I've been critical of the Texas Board of Education when it has tried to integrate religious ideological topics, e.g., creationism, into the classroom. I have no problem with the discussion of scientific theory building, the scientific method, and the nature and extent of scientific evidence. Certainly there are topical events, including the controversies over creationism and global warming (e.g., Climategate); however, I do not want the classroom to become a proxy for political debates or the teacher, typically a groupthink product of the overwhelmingly liberal higher education establishment, using a captive audience to impose ideology in place of authentic science, which always questions and tests its assumptions. The reason I object to creationism is the the intrinsic intellectual surrender: we cannot explain this using current theory, techniques and hypotheses--hence, we must posit the existence of God. (It is quite challenging to emulate cumulative changes over a span of thousands or millions of years in today's labs. If we find it difficult using today's scientific infrastructure and techniques to model the economy or world climate 5 years into the future, how much more difficult is it to model general evolutionary processes?)
There are some fascinating battles that took place over the past week of sausage making over the discussion of American history. Let me say, first of all, I'm empathetic to the concerns of pervasive American progressivism in American colleges and universities being spread throughout lower education. In college curricula we've seen things like curriculum-required courses in minority or women's studies, coverage of minor literary figures or artists based solely on ethnic heritage instead of overall influence, and core requirements of Western civilization waived. Imagine that--the American melting pot of Emma Lazarus ("The New Colossus"), the nation which overturned the institution of slavery and guaranteed the right to vote to women and minority groups needs to lectured ad nauseam about the benefits of so-called diversity?
The progressives are obsessed with politically correct outcomes and role models. A sample dispute involved the Tejanos (Latin American Texans) whom died at the Alamo. The liberals on the board contend that the focus on the white leaders is racially motivated and ignores the contribution of Latinos in state history. No, it doesn't. It is what it is: identification of key figures. Nearly 300,000 Americans lost their lives on the battlefield during World War II and another 700,000 were wounded; most Americans simply know of a handful of military heroes or leaders, e.g., Ike Eisenhower, Patton, and MacArthur. We do not devalue the contributions of the 16 million whom served their country; that's the reason we celebrate Memorial Day and Veterans Day. It is true that leaders get credit for a victory, but it's also true that leaders get blamed for a defeat. Life isn't fair: a baseball manager isn't out on the field hitting and fielding--but when a losing team completes its season, chances are that the manager will be fired, while the players who lost the games still have a job.
I did not decide to become a professor or an information technology professional based on preexisting Franco-American role models. I think from my standpoint, my maternal grandfather was an inspiration; he did not go to college but managed to create and operate for decades (including throughout the Depression) a mom and pop grocery; he was obsessed with customer service and his business (which is why my parents got married on a holiday). One of things he used to mention on his post-retirement visits was opening up his store after hours for the occasional customer whom needed to buy milk or a loaf of bread. You see the same discipline and hard work, the belief in the noblest of dreams, the promise of freedom and opportunity in America.
You see it in the magnificent stories of Vietnamese immigrant children whom grew up to become valedictorians of their high school classes. Then there's the story of Miguel Estrada, the first Court of Appeals justice nominee to be filibustered, despite Senate majority support; a Honduras native with a limited command of English, Estrada at age 17 immigrated to the US with his mother in 1978, graduating with high honors from Columbia University 5 years later, followed Harvard law degree with high honors (not to mention being an editor of the Harvard Law Review) three years later. Before his nomination, Estrada had clerked for the Court of Appeals and worked for the Solicitation Generals office, representing the government in a number of cases before the court in question.
I was concerned about news reports that the progressives had wanted to lop off early American history, but when you got to the sausage making, some of the battles were really over certain litmus test issues, with the progressives, of course, engaged in presentism. For example, we have Thomas Jefferson discussing a wall of separation between church and state. First of all, even a cursory look at Jefferson's writings showed that he had little sympathy with organized religions, which he contemptuously believed was at the heart of many senseless wars; he was a Christian but did not have orthodox beliefs regarding the divinity of Christ or the authenticity of the accounts of His birth, the performance of miracles, etc. We need to remember that freedom of religion was a basic attraction of immigrants to the New World. The governments of these territories were hardly indifferent to the practice of religion.
The famous "Wall of Separation" exchange between the Danbury Baptist Association and Jefferson focused on the Baptists' concern with a religious tax passed by the Connecticut state government, controlled by the Federalists (Jefferson's political opponents); the law had been written in such a way as to distribute by default collected money to the dominant Congregationalist churches; there were hoops that Baptists could jump through to attempt to get their own taxes reassigned to their own churches, but the results were mixed. What in essence the Baptists were looking for was moral support from the President to reform or rescind the state law. The Baptists felt like the state law was only paying lip service to the unalienable right of religious freedom and in fact was picking winners and losers among religious denominations. In essence, Jefferson gingerly worded his response; recall, by principle, he was a strong supporter of states' rights versus the federal government, and the Baptists seemed to be trying to draw him into an internal conflict in the state of Connecticut. But, yes, according to Jefferson (my paraphrase): as a general principle of government (local, state or federal), the government should be impartial in appearance and reality from religious establishments. Does that mean that Jefferson and others would have been sympathetic with attempts to purge religion-neutral deistic references on coinage, pledges and the like? I doubt it--in fact, Jefferson was known to attend occasional Christian services in the House of Representatives.
Other matters seemed to be tediously narrow in scope. Yes, of course Milton Friedman (in fact, the Chicago School) should be listed in discussions of American economic thought. On the other hand, I am not a fan of hip-hop and rap, but I do recognize their place in American culture. What I would like to have seen was a unified set of principles, including contextually-relevant discussions of key political differences. History must not be seen through the prism of liberal presentism; it should provide a balanced perspective, including America's rise as an economic and military power and its distinctive cultural values.
Sunday Talk Soup
I have to admit to being puzzled by Nancy Pelosi's expressed confidence in passing the Democratic Party Health Care Bill, which has been targeted over this coming week; in fact, the Senate bill, the target of current House Democratic leadership, could have been passed by the House for almost 3 months now, if the votes were there. I think it's likely that Pelosi is simply bluffing, hoping to convey a sense of inevitability over passage. But it does bother me so many individuals, including Obama, are going for broke on this vote. (There is a big contrast with Bush's attempts at social security reform: he had created a bipartisan commission which recommended 3 choices, including the one he presented. There has been no meaningful bipartisan action on health care, which has to be attributed to the failure of the Democrats in the majority.) It could be that the leadership is in for a rude awakening. I think if it carries, it carries with a bare majority. But if the House Democrats realize the vote is going to fall short, I suspect it could be a stinging rebuke, without a single Republican vote possibly including a number of liberal votes protest-voting against loss of the public option. There will be a lot of finger-pointing among Democratic leaders over whom lost health care. There can be no mandate for the unpopular Senate bill; polls have consistently gone against it.
David Axelrod irked Senator Graham (SC-R) by essentially saying Scott Brown (MA-R) is hypocritical for not supporting a bill like the bipartisan one he voted for in Massachusetts. In fact, Scott Brown openly ran against the Senate Democratic bill, and his opponent, up by over 30 points earlier in the campaign, lost in supporting the same Senate bill. Brown himself rejects the criticism, noting that the Massachusetts process was bipartisan in nature, and the bill was not some 2700 page monstrosity with gimmick accounting and an overextended federal budget.
Political Cartoon
Chip Bok uses the broad context of the current Disney 3-D film to illustrate the Alice in Wonderland thinking behind the Democratic Party Health Care Bill (remember the Queen saying, "Sentence first--verdict afterwards")? Here, she is attempting to justify the Democrats' refusal in principle to negotiate with the Republicans in good faith, with the Senate Democrats' ability to ignore the GOP nullified by the Scott Brown election. Make no mistake: The Democrats and the GOP could have negotiated a lower-cost, compromise bill which would have addressed things like preexisting conditions, catastrophic expenses, and lifetime benefit caps instead of this convoluted monstrosity; even if the American people haven't waded through 2700 pages of legalistic mumbo-jumbo, they intuitively understand there is no such thing as a free lunch for 30 million newly insured, there is no need to bribe senators (e.g., the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gator-Aid, and the Union Exemption) into an intrinsically worthy piece of legislation, and the kerfuffle over abortion funding is far removed from the discussion of preexisting conditions and benefit caps.
Quote of the Day
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson
Musical Interlude: Bayou Songs
Hank Williams, "Jambalaya on the Bayou"
Creedence Clearwater Revival, "Born on the Bayou"
Linda Ronstadt, "Blue Bayou"
