Whispers in the Wasteland

Whispers in the Wasteland

What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
        Frisch weht der Wind
        Der Heimat zu
        Mein Irisch Kind
        Wo weilest du?
-- T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

There was once a dream that was Rome
You could only whisper it
Anything more than a whisper
And it would vanish
-- Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the movie Gladiator

It was like a dream, but it was not a dream. It was more like a vision. A cool northern wind came down across the desiccated wilderness. It was like a comforting breath, like that of Spiritus Sancti, although one could never be sure. It was the Confusing Age for solitary and unsophisticated barbarian. He counted himself as uncultured, never able to understand the complex social interactions that could deem "thank you," "please," "sir," or "ma'am" as words that could cause offense. Better to live a solitary life, he thought, than wend the twisted maze. As to the vision, he could not be sure. Was it a distant future, a prophecy, or a tocsin? Not possessing the tools he felt necessary to discern such things, he doubted he could tell if it were a breath or a cool breeze, and whether he saw a mirage or a vision. Water came from the rock. Jarred from his seemingly unused memory was a voice, "the truth will set you free!" And beside the flowing water, he saw sticking out in the sand an old parchment. As he took the brittle codex, he felt sure -- that despite his urge to clutch it -- to embrace it too tightly would cause it to crumple into dust. His voice cracked as he read aloud the fragment in his hands, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

--------------------

Come my friends, drink from the stream. This draught will make you tingle from the tips of your hair down to your toes. It is a heady draught, sourced to the ancient mists of pre-history. Do not confuse things; not all old things contain this magic. Not the glass paperweight of the forgotten age before the tyrants. Not the lyrical phrases of the Old Bard before folks fell to hedonism. It is not the magic note of the conch, only schoolboys not quite formed would think it so.

So gather round my friends, and listen to an exposition that would make an old wounded veteran of Lepanto chuckle...

Cheese Eating Surrender Jonah

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry. For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. (2 Tim 4:3-7)

I am not a pope. I am not a prophet. I am not a king. I am a barbarian in the city, a city, which, in a way, I perceive as a wilderness. I love this shining city on a hill, not because of her degradation, but because of her hopes and ideals. I cannot feel that I am a full-fledged member of the community, yet as a barbarian must have felt in ancient Rome -- I would defend her against the hordes at my back. ("Rome is the light!") As a voice in the wilderness, I seek not to aggrandize myself or my ideas. I seek fidelity to Tradition and I mean that in both senses. I strive to keep intact the Tradition handed down insofar as I can discover it. I have faith in that Tradition.

It is Tradition which defines my politics. This is not a reactionary wish for the halcyon days of the crewcut fifties of the 20th century or the Victorian Era of the 19th century. It is easy enough to find evidence of excesses in those time periods, just as it is to find them in this time. I would rather not repeat the mistakes of an era even if it was not misbegotten. It was not a better time, for even then they questioned Tradition. But even if there are no slippery slopes and I doubt that; there is no denying what was a cough in the 19th century became a fever in the 20th and is becoming a febrile dementia in the 21st. The evidence will follow.

It is perhaps symptomatic of this age that this essay begins with the personal. By using the familiar, perhaps some will open their eyes to the light. Perhaps not. One of the most delightful conservative writers of this time is Jonah Goldberg. He splashes his essays with cultural references. He hopes to open conservatism to those whose pop-cultural idea of conservative is a humorless snob with a turned up nose or a red necked hillbilly with an inbred gene pool. His humor punctures that cliched thinking. So, I enjoy his writing. A person who loves dogs and enjoys The Simpsons can't be all bad.

Earlier this year, Mr. Goldberg enjoyed propounding on the definition of pundit. I have no idea if this is a standard template, for I base this on two events at which he spoke: an ISI debate at Wheaton College and a lecture at Williams College. It was a way for Jonah to be self-effacing in a humorous way. Indeed, Mr. Goldberg is a learned person. Since the Clinton scandals and Clinton's impeachment, Jonah has been eager to point to the leading lights of conservatism from Edmund Burke to Russell Kirk, and I have been just as eager to imbibe on the wisdom of those leading lights. For it was after Clinton had testified before a federal grand jury and announced to the nation that same night that he was a liar, the need to hasten my education became imperative.

So let it be understood that I am grateful. I have finally seen his mug, and he has finally seen a simple hermit who does not hail from the Hudson River valley. And even though I am grateful, I come not to praise Jonah, but to bury him.

As a result of a nationally syndicated column "Time to face facts: Gays gain victory," quite a few people have complained about Mr. Goldberg's call for surrender to the forces of sodomy, and they've made some good points. But that hasn't stopped Mr. Goldberg from dismissing their arguments and continuing this folly in "Springfield vs. Shelbyville." So I won't bother summoning up arguments that will slide off his back quicker than water on a duck or faster than a chilidog traversing Drew Carey's intestine. I intend to use Jonah Goldberg himself. After all, that's the guy he has to sleep with every night.

In his ode to the railway car of Compiegne, he writes, "The challenge for social conservatives, it seems to me, is to make the best of what they consider a bad situation. But that would require making some painful capitulations -- intellectual, moral, philosophical and financial." In his commencement address at Hillsdale Academy, he pointed out "People in a free society learn from their mistakes. And they make changes based upon what they learn. There are no slippery slopes. We control our own destinies."

Now it is true that he could argue that there is no discordance between the two quotes. He could say that eventually things will turn around, and that eventually homosexuals will return to their proper place back in the closet. But I doubt he would say that, especially that un-Politically Correct closet-thingy at the end there. I've no idea what financial capitulations he has in mind, but I'm completely befuddled about the intellectual, moral and philosophical capitulations he's on about. Either the capitulations are not painful, where social conservatives recognize that these setbacks are temporary, that they will need to re-teach the time-honored lessons that sodomy is wrong, but that there will be stormy times ahead. Or the capitulations truly are painful, that social conservatives should concede that there's nothing really wrong with sodomy. I know Jonah will see this as typical obtuseness on the part of a social conservative, but I see no varying shades of gray on the sinfulness of sodomy. It's either sinful, or it's not.

At this point, it possible that Jonah has written me off as a hopeless reactionary, that I wish to return to Victorian mores or return to a medieval exultation of viginity, that I wish to turn back the clock. To a certain extent this is true, but it is not a wistful wish for a return to the good ol' days which is the signal for a proper reactionary, but an acknowledgement of the wisdom of the ages.

My first point is this. If we've made such "progress" in our sexual mores, that there is no stuffing that toothpaste back into the tube, that what CS Lewis terms chronological snobbery is the order of the day, then how can there be a denial of the slippery slope? It's easy enough to follow in the legal realm -- Griswold v. Connecticut was followed by Roe v. Wade and now this latest Supreme Court ruling -- it has also been mirrored in society. With contraception for married couples, people see sex as something beyond procreation. With abortion (an extension of contraception), sex opens up to unmarried couples. Sexual pleasure then becomes a right. Who is to deny the homosexual to his right to pleasure? And then where does Goldberg have the right to complain about the ethics of Peter Singer? What does he appeal to?

And brings me to the second point. Jonah has been fond of pointing out the Chesterton's principle of the democracy of the dead. He's often pointed out that he honors the authority of tradition. Any loyal fan of Mr. Goldberg should remember these snippets of wisdom along with hidden references to The Simpsons. Any yet, as a loyal fan, I could not recall any instance where the left side of the mind met with the right side of the mind on this issue. Well I did a search (and no, I did not use that terrible search engine available on NRO), and it turns out that a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, Monsieur Goldberg did actually make the argument...

Many people seemed very concerned by my hint that I may be softening on the issue of gay marriage. Without getting into it in detail, my long-standing position has been that marriage is an institution which precedes and exists outside of the state. It is a religious compact whose definition and cultural power are bound up in millennia of tradition.

But such arguments are conspicuously absent in his most recent fare, and he's apparently been won over by those who believe the definition of marriage is elastic: "They also note — correctly — that marriage is an evolving institution and that not long ago, historically speaking, societies countenanced all sorts of marriages we today would reject morally or legally."

Frere Derb

Given the defection of a field marshal, it's not surprising that the troops were in full retreat mode and brushing up on their German. Then there's Derb, God bless him. There's one crunchy crusty old stalwart, John Derbyshire, who reminded the denizens of The Corner of the motto of their magazine:

What a bunch of sniveling capitulationists! "Gay marriage is close to inevitable"--R. Ponnuru. "The war is effectively over"--J. Goldberg. This, from employees of a magazine whose founder declared that its mission would be to stand athwart History crying "STOP!"? This, in the context of dismantling and re-engineering what is probably--I'm not sure--Western culture's oldest institution?

Now I love John Derbyshire, I really do (and for those who are thinking of some sort of sexual innuendo, shame on you!). He is undoubtedly the most crunchy of the bunch (not as in granola crunchy, but as opposed to soggy). And yet he is squishy. Or at least he used to be; I was lucky enough to exchange a few e-mails over the subject (John has had problems in cleaning out his mailbox). He believes or once believed that the sexual revolution was a good thing (with reservations).

In his most recent screed, the problem is the sexual revolution. Whether this represents a shift in his thinking or a more nuanced view (he wants bits and pieces of the sexual revolution, but wants to throw away the evil bits), I still have to chuckle. John has admitted some of his prejudices about the Roman Church, I suppose I should admit mine about Anglicans. A good friend of mine is a former Episcopalian turned atheist (side note: what is it with the Anglican tradition that turns out so many atheists?), and he was quite fond of saying that the Episcopal church is just like the Catholic Church except for the Latin. Many others have mimicked this. Er, no. The difference between the Anglican tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition is Tradition. This was apparent to me long before lesbian priestesses were ordained. I do understand the pain of my brother Anglicans and Anglicans-in-exile. I wish that they would take to heart the writings of CS Lewis, which many Catholics take delight in reading.

In the header graphic of Touchtone Magazine's website, there are images of CS Lewis and GK Chesterton. Echoing Lewis in Abolition of Man, David Mills wrote an excellent commentary on the very topic John Derbyshire was sore about: the election of an open homosexual as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Mr. Mills is bemused, "They long ago weakened their ability to protest the approval of homosexuality with any great coherence and effect, to the extent that they are now like a man trying to throw punches while sinking in quicksand."

The entire blog entry is titled "The Limits of Conservatism," and while the topic is narrowly focused on that of homosexual clergy, the application is wide. Neo-conservatives, those former liberals mugged by reality, should take note, as well should those conservatives who would be comfortable with the reasoning of liberals of thirty years ago. It is worthwhile to read the entire blog entry for context, but I felt it important to highlight two well-written paragraphs that should be a tocsin to those who believe they can compromise on tradition:

Anyway, one does raise one's eyebrows to hear men who believe in ordaining women speak out against the violation of 2000 years of tradition and call such an innovation hubris, and declare that "nowhere is the Holy Spirit seen in the New Testament to contradict God's revelation in prior ages" while advancing an apparent contradiction. They helped push a boulder over the edge of the cliff and are now angry that it did not stop rolling halfway down the hill, and though they didn't mind it smashing the homes of people who lived near the top, are upset that it's now smashing into their homes.

They would argue that the two cases are different, and that there are biblical arguments to be made for ordaining women as well as men, arguments we have only in the last thirty or forty years seen and understood. But then that is exactly what Canon Robinson's supporters say. And with as much reason. The conservatives don't have any reason, beyond a belief in their own exegesis, to say that their innovation is Godly and the homosexualists' ungodly. They cannot appeal to tradition as the authority for their reading of Scripture now, when they disregarded it then.

The Wasteland

In my last e-mail to Jonah, I mentioned that I had returned to NRO after a long hiatus. I did not explain why then, but I will now, as a sort of open letter. One might think that this issue over homosexual marriage and sodomy-as-a-right is a last straw, but that would assume that I'm angry. If you believe that I'm angry, then I apologize for my poor writing skills. The truth is that I lost interest, and saw that NR would no longer inform me and I allowed my magazine subscription to lapse. I returned to NRO solely in the hope of being fair to John and Jonah, and I doubt that I will ever give NRO the same attention as I have in the past.

I began to realize this after David Frum wrote his hit piece on paleo-conservatives. Perhaps it was necessary, as Jonah said, to drain the fever swamp, but I doubt that this attempt was prudent. It's not that I have any great sympathy for the paleo camp, but I came to the realization that NR/NRO represented the neo camp however much they might object to the prefix. Their conservatism represented the status quo. It was not and is not so much a principled argument, but one which simply said, here and no farther. They accepted the idea of big government conservatism where conservatives would enlist the federal government in pushing a "conservative" agenda.

It did not stop there. While I supported the war in Iraq, the objective changed from one that of a war against terrorism to one of liberal nation building. I understand their argument; liberal democracies play nice. However, with all their qualified social scientist-types like Stanley Kurtz, the best they could come up with is: look, we know it's going to be very, very hard, maybe even impossible, but we're gonna do it anyway because we think liberal democracies are better. Who would have thought that conservatives would have preferred John Stuart Mill to Edmund Burke on a question of prudence?

[T]here exists no single best form of government for happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government depends upon the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture, the ancient laws, and the material circumstances of a people, and all these things vary from land to land and age to age. Monarchy may defend the highest possible degree of order, justice, and freedom for a people -- as, despite shortcomings, the Abyssinian monarchy did in Ethiopia, until the Marxist revolution there. Aristocracy, under other circumstances, may be found most advantageous for the general welfare. The Swiss form of democracy may work very well in twentieth century Switzerland; yet it does not follow that the Swiss pattern, imposed aburptly upon Brazil, say, would function at all.
-- Russell Kirk, The Politics of Prudence

And yet a separation of mosque and state could be effected simply by giving Islam a pope, who would by papal decree declare all the unpleasant bits to be null and void. If I were a more cynical type, I would say, "hey guys, that's a neat plan for destroying Islam with modernism," but sadly I think these guys honestly believe that this is how religions "evolve." Sadly, they miss the parts about the authority of tradition, and how the Koran itself is the source of that authority. And they misunderstand the authority of popes as well as the sources of authority in their own traditions.

And Rick Santorum's remarks preceding the sodomy case and Bill Bennett's gambling turn out to be politically gauche. Yet Rick Santorum was speaking the truth in a legal sense and in another sense that was informed by his religious tradition. Bill Bennett, a Catholic, was labeled a hypocrite for failing to live up to the traditions of apostate puritans (TM by Mark Shea). Surprise, surprise, shall we inform the public that Bill Bennett drinks? It's not that some people didn't defend them, but that others in The Corner couldn't see why they should and even carried water for the left. I suppose that once you start draining fever swamps, you gotta keep it up.

The situation is dire when the left, which claims to endorse no objective truths, is able to dictate to the right which objective truths ought to be upheld. In reality, the left does believe in higher truths even though they won't admit it. It is not a deliberate lie, but they have appointed themselves as judges of tradition, and we as conservatives can not allow this to remain unchallenged. Neither can we seek to supplant them as judges of tradition.

Onto the breach

If we take seriously the democracy of the dead and authority of tradition, then we cannot update our principles. If this surrender monkey hoohah is simply an acknowledgement that they're winning, great I can do that: "they're winning." Feel better? If updating the argument means that we need to present our argument such that these modernists might understand us better, then I'm for that as well. But if it means that it's too difficult to roll that rock back uphill, so we best try to let it rest here, then it's capitulation. I don't think it's unfair to mention that that uphill implies a slope, and that since Griswold v. Connecticut and sexual liberation we've been sliding pretty fast. ("And, 30 years ago, arguments #1 and #2 applied perfectly to homosexuality for millions of Americans.") If we "accept that homosexuals are here to stay" then I have doubts that we have control over our destinies in any meaningful way.

This is not a reactionary call to a return to the days of horse and buggy. It is an understanding that human nature has not changed in thousands of years. You can put a monkey in a suit, but don't fool yourself into believing that it's something other than a monkey in that suit. There are certain principles that hold true regardless of technological innovation.

And that at last is the stopper. It's all nice to say that we have more individual liberty now when it's really license. I'm not impressed with the ability to download Internet porn. A longer life, a healthier life might be nice things but they are material things. Those things are not a measure of joy or of the quality of the soul.

It's not that Jonah is blind to this:

When religious conservatives were talking about freedom, they certainly weren't talking about Peter Singer's conception of freedom (i.e., you're "free" to sell your gonads, kill your mother, and screw your dog — assuming, presumably, you haven't sold your gonads yet). What they meant by freedom was the ability to live according to well-established conceptions of authority and tradition, without the meddling of the federal government.

It is when Jonah writes like this, that I can believe that he gets it. Religious freedom is far too simple a reason for those pilgrims who came to these shores. They intended that their colony would take a certain form as John Winthrop expressed in his sermon written on the Arabella. Yes, there is the Reaganesque "we shall be as a City upon a Hill," a vision of hope in constructing a new society in a new world. But Winthrop provided a warning in the very next phrase, "The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world..."

But the Supreme Court sodomy decision blasted any possibility of new Puritans coming to these shores and establishing a new New England. And so while we could enjoy the federalism of health benefits for gay partners in San Francisco or a patchwork of civil unions throughout the states, it is really federalism for thee, not for me. That sort of freedom, the "the ability to live according to well-established conceptions of authority and tradition, without the meddling of the federal government" is gone. No freedom to hop into my car and take a long drive is a suitable replacement. Freedom has been diminished.

I do understand that the world has turned upside down. The very concession by Scalia and Thomas -- that they would have voted against the law if they were members of the Texas legislature -- shows how far the down the slope we've descended. Last Sunday in a homily, my parish priest remarked that St. Peter and St. Paul would not win an election to lead a parish if a vote were held today. I suspect that this was a reference to the scandals in the Church and the hierarchy's poor handling of it. But it's also true that we have itching ears; we would rather hear the sermons that suit our own likings. St. Paul would join Santorum among the politically incorrect. How ever much the phrase "accept that homosexuals are here to stay" begs me to accept the sin -- just as adultery and premarital sex have been, and bestiality and pederasty will be -- I would rather fight the good fight.

If it is the fool of La Mancha you see before you, then I don't mind. My foray may be quixotic. The old armor of chivalry is rusted, the townsfolk laugh at the anachronism, but that doesn't mean that chivalry is wrong. So few braves souls have taken up the defense, so sneer not because this inadequate barbarian has taken up the sword.

Posted by Bob at July 3, 2003 08:15 PM