A Dozen-Plus Stimulants, Gathered for Your Edification and Inspiration
Dear Intelligent American:
Once upon a reception hosted by a wealthy Canadian at a Big Apple townhouse, the Old Glory-festooned tie Yours Truly sported was complimented for its patriotic display. Out of curiosity, a question was volleyed: “If this were a party in Toronto, would anyone be wearing a tie featuring the Canadian flag?” “Oh no,” replied the hostess, surely thinking but not uttering who in their right mind would do that?
Such things are not done. By jingo!
That anecdote confirmed once again the observation that when it comes to flags, Americans have an off-the-charts love for the Stars and Stripes that, say, a Norwegian would lack for the Scandinavian cross pennant. Truth be told, on a long-ago National Review cruise that visited the fjordified country, a tour guide noted that particular day was one of a handful on which Norwegians could fly their flag.
Semi-heckling: Would it be a crime to fly it tomorrow in Oslo? Maybe not a crime, but not permitted. What’s with making the 365-day love for national symbols verboten?
Speaking of what’s with: In the UK nowadays, you brandish the Union Jack or Saint George’s Cross and the bobbies will bust you for a hate crime.
All of this rambling serves as a reminder that America’s honored and beloved Flag Day is this Sunday, June 14th. Fly yours. And remember: Many died for it.
BTW: If you are wondering where you can find out more about that important June 18th webinar on how nonprofits can create strong foundation grants programs, wonder no more: Find it here.
The Buffet Is Now Open!
1. At Public Discourse, fan favorite Daniel J. Mahoney has the back of the late Roger Scruton. From the piece:
However, Scruton’s intellectual debts went well beyond the German philosopher of the noumenal and phenomenal distinction and were remarkably wide ranging. He drew on Plato’s as well as Jan Patočka’s rich conception of the “care of the soul”; Aristotle’s articulation of the cardinal virtues; Burke’s eloquent defense of tradition, prudence, and ordered liberty against ideological fanaticism; and Hegel’s account of the necessarily “situated” character of ethical community. To these, he added careful attention to the moral witness of those who struggled in the east of Europe against the totalitarian lie in the second half of the twentieth century, and, not least, the New Testament’s affirmation and highlighting of forgiveness and neighbor love in lives lived well, lives truly open to the manifold intimations of “eternity” in time. Moreover, one could argue that Scruton was more indebted to Kant’s refusal to reduce human persons to impersonal objects bereft of souls and lacking in moral responsibility or “mutual accountability.” None of this is remotely the thought of a nihilist. . . .
Scruton had long taken non-arbitrary or non-subjective “moral knowledge” very seriously. Confronted by totalitarian secular religions that aim to negate the life of the soul, the moral law, and the dim if shining light of eternity available on “the edge of things” and the Lebenswelt of ordinary experience, he came to perceive the profound truth at the heart of Psalm 100: “Be ye sure that the Lord he is God . . . it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves.” This sentence, Scruton insists, “contains all of theology.” We know this God through “personal acquittance” more than through philosophical argumentation. By this time Scruton had returned to the Church of England, playing the organ at his local rural church on Sundays. He had joined in a community of faith, of persons who freely acknowledged that God has made us “and not we ourselves.” He would remain a Christian communicant until his death on January 12, 2020. Forgiveness, repentance, and mutual accountability found strength, sustenance, and personal confirmation in a community of Christian worship that bowed down before the living God.
2. At American Reformer, Timon Cline reviews John Quincy Adams’s intimate fixation with The Bible. From the article:
What is clear, if not all JQA’s doctrinal commitments, is that his study of the Bible was a lifelong, deadly serious, passion that he elevated above any other literary pursuits. For the Bible was the oracles of God, and especially sacred “universal” history, not one among many special books. Writing to his father in 1816, he complained (“deep and constant regret”) that he did not know Hebrew or the “Chaldaic Characters,” and so could not yet consider himself to have “studied” it. Thus far, he had settled for English, French, and German translations, and had not yet acquired a Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate.
He preferred Luther’s German translation above all and thought the Genevan French “not quite equal” to the King James English. His self-diagnosed linguistic deficiencies aside, he would continue in “seeking the fountains,” and he would not comment further (on the matter of divine inspiration) until he drank more deeply. He was methodical. His biblical study is that of an earnest layman willing to depart from the indoctrination of his youth but not quite willing to insult his first tutors. On the topic of inspiration itself, he seemed to have been proceeding book by book: he was undecided on the book of Jude’s canonicity, for example, and sympathetic to certain deuterocanonical inclusions.
3. God and Man at Sail: In Christian History’s special issue on “Christianity and the seas,” Jason Zuidema explores the faith life of sailors over the millennia. From the article:
Stronger alcohol ashore could cause more immediate problems. Public drunkenness contributed to negative sailor stereotypes. Yet, even in this culture of drink, religious interests persisted. Sailors attended worship in ports, sought chaplains for counsel, and sometimes held prayer meetings aboard whaling ships or long-haul merchant vessels.
Burial at sea retained deep spiritual significance throughout the centuries. When a sailor died, the entire crew gathered and wrapped the body in canvas. The body was placed on a plank and committed to the deep while prayers were spoken. These moments drew together men who otherwise lived within strict shipboard hierarchies.
By the nineteenth century, seafaring had begun to change. Steam power allowed ships to travel more predictably and reduced the dependence on wind. Diets improved slightly, and medical knowledge increased. Yet many of the old dangers remained. Sailors continued to rely on religious practices to cope with fear and uncertainty. Missions to seafarers began to appear in major ports, offering hospitality, space for worship, and education. These missions recognized that sailors lived far from home and community for long periods and supported them spiritually and practically.
4. At The Wall Street Journal, Howard Husock explains the influence of home ownership on one’s political views. From the article:
My turn rightward was gradual, not sudden. But were I to pick one essential event, it would be the purchase of a home at age 25. Marriage—a conservative institution—came first. But homeownership changed so much. Which is why it’s worrying how elusive it is for many today in an era of limited construction and high interest rates.
It was more than the mere fact of property ownership that changed things for me. As an owner, I was now invested not only in a home but in the health of a neighborhood and, by extension, the town of Brookline, Mass. The local hooligans breaking bottles in a park where my wife and I hoped our children would play were more than a nuisance. They were also a threat to our home’s value.
This concern brought us into the community. We entered a virtuous circle of neighbors with a common interest and joined a neighborhood association bent on fixing up the park. Paying property taxes led inexorably to an interest in local politics—and in the town budget. Higher taxes on top of a mortgage payment mattered, as did the quality of local schools.
5. At Fusion, Michael Lucchese argues that the “new right” has abandoned core conservative principles. From the essay:
Lest we forget, impiety is the sin of ingratitude. In a lecture delivered at the Heritage Foundation during the Reagan Revolution, “The Fraud of Multiculturalism,” Russell Kirk outlined why this Jacobinical spirit is so dangerous for free republics. “A spirit of defiance or biting criticism that may be healthful, when confined to a creative minority, can become perilous if it is taken up unimaginatively by a popular majority,” he wrote. “To the folk who rebel against their patrimony of moral and constitutional order, that legacy seems a burden—when in truth it is a footing. Cultural restoration, like charity, begins at home.” While Kirk was mostly taking aim at the Left, he also criticized contemporaries on the Right who forged radical ideologies of their own. Whatever their political persuasion, those who hate a nation’s past are the worst guardians of her future. Iconoclasm is no way to save a country; what we need is the virtue of love.
But neither can the nostalgic idolatry of “Heritage Americans” rescue our country from the Left. To be sure, we ought to stand firm against progressive distortions of our country’s history, whether we call them “wokeness,” “political correctness,” or “multiculturalism.” Genuine conservatives—that is to say, those without libertarian illusions—have rightly been willing to use legitimate authority to combat such nonsense and reassert the importance of our particular spiritual heritage. But the attempt, however veiled, to rally the Right around some kind of white identity or pride is altogether alien both to conservatism and the wider American political tradition. Bigotry is no virtue. Our aim should not be to stoke ethnic faction or racial grievance, but to defend the common good our Republic was constituted to secure for all citizens.
6. More Lucchese: At Religion & Liberty Online, he hails a new Tolkien book that warns of the dangers of mechanization, from the motorcar onward. From the piece:
Happily, that is not at all the case with the latest title published by HarperCollins, The Bovadium Fragments. A satirical fantasy Tolkien wrote mostly for his own amusement, it pokes fun at the way modern technology remade British country life in the twentieth century. Beautifully edited and printed along with Tolkien’s own striking art depicting Oxfordshire, it is a handsome addition to any bookshelf. But the story is more than that—it’s a warning about the dangers of mechanization we desperately need in the Digital Age.
The main text of The Bovadium Fragments is a farcical re-creation of a medieval manuscript recounting the fall of the titular realm to a machine that Tolkien hated more than almost anything: the motorcar. It begins with an amusing frame narrative, containing much Latin, that pokes fun at academic pretensions of grandeur. Tolkien is celebrated today for what he called his “secret vice” of inventing languages such as Elvish, but he was also an immensely accomplished philologist who spoke or read many real ancient tongues. Much as his constructed languages add a sense of mythological depth to The Lord of the Rings, the use of Latin deepens the humor of The Bovadium Fragments. Throughout the short book, one gets a sense of the Oxford that Tolkien loved—and what was putting it at risk.
7. At Tablet Magazine, Debbie Lechtman spotlights the discredited alternative to Zionism—“Bundism.” From the beginning of the reflection:
In some ways, the Jewish Labor Bund appears to be tailor-made for this exact political moment—a label that allows self-styled socialists to identify as Jews while also sharing the opposition of their wider cohort to Zionism. Similarly, the attachment of the Bund to Yiddish offers an authentically Jewish-flavored alternative to Hebrew, the tongue of Zionist oppression. It is no wonder, then, that a range of voices from the anti-Zionist Jewish actor Hannah Einbinder, to the illustrator Molly Crabapple, to the august British magazine The Economist are promoting Bundism as a “Jewish alternative” to Zionism, and to its troublesome insistence on the Jewish need for a homeland to keep from being murdered en masse.
There is a small problem with Bundism, though: It ceased to exist as a meaningful political movement among Jews by 1945. To understand why is to understand just how historically empty the current gestures at a Bundist revival are, and the fate to which they are likely to lead.
8. At The Daily Signal, Tyler O’Neil details the plights of blacklisted conservative nonprofits. From the piece:
“For far too long, major corporations have been relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s nefarious ‘Hate List’ to decide what organizations and charities their employees may give to as part of their corporate giving programs,” Paul Batura, vice president of communications at Focus on the Family, told the Daily Signal. “These entities have been relying on a distorted definition of ‘goodness.’”
“In fact, citing and sourcing the SPLC is the equivalent of a company promising clean water drawing their water from a polluted or toxic aquifer,” Batura added. “It’s our privilege to join the 1792 Exchange’s growing coalition in urging companies to stop making decisions and recommendations based on information from the SPLC.”
The issue gained renewed salience after a federal grand jury handed down 11 criminal charges against the SPLC for allegedly funding the very hate groups it tells donors it exists to “dismantle.”
9. At Capital Research Center, Ken Braun tracks NGO hatred of nuclear energy. From the report:
In spite of this, and despite years of lavish subsidies for wind and solar electricity, nuclear power remains America’s single largest emissions-free electricity source, generating more annual kilowatts than wind and solar combined. If the will were there to increase America’s production of CO2-free power generation, then there is no better option than building a lot of nuclear reactors. The United States clearly has the ability and wealth to match and eclipse the Chinese nuclear program. Like the French, we could generate at least 70 percent of our electricity from nuclear power, or even more.
The anti-energy NGOs, all of them gravely concerned about the impact of CO2 emissions, are a major reason this is not happening. They also deserve blame for America’s abandonment of its nuclear energy leadership over the last half century. The Sierra Club is “unequivocally opposed” to nuclear power and claims it is “uniquely dangerous.” Over the last decade hundreds of other American NGOs have made similar statements, engaged in legal actions opposing nuclear power, or otherwise tried to impede it. The combined annual revenue of this anti-nuclear, anti-energy movement now exceeds $3.4 billion.
That means these enemies of American energy, and nuclear power in particular, are collecting an average of $9.3 million per day.
Their claims do not match reality.
10. At Mockingbird, John Pennylegion considers the possibility that legacy-leaving is overrated, and burdensome. From the reflection:
What if our footprints in the sand are erased by a small breeze? What about the fact that we have no say on whether what we do will remain or be erased? What if what we do in this life is not heard a generation after we’ve departed?
I remember an older man who was part of my community many years ago. He regularly talked about his children and grandchildren. But he didn’t talk about what was wonderful or unique about them; instead, he opined about the legacy he wanted to leave them. Yet, when I engaged with his children, it became apparent that for all his talk about “leaving a legacy,” they found him to be a burden, an annoyance, someone they, shamefully, rolled their eyes at. He was so concerned about being remembered as a man of wisdom, faith, and steadfastness that he forgot to just be present.
I’d like to think that in some way, somehow, I’ll be spoken of by people who are 50, 75, 100 years still to be born. But honestly, within a generation after my death, I will be forgotten. And what if there’s a blessing to being forgotten? Think about that for a second: could there be relief found in curtailing our attempts to leave a legacy?
11. At National Review, Thomas Fickley and Fr. Mark Perkins explain what it will take to roll back “safetyism.” From the article:
Last summer here at St. Dunstan’s, we hired the 18-year-old son of a friend to help us build our dormitory. Our friend also wanted his 15-year-old younger son to work for us, but the Fair Labor Standards Act would not let us pay him to do anything worth doing on our worksite. When federal law makes it illegal for a teenager to operate a miter saw on a job site, healthy parental attitudes do not count for much.
There are ways to work around these restrictions. Young people are allowed to run chop saws in shop class at school, on volunteer projects at church, or in dad’s woodshop at home. These exceptions enable us to do all the trades education we want with our students at St. Dunstan’s.
Meanwhile, our rural campus offers plenty of room to roam.
But if we want these opportunities to be more widely available to our young people—if we want St. Dunstan’s to be more than an exception proving the rule—then legislation must be a part of the solution.
A new bipartisan bill promoting childhood independence from Representatives Blake Moore (R, Utah) and Jennifer McClellan (D, Va.)—modeled on a similar law that McClellan sponsored when she was a Virginia state senator—is one good step. Revising some of the well-intended but outdated restrictions of our labor laws is another. Reimagining the design and purpose of our neighborhoods to make them more walkable for children could be yet another.
12. At City Journal, Michael Gibson reflects on Walter Isaacson’s timely book. From the beginning of the review:
The first thing to note about Walter Isaacson’s new book is its remarkable title: The Greatest Sentence Ever Written. If you’ve forgotten that we’re approaching the 250th anniversary of America’s founding, you might assume that this is a book by a tweedy English professor—a dreary, pedantic treatise on “the sentence” as a literary artifact, complete with footnotes lamenting grammar’s role in oppression and colonialism.
Fortunately, you’d be wrong. Instead, Isaacson offers a brisk dive into the nation’s origins, viewed through Thomas Jefferson’s scintillating string of words in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. What makes these words the greatest sentence of all time? Not the grammar, rhythm, or diction—though they linger in the mind—but what comes into view when we lift our eyes from the page: the richest, freest 340 million people on earth, dominant in science, medicine, technology, and nearly every other human endeavor. This chaotic, headlong rush to greatness flows from words inked by rebels on a piece of decaying parchment. For 250 years, Americans have tested their implications, explored their limits, and expanded their possibilities.
Lucky 13. At PostModernConservative, CJ Wolfe contemplates how Tocqueville would have judged artificial intelligence. From the piece:
Tocqueville thought loneliness was accentuated in America by one of our habits of mind: individualism. Individualism stems from Americans’ love of equality, since intellectual authorities are levelled by it. But that in turn opens new avenues for greatness of spirit- the truly extraordinary and divine acts and qualities which we can discover even in the seemingly mundane, ugly, and impoverished parts of American life. And it is our loneliness that has spurred Americans to be a “nation of joiners”: the remarkable proliferation of clubs, churches, businesses, and other intermediary institutions which in turn help our democracy work.
The advent of Artificial Intelligence technology will not eliminate the possibility of poetry or greatness in America since it cannot eliminate the classic American experience of restlessness. AI has been employed to solve the “American loneliness epidemic” (as Senator Ben Sasse has called it), treating loneliness as a problem to be fixed. During the pandemic, algorithms fed us Neflix episode after Netflix episode, catering to our tastes. But eventually that got old and we went outside for a walk. Similarly with the AI dating avatars of Blade Runner and the AI companions that nursing homes are employing to fool the elderly into thinking they are not alone: these “solutions” get old.
Bonus. At RealClear Religion, nepo-journalist Andrew Fowler says the Sacred Heart of Jesus is the answer to America’s questions. From the piece:
True love—and true freedom—is what Christ displayed on the cross.
Today, America’s civic crisis is, at the core, a crisis of love. Polarization, loneliness, isolation, violence, and many of the social maladies that afflict our nation stem from hearts searching for fulfillment in places where it cannot ultimately be found. As St. Augustine famously wrote, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in You.”
The consecration of the United States to the Sacred Heart is therefore more than a public act of prayer. It is an invitation to national renewal, reminding us that true freedom and love—in its fullest expression—is found in Jesus Christ.
Devotion to the Sacred Heart is not only an acknowledgement of the highest good, but an opportunity to express gratitude to the One upon whom our liberties ultimately depend. Indeed, He freely gave us freedom due to His devotion to us. Moreover, by emulating Christ’s Heart, we become more capable of respecting others’ inherent dignity—seeing them as equal in God’s eyes and heart. In doing so, we can properly pursue the common good and rebuild civil society.
Bonus Bonus. At GV Wire, Matthew and Kym Dildine spotlight the difficult circumstances challenging nonprofits in California’s Central Valley. From the op-ed:
Jason Hannold, the new CEO of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Fresno County, faced a similar reality after he recently took the helm of his organization last year. A community pilar that helps over 3,500 kids a year continues to seek funding for support of its operation. Through Hannold’s leadership, he has stabilized the organization and is fighting to ensure that the Boys & Girls Clubs of Fresno County can help the next 3,500 kids but it’s not easy.
He recently shared an internal question many nonprofit leaders understand all too well: “When will we be able to sleep peacefully at night knowing the people we serve in our communities have the resources they need to succeed?”
As a non-profit executive, you lose sleep not because you lose funding. You lose sleep because you know the face of the person that you will not be able to help because you lost funding. It’s painful.
For the Good of the Cause
Uno. At Philanthropy Daily, Joseph Prud’homme hails the indispensable POTUS 1. Read it here.
Due. More PD: Trinity Chester applauds a nonprofit that engages in the corporal work of bringing water to those who thirst. From the piece.
Tre. On the new (and final!) “Givers, Doers, & Thinkers” podcast, host Jeremy Beer and philanthropy wise man Bill Schambra discuss the state of American philanthropy. Listen here.
Department of Bad Jokes
Q. How was the bad banner punished?
A. It was flagellated.
A Dios
Who knew that Reader’s Digest was still kicking? Anyway, barreling into “Pride Month,” that venerable old journal explains the thirty-two (to date) “LGBTQ” flags that are sure to be seen marching up a big city thoroughfare near you. They exhaust a Crayola 64 box. You are not alone if you are vexed by such vexillology.
Nor are you alone if you prefer your banner striped, star-spangled, and requiring only three colors: red, white, and blue (assuming white is privileged to be a color).
May Old Glory Wave in Gentle Breezes that Comfort,
Jack Fowler, who can be found in the dawn’s early light at jfowler@amphil.com.
