable correspondent -- has it that this was recently heard at a Barack Obama rally as the candidate walked out on stage (but rumor is rarely right).


When asked about it, campaign guru Oprah Winfrey said it was a mistake, but only if one took the lyrics "literally."

When shown the lyrics (which follow)

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
the Cult of Personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you wanna be ohhh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face of your T.V. ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, that leader dies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

(Guitar solo)

You gave me fortune, you gave me fame
You gave me power in your God's name
I'm every person you need to be ohh…
I'm, the, Cult, of, Per, Son, Al, Ity

I am the Cult of (x8)
Personality

“Ask not what your country can do for you…” (John F. Kennedy)
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

...one Obama supporter said that he could not understand why the song should evoke any criticism.

"Mr. Obama is not a cult of personality. He is instead the inspiration for change."

When asked how he felt when he heard Mr. Obama's "We are the ones we’ve been waiting for... We are the change we seek," contrasted with Living Colour's "Only you can set you free," the supporter responded by asking if I was a member of the "fascist racist right wing." When asked if he thought Mr. Obama's

"We have to choose between change and more of the same. We have to choose between looking backwards and looking forwards. We have to choose between our future and our past."

was a fallacy of the false choice, he said that there was no reason to choose to believe it was. "Change is always imminent," he said. "And Barack Obama is that change, and he is pointing us toward our future."

What future is that, and how will we know when we get there? I asked.

"You'll know," he said, confident. "You'll know when the Obama Nation stands where we have been told we cannot stand ... in control of our own destiny as a country and even as a world."

†Written and performed by Living Colour, 1988

______________________
Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The "Blessed" Won; Is Still Winning

When I read yesterday the Online Journal's James Taranto (See "Obama: A Love Story"), or ABC News' Jake Tapper (see "And Obama Wept"), or the comments of sundry analysts (not my analyst, of course), I shook my head in incredulity. "Where have you all been?" I asked.

The question, as you may know, refers to the religious, messianic dimensions of the Barack Obama phenomenon, and why so few have noted it until rather recently. Surely there is a blatant messianism playing out before our very eyes.

Needless to say, I noted this as far back as October 2006, long before Mr. Obama entered the race for the presidency. See my "A New Magnificat."

In December 2006, in "Blazing To The Top Of Charts," I wrote:

THE CULT OF PERSONALITY

I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?

I wonder.

In January 2007, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's newness, and his positioning himself as a deliverer; the piece was called "A Newbie Attitude." The play on words should be evident to anyone familiar with Christ's beatitudes. A month later, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's imminent pronouncement of his candidacy called "Two Annunciations." The same February day, right as Mr. Obama made his candidacy official, I wrote this piece, "And Now The Presentation."

Any attentive Christian will know that these titles all refer to events around the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ; any attentive American will know that these essays point out the messianism of the Obama movement -- that it almost seems to plagiarize real religious events (and even American historical symbols, e.g., the steps of the Illinois legislature -- Lincoln's house). And I drafted these essays not for mere color or entertainment. I drafted them as warnings.

A few months ago, I attended an Obama event in which Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, spoke with great passion and fervor. In her talk she said this:

"We are all broken. Every one of us is broken. ... And we all have a hole in our hearts, a hole that needs to be filled."

It would be imprudent of me to expect you not to notice the religious language here; I know you do. But I wonder how many of us hear what she is saying: that her husband can help fill the void. Millions of evangelicals have heard similar language describing the "God-shaped hole in the human heart." Does Ms. Obama mean to suggest that we have a Barack-shaped hole in our hearts, too?

Not long ago, Mr. Obama told the congregation in a South Carolina evangelical church, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth." Surely this sort of language is richly religious. One would expect to hear some outcry from those on the left, particularly since the left generally berates such language when uttered by those on the right. Even weirder, perhaps, is that no one can name a viable Republican candidate who has ever said such a thing. At the very least, hoping that a democratic republic can establish a "kingdom on earth" sounds sufficiently Tory enough to launch an investigation into whether a rebellion to reestablish a monarchy is afoot.

So, all this to say that Hosanna Politics, as I have dubbed them, are at full force ... and that in the Obama campaign. Right-wingers are perennially chided for pushing theocratic ideas, with hardly any evidence that they push them at all. And yet today we have a candidate for president -- whose name means "Blessed" -- using biblical language and establishing religious parallels that hardly raises an eyebrow.

Mr. Obama's great promise from last February's Annunciation? "WE shall issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth." And you thought Bush and Co. were all about expansionism and American hegemony. Where Mr. Obama gets the idea that Americans need a leader to save the earth is a puzzle. That his supporters seemingly have no problem with his ambitions is really quite scary. He -- and they along with him -- shall heal the land.

Who, really, does not want to be known as a healer?

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Super Shrove Tuesday And Following

It will be easy to forget, largely because Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of Super-sized media events for the last few weeks. First, it was Super Sunday, the annual national holiday involving two football teams, too much food, and countless TV sets. Then, this year, immediately following Super Bowl Sunday, 22 American states celebrate Super Tuesday, perhaps the most significant primary and caucus day in presidential politics. For days after Super Tuesday, the American media will drive Tuesday's events right into a Super-sized cliff.

All of this results in the diminution of the great Christian season of Lent. Tomorrow, Shrove or Fat Tuesday, marks the transition from feast to fast; the fast which begins Wednesday, Ash Wednesday, or the official start of the Lenten season of penitence, discipline, mortification, gratitude, hope, deliverance, resurrection, and triumphant rejoicing.

I would urge my Christian readers to remember this season with all due diligence. It is a season of wonders, a season of soft and salvific discipline. It is a reminder of all good things to come.

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Ex Libris Contratimes

I've read six books since Christmas, four of which were Christmas gifts and five of which I would like to recommend.

For readers interested in the atheism/theism debate, there is hardly a better book than There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind, by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese. Flew is the aforementioned notorious atheist, and I'll dare say his arguments will have atheists in a bind. I'll further state that his book -- even if ultimately wrong -- sets atheism back at least a decade ... once the full impact of what his book represents is realized.

Also, the appendices in the book are outstanding, particularly Church of England bishop N. T. Wright's wonderful defense of the resurrection of Christ. While the book is a great read, Wright's addition is a must-read.

Theodore Dalrymple's amazing little book, In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas, is refreshing in its common sense and invigorating in its brisk walk through the pitfalls of prejudice, and the foolishness of most attempts to purge prejudice from the human mind. The quick pace of this finely-wrought work explores the silly ideal that the highest good of any man is to dwell on the land without prejudice. Dalrymple argues that even biology equips humans for survival's sake with the habit of prejudice; and while he notes that racial prejudice is a gross mistake, the far greater mistake is to think that the absence of prejudice of any kind is a sign of moral authenticity, health and superiority. It simply isn't it, and the absurdities around this allegedly noble goal lead us to all sorts of moral confusion, including excusing a man for being a crook or lout because he is free of prejudice.

Connected to Dalrymple's beautifully written work is Shelby Steele's White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. For me, this is the only book I've read in a long time that I would describe as transformative. I can hardly tell you what was good about it since the book has left me nearly speechless. If anything, let me say that it made me realize that I -- raised in the public school system in the 1960s in northern New Jersey and in the '70s in southwestern New Hampshire -- was sold a whole boat of load junk about the white and wise solution regarding racism. My "white guilt" is both misbegotten and misplaced; Shelby Steele -- a "conservative" black man born of a white mother -- has shattered something in me I did not know even existed. My eyes have been opened: They have been lying to us. And I've been lying to myself -- unwittingly!

Steele's book is not perfect; and although I think he creates a dilemma -- especially for white Americans -- that he does not see, his work is so brilliant, so beautifully and powerfully brilliant, I believe it deserves a place in the great books list. You will see things about yourself and American politics and education you did not see before. I promise.

What higher praise can I give a work than to say it transformed me? Perhaps I can say that it stopped me in my tracks. (My wife, who passed this book along to me, considers Steele one of the bravest men in America. I think she's right.)

Falling in perfect harmony with White Guilt is Michael Gerson's lucid and well-written Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve To Fail if They Don't). Gerson, as some of you know, is the Wheaton College-educated former speechwriter for President George W. Bush. (If you are not aware, Wheaton [Ill.] College is arguably America's premier evangelical college, and is a great school.)

I liked most of this book, if for no other reason than it revealed to me the presidential power that a speechwriter possesses. Gerson is indeed a great speechwriter; but his influence on the presidency was nothing short of astounding. He, not Bush, is responsible for many of the most memorable phrases from the formative years of the Bush presidency: Bush, ultimately, may own these phrases, but Gerson (and his team) is the brain inside the teleprompter. And what an interesting, lucid brain it is! While I found myself disagreeing with Gerson in the book's opening chapters, I also found myself mostly swayed by him by book's end. In fact, by the time I finished his book, I was thinking of changing careers, of finding a noble cause for which to fight. It is an inspiring book, and is a trenchant analysis of conservatism's heart. Gerson convinces me that that heart is getting better in most of the right ways.

Also, Gerson's back room view of the Bush presidency (Gerson was witness to a lot of really inside stuff) is revelatory. His description of President Bush is not one-whit idolatrous. He is critical in all the right areas. It's just that he manages not only to humanize the president, he manages to show a man who is strikingly heroic in many ways and will never be noted for it among the media or ruling classes. After all, Bush policies -- at least his foreign efforts -- are some of the most noble and boldest in decades. The War on Terror -- which is really the institution of democracy and liberty everywhere neither is known -- is the most obvious of Bush's efforts; but his generous help in addressing poverty, malaria, and AIDS in Africa largely goes unnoticed. Gerson shows not only why these smaller things were necessary, but how good they are for our world.

Lastly, I very much liked Frederick Buechner's tiny little volume, Speak What We Feel (And Not What We Ought To Say). Buechner examines the key work of four writers -- poet and priest Gerard Manley Hopkins, William Shakespeare, Mark Twain, G.K. Chesterton -- exploring what it means for these men to have written their greatest works "in blood." Buechner delves into the darkest hours of these men, their great intellectual and spiritual struggles with demons past and present, and how they, in effect, wrote themselves free of all that threatened to bind them. The Twain chapter was very touching to me, as was the chapter on Chesterton. Great stuff about some of my very favorite writers.

In closing, all these books have one thing in common. I will read them again.

(The other book I read, if you are wondering, was G. K. Chesterton's glorious The Man Who Was Thursday. I have read it many times before.)

Peace this day.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

18-1: Man, Am I Glad It's Finally Over

(See? I am a mass of contradictions. I complained yesterday about watching the Super Bowl, and now I am writing about watching the Super Bowl.)

There is a problem with pursuing perfection: it's a vain and futile pursuit. And nearly any psychologist will inform you that perfectionism is a neurosis. Plus, it is a heavy burden to bear.

Good news. I can finally relax now that my hope for perfection has been smashed to the ground by a dominant defense, a composed quarterback, a miracle escape from a sack that had not quite closed, and a miracle one-handed-then-to-helmet-then-to-two-hands catch. Sweet relief! The New York Giants were the better team tonight.

Losing, in all honesty, has never felt so good.

As any football fan knows, a few losses in a season are no big deal. Many teams make it into the playoffs with 10-6 records (others have made it with worse records). But maintaining an undefeated season is wearying, or so it was for this fan. Going undefeated is not something the average fan, or player, or any coach expects or demands. And it becomes not merely an expectation but a annoying distraction. Weeks ago -- and I mean this -- I was ready for the Patriots to just lose, and maybe even lose again. Watching the games became more pain than pleasure. Rather than just expecting one's team to do well, there was this irresistible expectation that they must never lose. And then when the play-offs began, losing felt like it cost too much.

Obviously, they did lose, and they lost at the 'wrong' time.

As an armchair coach, I can only say that the Patriots' decision-making and play tonight seemed rather stunted. Brady needed to roll out of the pocket and not permit himself to play smash-mouth with a pretty sick pass rush. (The last two plays, Brady did roll right, finding time and passing lanes.) The Pats needed to develop their screen game (which had been one of the best in the NFL); they needed to remember that Donté Stallworth is on their team. They needed to finish the sack; they needed to bring down the interception or recover the fumble. They should have punched the Giants with a two-back set more often. And they probably needed to trust the leg of their field goal kicker one particular time, though it would have been a long-shot (which is what big games are about).

The numbers won't matter to the pundits, but the Patriots were not radically outplayed by a better team. They just lost, looking mediocre; worn out, perhaps, from the pressure of being perfect. Who wants to carry that mantle around anyway, other than Mercury Morris? The pass rush of the Giants was the best the Patriots have seen all year, I think; they were certainly outplayed on the line of scrimmage on many downs.

My hat is off to the Giants. I am a former fan of that legendary NY franchise. I think the Manning brothers are class acts; Eli's a great kid. The Giants played with fire in their bellies. I appreciate that.

But I predictably console myself with the simple observation that this year's Super Bowl champs had fewer wins and more losses than the Super Bowl losers. 18-1 is shockingly good, as are the many NFL records (Wes Welker's record-setting performance in tonight's game just one more great feat) the Patriots set. They remain the standard bearer; the NFL has been transformed in many ways by that curmudgeonly coach in the sideline hoodie.

One more thing: tonight's loss puts the end -- I mean THE END -- to the whole Spy-gate absurdity. So glad that sideshow is over.

Overall, trying to be objective, I think the Super Bowl was just OK -- at best. The last few minutes were interesting. But as I said last night, the NFL season is more interesting than its climax. It's perhaps the one case -- what REAL man dare say this?! -- where the courtship is more interesting and fun than the consummation.

EXTRAS

BEST COMMERCIALS: Coke's two ads, the parade balloons battling it out for a bottle of Coca-Cola (quite beautiful, really, so gentle and lyrical -- Go Charlie Brown!), and the bipartisan gem featuring James Carville and Bill Frist. Perfect. (Also, I liked the Toyota commercial with the Big Wheel races, though not for the SUV advertised, but for the fact that I want to race Big Wheels downhill. And the Hyundai Genesis is a sweet looking ride.)

The Budweiser Clydesdales are always a big hit with me; I am a sucker for those animals. Loved the dalmatian-as-trainer saving the career of one out-of-shape horse.

WORST COMMERCIAL: Can't say I liked the Jiminy Cricket-like creature (Pinocchio riff?) getting eaten by the spider; and I liked the baby on-line investor but the regurgitation was one step too far (the clown follow-up was cute, though.) And the corpulent dude clamping jumper cables to his nipples was initially funny, but was just plain crude by the end. (I know, I am a killjoy.)

BEST PROMO: The NFL's promotional about dreaming big dreams. I did not catch the names, but the piece about the two Houston Texans teammates -- one of whom is an oboe player -- was brilliant and sweet.

HALFTIME SHOW: Tom Petty and the HEARTbreakers. Not the best name for a band if you're a Patriots fan. But the little medley was decent enough. I am no Petty fan, so I must say that it is clear he's STILL running down a dream, and I am a bit weary of it. My guess is he hasn't played to such a large audience in a long, long time. I'll give the entertainment a 7.5.

NATIONAL ANTHEM: Wow. Stunning, I thought.

END OF GAME HANDSHAKE: Stay on the field, Bill. If only for one more second. (Dear NFL: Give him a 10-yard penalty to be assessed in the first game of next season). Uncool, sir.

PREDICTION: Patriots are in 2 of the next 5 Super Bowls, winning at least one. New York Giants struggle again to get into the play-offs next year; they might not even make the play-offs. They won't make it past the first round if they do.

(Gosh, I really AM an idiot.)

Peace, and good night.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Twopence pensées

*

My wife and I recently purchased a large LCD flat-screen, high-definition television. After setting the thing upon our new entertainment center console (think Pottery Barn-esque), connecting the high-definition cables and 800-watt surround-sound system, and tweaking the settings till everything was just so, I sat on my couch, suddenly confused. For the whole structure before me was eerily familiar -- and remarkably misplaced. I was not looking at a high-end bit of technology. I was sitting in front of an altar.

So I got up and went outside.

Weird.

*

I am a fairly earnest professional football fan (for you Europeans, please emend), though I am really not a fanatic. And I am a New England Patriots enthusiast, though I am by no means well-informed about that fine team. All I can say is that I enjoy football in the regular season only to loathe the Super Bowl. I am loosely connected to the Patriots from September to December, and then I begin to fray after that.

This, I assure you, is not a good omen when there is an altar in my TV room devoted solely to such things.

*

Tomorrow will be a glorious day in the heavens; there will be tides and migrations and births and sunrises and sunsets and storms and even the end of storms, but I will hardly notice. I'll be too busy prepping for guests, for the big game.

*

I feel a bit like a postmodern Ben Franklin: I've tethered my satellite kite in the meadow; it gets struck by digital lightning, a lightning that rips a course through my little string, all to ground me in digital vibrancy to a spot in my new sort of pew.

*

Tomorrow I will again cringe at excess, my own mostly. I will see gratuitous consumption, grotesque displays of life lived too many steps beyond 'enough.' I will feel guilty about my relationship to myself -- feeling I've wasted mind and body and time. I will feel guilty about my relationship with others -- those poor who cannot watch the high-definition-privileged in their $10,000 Super Bowl seats, or the widow alone in her room -- or anyone else. I will feel guilty about my relationship with God, that I've rarely been as excited about the divine as I've been about nearly everything mundane. And then on Monday, well, I'll talk football in the confessional.

Perhaps I can hit the TIVO: I'll record the life I should live tomorrow -- the life I'll miss while watching the Super Bowl -- and then live it some other time.

Now, how great would that be?

A lifetime to back-up.

Peace.


©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

In Loco Parentis: America's Two Crazy Parents (DNC & GOP)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.