More Conservative Wisdom

Last week my post referred to a column written by John Hawkins at Townhall. This week Mr. Hawkins has written another column called "10 More of the Greatest Pieces of Conservative Wisdom". Take a look at it. There are some good thoughts there. You might have your own favorite pieces of wisdom, of course, but reading someone else's list can expand your thinking and give you some new ideas.

At American Thinker I found another article that I recommend for its thought-provoking ideas. It is called "'Seeker-Sensitive' Conservatism" and was written by Alan Roebuck. In the article, Mr. Roebuck discusses the problem of basing Christian teachings on a "seeker-sensitive" marketing approach. Mr. Roebuck defines that as:

The seeker-sensitive movement is a close analogy to the contemporary conservative movement. In both cases, people who ought to be offering timeless truths that can save individuals and societies are instead using market research to craft a product that appeals to consumers, telling them what they want to hear rather than a truth that is initially painful but ultimately liberating. Even if you are not a Christian, you should be concerned about a mass movement that thrives by suppressing many important ideas that it once believed in, especially because the same error tempts other idea-based movements, such as conservatism.

He goes on to tell us that a pastor, Bob DeWaay, has studied this seeker-sensitive movement and has concluded thusly:

DeWaay's basic conclusion is this: The purpose-driven movement begins with the premise that the only way to attract non-Christians to church is by offering to meet their felt needs, rather than their real need for salvation through Christ. If a non-Christian "seeker" visits a church where he hears the traditional Gospel message that he is a lost sinner in need of a salvation that can only come from personal repentance and trust in the atoning death of Christ, he will be repelled by the challenging message, and will not return. To prevent this failure, so the theory goes, a church must conduct market research into what people in its area want, and then find a way to give these seekers what they want.

One result is that the deep and challenging teachings of traditional Christianity must never be presented in the Sunday morning worship service that has traditionally been the cornerstone of Christian fellowship. Not only will non-Christian seekers probably not want to hear that God regards them as sinners, but they will have no interest in what Warren (and theological liberals) dismissively call "doctrine," that is, the actual content of the religion preached by Christ and the Apostles. The result is a Christianity that retains the rituals and some of the language of traditional Protestant Christianity, but is effectively stripped of its content.

Mr. Roebuck continues:

But what does this have to do with conservatism? Doesn't the conservative movement stand in unambiguous opposition to the foolish and destructive ideas of the left? Don't conservatives suffer the hostility and sometimes the persecution of the liberals and leftists who have de facto control of the universities, the media, and much of the government? How could conservatism be "seeker-sensitive?"

By failing to stand on principle. As I have argued in Liberalism 101, liberalism (i.e., the worldview of the left) has almost complete control of America. It is our "unofficial state religion." But since liberalism is largely false, John Q. Public senses (even if he cannot articulate it) that something is seriously wrong with the ideas and policies he is relentlessly taught by the schools, the media and even, God help us, by many clergy. This being the case, there is a major market for "conservatism," that is, articulate opposition to liberalism. People have a felt need to have their intuitions vindicated.

But whenever there is a popular product, its producers will be tempted to modify their product to suit the desires of the consumer. There is much profit to be made in giving people what they want, rather than what they need.

Something that struck me was Mr. Roebuck's statement that:

It is something entirely different to admit, as I have argued in Liberalism 101, that the real problem is America's general acquiescence to an entire worldview based on the nonexistence of the God of the Bible, and which therefore means that God is not the supreme being, but rather man.

And if man, who is constantly changing, is the supreme being, then we cannot know anything for sure, except that the highest priority is protecting myself and asserting my ego. And people devoted ultimately to themselves can hardly form a strong nation, defeat the bad initiatives of liberalism, and pass on their way of life to their descendants.

His solution?

I have argued here that we need a sustained and aggressive public campaign against the fundamental ideas of liberalism. Individuals, of course, are free to believe whatever they want, but any nation must have ideas that are authoritative for the guidance of its public policies. Since the publicly acknowledged comprehensive system of thought that has de facto authority over America is liberalism, liberalism must be fought publicly, at the level of its fundamental ideas. That is, we must aim to discredit publicly not just the specific foolish initiatives of liberalism, but more importantly the foundational ideas that make liberalism what it is. If we fail to discredit these ideas in the minds of both John Q. Public and our leadership class, liberalism will continue to be the guiding philosophy of America, and America will continue to decline.

To change the entire way of thinking of a nation is a fearfully difficult undertaking, and success is by no means guaranteed. If liberalism really is our state religion, then most people will resent our contention that we must change the way our nation thinks. But liberalism, being largely false and irrational, is intellectually vulnerable.

And the stakes are high: America is in mortal danger. The America that we have known, under the onslaught of many maladies either caused or exacerbated by liberalism, is in danger of ceasing to exist and being replaced by something radically different and worse. Think of the mass immigration that, coupled with multiculturalism, is Balkanizing us, of the widespread promulgation of secularism, agnosticism and atheism that is making us more self-centered and cowardly, and of the creeping socialism that is making us a nation of dependents.

I've quoted a lot of what I believe is an important article, but go read all of it to get a better idea of what Mr. Roebuck is talking about. We need to really think about our futures and the future of America and in what direction we are headed.

Conservative Wisdom to Ponder

At Townhall you will find a column by John Hawkins titled "10 of the Greatest Pieces of Conservative Wisdom". In it, Mr. Hawkins lists 10 quotations and offers comments on them. The ideas presented and the quotes used cover a lot of ground, but I think you'll find the column worth a read.

What it comes down to for me is personal responsibility along with morality and integrity. Too many people pursue a course of instant gratification, moral equivalence, dishonesty, and wanting to escape the consequences of choices by being bailed out, usually by the government. Do we ever stop to think about the consequences of this type of widespread behavior for our country? The problem isn't just in America. We can look at the countries in Europe and at countries around the world and see the problems created by turning our lives over to the government of our respective countries.

In many ways, the course of many individuals becomes the course of the nation. If each individual took a responsible, mature course in his life, we would see a great improvement in our nation. If we could rid ourselves of selfishness, dishonesty, immorality, and greed, we would find life can be good indeed. Self-esteem would come from true accomplishments and not from being indoctrinated with a false self-esteem based on nothing.

Careful consideration of consequences is a must for any choice we make. Slow down, think first, look ahead down the road that you are considering taking.

World View

I have been thinking about how each person has a world view, or perspective, on life. Where does this come from? How do we know whether our world view is a good one or not?

I think that beginning in childhood, we accumulate various influences that affect how we see life and the world. It begins with being influenced by (or rebelling against) our parents. We see their example in word and deed and form opinions about that. Once we start church attendance and school attendance, we are influenced by the various teachers we have, as well as our peers. This continues through high school and college. We begin to be influenced by media, whether it is newspapers, television, magazines, etc. Particularly persuasive speakers or writers may sway us more than we realize. We end up with a world view created by a hodge-podge of influences, some of which were accepted without any real thought.

Now that we are mature adults, it seems to me a good idea to reconsider our opinions and ideas and try to trace where they came from and if they are any good. This can be difficult, but it is better than drifting along without thought.

In my opinion, God and the scriptures are the best source for learning what life is about and what we should do with the life we've been given. Of course, our world view can influence how we interpret scriptures and what course we follow in choosing a religion or choosing to reject religion.

Other sources for learning are history and literature. If we read widely in these areas, we will get a more accurate picture of what works and what doesn't than we would if we restrict our reading to only those authors we know already agree with our perspective and opinions. Even the most objective of writers will be somewhat biased because of his world view. It's the same with teachers. Anyone who is in a position to select what material is presented and how it is presented allows at least some subconscious decisions to enter into the mix. That is why we should look to more than one source to educate ourselves.

As for choosing what to believe, that becomes an individual choice. The hope would be that we would do our best to choose based on facts rather than persuasive writing/teaching or what sounds good on the surface. We should learn to think things through and consider the consequences of whatever choice we are thinking about. Does it bring good into our lives and the lives of others, or does it bring bad?

Sometimes facts aren't enough. Faith enters into our choices, too. We think of faith as a religious term, but everyone has faith in whatever they choose to believe--evolution, atheism, Marxism, feminism, and other "isms" require faith from their followers. They require faith that the propositions are correct and good, whether they are or not. So it is actually a mix of facts and faith that form our world views.

Different people have different issues that concern them, so they look to different sources for answers. What concerns me is that sometimes people come to see problems where there are none simply because whatever world view they have arrived at conditions them to see things from a narrow perspective--if they are oriented to look for oppression everywhere, they will see oppression everywhere because that is what they have trained their minds to conclude upon viewing just about anything. So then we need to ask ourselves if we are being realistic or if we have bought into one philosophy to such an extent that we no longer see things as they really are. That can be difficult to sort out because we will have a tendancy to think that we are seeing reality, even when we are not.

I don't know the best way to evalute our world view and see whether it is good or not. The only thing I know to do is to consider the sources of our viewpoints and also to think through the consequences of having those viewpoints. It would also help to know what other viewpoints there are out in the world--that's where reading widely comes into play--so that we can consider those as well.

I said I didn't know the best way, but actually I do. It's just that it won't be acceptable to some. My best way is to consider all things in light of the scriptures and to pray about them, and to listen to God's prophets and apostles, found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For those who don't turn to religion, well, you can still read widely and think things through and do the best you can to sort out whether your views are reasonable or not.

One reason I have been thinking about all this today is the presidential election coming up in 2008 and all the candidates with all their ideas about how the United States of America should be run. We voters have a responsibility to make the best choice possible when we cast our votes in the primaries and in the general election. Some candidates have ideas that sound good on the surface, but when thought through, one realizes that those ideas will mean very high taxes, government interference, and/or wrecking the economy. They might mean loss of freedoms. So we need to consider things carefully and not cast our votes for reasons that won't lead this country and its people where they should go.

It's complicated, but giving conscious thought to our beliefs and opinions and ideas can make a big difference in how much good can come from our lives. I haven't covered nearly all that can go into this type of thinking and considering and each person will have his own ideas about it, but I hope that I have given you something to ponder.

Musings (or Rantings, Depending on Your Point of View)

Global warming, or climate change, is still making headlines. It gets blamed for everything and mankind gets blamed for global warming, even though there is evidence out there that man does not have that big an effect on the environment. There are ways, of course, that people can be better stewards of the earth, but those ways are best implemented on a local, personal level. Scientists can help, if they will actually follow the scientific method and not get into politics and personal agendas. Real information will help real people make real decisions about their personal stewardship responsibilities.

Education is a major concern, too, because it shapes the thinking of the rising generation. It seems that only liberal ideas and propaganda are welcome in schools these days. A true education comes with looking at all sides of an issue and thinking clearly and critically about them all. It also comes from an honest survey of the past in history and other writings to learn lessons that only history and the past can teach us about what works and what doesn't. Rewriting history or editing some of it out doesn't help anyone--it only hurts us all. Then there is this whole self-esteem thing. What good does it do a child to be praised or rewarded for doing things wrong? Does it really prevent hurt feelings? No. A child knows when he doesn't deserve praise or a reward. And as far as trying to prevent hurt feelings--well, that doesn't do much to prepare someone for real life, does it?

Feminism strikes me as being selective for liberal causes. It also strikes me as training women to see oppression everywhere, even when it isn't there in reality. And what about the oppression of women in the Middle East? That is a real, honest-to-goodness problem and yet feminists remain strangely silent on the subject. I can only presume that it is because supporting change in the Middle East doesn't fit the liberal agenda. It is a larger and more important example of what feminists did with Bill Clinton--sexual harassment was bad unless it was perpetrated by Mr. Clinton. I am sure there are consistant feminists out there somewhere, but I haven't been hearing from them. Certainly they aren't making the news.

Immigration is a tough problem. Yes, we all want to be charitable, but in my view, when someone commits a crime (coming the the United States illegally) and benefits from that crime, then things are seriously out of whack. It's frustrating, too, when some play the race card and accuse those of us who want the laws enforced of being racist. It isn't true and surely they know it, but it gets attention and stops any honest debate on the subject. It's the same with accusing people falsely of being homophobic because they believe that marriage is only for one man and one woman, and that school children shouldn't be subjected to all sorts of indoctrination about what constitutes a family and about what sexual behavior is acceptable.

There are so many ways that we allow government to intrude into our lives and go well beyond what they are constitutionally permitted to do and yet so many don't seem to realize that our freedom and liberty is at stake. Taxes leap to mind. So do things like hate-crimes legislation, laws to ban transfats and other things that someone has decided are bad for us (they may be bad for us, but it is not government's place to decide).

Certainly conservatives aren't perfect, either. The thing is, though, that most conservatives look at the big picture and see the problems that will arise when "feel-good" legislation is proposed and when education is one-sided and when those opposing them indulge in name-calling instead of addressing the actual issues and debating ideas honestly.

I understand that there are those opposed to my viewpoint and that is their privilege. What I can't understand is why they won't even consider that they might be thinking about some things in the wrong way--or, worse, not thinking at all, just blindly following the liberal agenda. Well, I suppose that is what they think about me. I just want people to be more objective and to think things through in a more complete way. I want to see real, honest debate in the presidential campaigns instead of candidates who tailor what they say to fit a poll they've seen or an audience they are speaking to.

The State of Academia

I love education--reading, studying, thinking, writing. It is all so wonderful. Because of my love of learning, it makes me incredibly sad to view the state of our educational systems here in the United States, from kindergarten right on through to the universities. They have been drifting away from teaching and getting into indoctrinating, the very antithesis of what they should be doing to prepare young people for life and for the future.

At FrontPage Magazine there is an article about the University of California at Santa Cruz titled "The Worst School in America" by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin. While the article could have used some serious proofreading, the content is important information for all of us to know about, whether we are taxpayers or sending children to school or citizens concerned about the direction our country is headed in. The article is long, but well worth the time to read.

UCSC is a public university funded by taxpayers. Yet they are violating academic standards right and left and openly training radical activists of all stripes. Many other schools teach some of these same types of courses. Education is supposed to be about teaching students to read, write, and think with clarity, and to study multiple viewpoints, objective facts, scientific studies, and the like. It is not supposed to be about the egregious violation of these academic principles.

I hope people will wake up and investigate what is being taught at schools they send their children and/or their donations to. This is serious, folks.

Science is Supposed to be About Investigation

Like global warming, another object of scientific study is evolution. And again, a small group of people insist that the debate is over and evolution, like global warming being caused by man, is a fact, even though it is assuredly not. I found an interesting article called "Theory of Evolution" at the Conservapedia. Like Wikipedia, this is a publicly written/edited online encyclopedia, so you would want to do some research of your own to confirm the information. However, this article is full of names and quotes and footnotes, so it gives you plenty of information to research.

My reading on the topic of evolution shows little, if any, evidence confirming it. Yet this is what is taught in our schools, and other viewpoints and ideas and facts are shut out. It can take years, even decades, for such indoctrinated students to realize they've been had. Who knows how much scientific research goes undone because everyone thinks "the debate is over". How many ideas and solutions and new discoveries are delayed or never found because research is stifled in certain directions?

Wikipedia has a good article on "Scientific Method" which should serve as a good reminder of what science is supposed to be about.

This past week, Newsweek had a story called "The Truth about Denial" by Sharon Begley. An excellent rebuttal of this article can be found at Townhall.com in an article called "Paralyzing Fog of Uncertainty on Climate" by Debra J. Saunders.

Just keep an open mind and search out all sides of an issue. You might be surprised at what you find. And don't forget to consider motivation for taking one side or another--the spokespeople might have hidden agendas.

"Straight Thinking 101"

Jewish World Review once again provides me with my material. Walter Williams writes an article titled "Straight Thinking 101" which discusses economics, but can be applied to a wide variety of subject matter. I think he gets to the heart of a problem many of us have in our thinking, namely compassion vs. dispassion.

Dr. Williams begins by explaining the difference between positive statements and normative statements and why that is important:

Just about the most difficult lesson for first-year economics students, and sometimes graduate students, is that economic theory, and for that matter any scientific theory, is positive or non-normative. You might ask, "What's this business about positive and normative?" It's easy. Positive statements deal with what was, what is or what will be. Normative, or subjective, statements deal with what's good or bad, or what ought to be or should be. Confusing the two leads to considerable mischief.

The statement "Scientists cannot split the atom" is a positive statement. Why? If there's disagreement with the statement, there are facts to which we can appeal to settle the disagreement — just visit Stanford University's linear accelerator and watch atoms being split. The statement "Scientists shouldn't split the atom" is a normative statement. Why? There are no facts whatsoever to which we can appeal to settle any disagreement. One person's opinion on the matter is just as good as another's.

How about the statement "Gasoline prices are unreasonable"? If some think they're reasonable while others don't, the argument can go on forever without resolution because there are no facts to which we can appeal to settle the disagreement. However, there are facts that tend to back up the statement: Buyers of gasoline prefer lower prices while sellers prefer higher prices.

He then says:

Having explained the difference between positive and normative statements, I tell my students that in no way do I propose that they purge their vocabulary of normative statements. Normative statements are excellent tools for tricking others into doing what you want them to do. I simply caution that in the process of tricking others, there's no need to trick oneself into believing that one normative statement is better or more righteous than another.

With the difference between positive statements and normative statements, Dr. Williams addresses another oft misused word:

A related term that doesn't make much economic sense is the term "need." The implication of an absolute, crying, dying or urgent need is that one cannot do without the need in question. Students sometimes say they absolutely need a car or a cell phone. At that point I ask them, how in the world was it that Gen. George Washington could defeat Britain, the mightiest nation on earth, without a cell phone or a car?

The problem with the term "need" is that it suggests there are no substitutes for the item in question. Thus, people will pay any price for it; however, the law of demand says that at some price, people will take less of something, including none of it. In response, a student might say, "Diabetics can't do without insulin" or "People can't do without food." I say, "Yes, they can; diabetics have been doing without insulin for thousands of years." In some poor African countries, people do without food. Of course, the results of doing without insulin or food are indeed unpleasant, but the fact that the results are unpleasant doesn't require us to deny that non-consumption is a substitute for consumption. Again, I tell my students not to purge their vocabulary of crying, dying and urgent needs; just don't trick yourself while you're tricking others.

I think Dr. Williams' closing paragraph is extremely important for all to keep in mind:

You say, "Williams, it doesn't sound like economics is a very compassionate science." You're right, but neither is physics, chemistry or biology. However, if we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help.

There are times to think with the heart, usually on a personal level, and there are times to think with the brain, most often when formulating public policy.