Dear Intelligent American,
The one item that squeezed itself into the onslaught of headlines from last week concerned Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game, which must have been won by the AL or NL (who was paying attention?). The annual to-do was marked not only by an inebriated singer torturing the Star-Spangled Banner (on Game Eve, before the ballyhooed Home Run Derby), but also by shock over the official uniforms—ugly by most standards, and a deviation from the tradition whereby an All Star wears his team’s duds.
(Question: Why is the new tradition to diss tradition?)
Anyway, besides being a dud, it got Your Humble Correspondent thinking about uniforms, and how on any given day for any given baseball team they don’t seem . . . uniform. This outfielder wears his pants below his shoes’ back cleat, while his shortstop teammate rolls up his pant legs into de facto knickers. Goodbye, uniformity. And in the course of a season, one is bound to find the home team’s outfit turned pink, camouflage, or, if you’re the San Diego Padres, something akin to a box of taffy.
(Questions: Is it really all about selling clothing to fans? Is consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?)
Uniforms are part of the National Pastime’s lore. After all, the Reds, Red Sox, White Sox, and old St. Louis Browns are named for theirs. And the evolution—from wool and cotton to rayon and whatever comprises the moisture-wicking, breathable fabric now adorning Aaron Judge and other pros—unleashes the Opinionateds’ opinions about pinstripes, checks, shield-fronts, collarless, laced, logo-adorned, zippered, sleeveless, player-named, and even shorts (oh my, the 1976 experiment of that is nearly too painful to observe).
Wrap it up! OK: Imagine if this were the biggest issue facing America? Oremus!
Play Ball! And Then, Play Excerpt!
1. At National Affairs, Glenn Hubbard argues for “markets for the people,” which can be found somewhere between laissez-faire and protectionism. From the essay:
A second lesson relates to competition—the linchpin of both neoliberalism and classical-liberal economics dating back to Adam Smith. Is the pursuit of competition, though a worthy goal, sufficient to ensure widespread flourishing?
Contemporary economic models assign value to economic growth, openness to globalization, and technological advance. But as noted above, with that growth, openness, and advance comes disruption, often in the form of a diminished ability to compete for new jobs and business opportunities. It's not a stretch to argue that a classical-liberal focus on free markets should also recognize the ability to compete as an important component to advancing competition. Competition might increase the size of the economic pie, but some will have easier access to a larger slice than others. Thus, in addition to promoting competition, today's free-market advocates need to focus on preparing individuals to reconnect to opportunity in a changing economy.
To that end, neoliberals would do well to increase public investment in education and skill training. This includes greater support for community colleges—the loci of much of the training and retraining efforts required to reconnect workers to the job market. The demand for such training is rising among young workers skeptical of the value of a four-year college degree: The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the "number of students enrolled in vocational-focused community colleges rose 16% last year to its highest level since the National Student Clearinghouse began tracking such data in 2018." Returning to Hayek's "Use of Knowledge" essay, these interventions are likely to be successful because they decentralize training programs, divvying them up to the educational institutions that are in the best position to prepare workers for the jobs of today and tomorrow.
2. At American Affairs, Lisa Nelson exposes the flawed research that attempts to back up claims verifying “extremism” in America. From the analysis:
Much of the academic literature on the topic of extremism leaves the meaning of the concept unaddressed. There is disagreement on the weighting given to such aspects as political and social context, the presence of violent action, or the perceived morality of the ideologies in question. Often, the definition of extremism is based upon circular logic and is used to characterize a variety of attitudes and behaviors within society in relation to what is perceived as mainstream. It goes without saying that mainstream ideology is in the eye of the beholder, though it generally includes the most powerful, and so those on the margins are forced into categories like extremism by default. One of the most important factors in defining extremism is the perspective of the researchers engaging in the assessment, because they tend to view extremism through their own ideological lenses. Failure to consider the exact criteria by which extremism is defined, however, allows this bias to go unchecked and the findings to be presented as unproblematic in the development of policy.
For example, the RAND Corporation defines extremism in the following terms: extremists are those who (1) identify with beliefs and organizations that are on the far end of political, religious, or ideological spectra within a society; and (2) advocate for activities that are outside societal norms and laws. These individuals often draw meaning from the identity that they apply to themselves and others based on their group affiliations (e.g., race, gender, religion, nationality, political beliefs). The obvious problem with this definition is that it expands the scope of extremism to include behavior and attitudes of groups. Using such a broad definition to collect data on the number of extremist cases significantly increases the number of cases found, which has the potential to distort our understanding of the prevalence of extremism and which groups are supposedly responsible for it. There is also the troubling fact that stigmatizing attitudes and including behavior protected under the First Amendment is an undemocratic approach.
Pardon the Interruption . . .
If you are a nonprofit worker bee who needs to up your Major Gifts game, does the Center for Civil Society ever have a top-notch seminar for you! It takes place September 4–6 in Washington, D.C., and will be spearheaded by a quartet of fundraising experts who will teach you how to set major giving goals, find new donors, schedule visits, optimally manage your donor portfolio, and more. Get complete information, and register, right here.
. . . We Now Return to Our Major League Suggestions
3. At The Hill, Amy K. Mitchell thinks there is a way for the U.S. to rein in Russia and Red China. From the op-ed:
Whether it be a tariff or another mechanism, using climate as a forcing function would provide the defense industrial base a catalyst to form new partnerships and clean up and secure new supply chains that uphold America’s standards.
One proposal, the PROVE IT Act, was introduced in the House last week. The act would provide data detailing the ongoing—and rising—emissions from production in other countries compared to the U.S. This would vividly demonstrate China and Russia’s double talk on this urgent issue.
Acting on the pollution in the products exported by our adversaries would also slow output, providing American businesses crucial time to shore up and plan for the future. Whether it’s critical mineral mining, magnet production or petrochemicals—all uniquely environmentally dirty industries that America is dramatically cleaner on—all are vital in defending our nation. Not only would it boost our industries, it would also inflict real pain in a way that the status quo has failed to.
4. At Public Discourse, Ivana Greco considers the “efficiency” drive behind the trend in outsourcing routine household tasks. From the article:
The rationale for this type of outsourcing is simple: it’s more efficient for a working mother (or father) to devote the majority of her waking hours to her job, and hire an expert to tackle difficult or unpleasant household or childcare tasks. As the mother who hired the potty training expert explained, she has a specialized career in marketing, and so it made sense to her to hire someone else specialized in potty training to accomplish the goal of teaching her child to competently use the toilet. This worldview fits neatly into the basic understanding of economics many college students absorb in “Econ 101”: the theories of comparative advantage and specialization indicate that a parent should rationally pursue career development while hiring out household tasks to others. Indeed, a pair of married Columbia economists with a newborn once explained to the New York Times that they “outsourced their way to success,” including: hiring a personal chef; using someone from the app “Task Rabbit” to put together their IKEA furniture; and even employing another person to sort through their family photographs to recommend which photos to keep and which photos to discard. The article explained that this kind of outsourcing is reasonable because “there is an opportunity cost for every hour consumed by these tedious, nonproductive tasks; there exists some higher-value activity you could be spending your time on instead.”
In other words, popular culture tells us it is often more efficient to outsource routine household tasks than do them yourself. This leaves an important question unanswered, however: efficient at what?
5. More PD: Siobhan Heekin-Canedy reflects on Mary Poppins and finds in it deep themes of women, work, and feminism. You won’t need a spoonful of sugar to help this go down. From the piece:
In their own ways, both Mr. and Mrs. Banks prioritize their public work to the detriment of their home and children. Ironically, it takes Mary Poppins and her friend Burt—neither of whom has children—to “change the wind.”
Even by mainstream feminist standards, Mary Poppins is the most “empowered” woman in the movie. She is devoted to her profession, unencumbered by the responsibilities of a wife and mother, and free to come and go as she pleases, floating through the air with her umbrella and bottomless carpetbag. Not only can she hold her ground with Mr. Banks, but she can bend him to her will with a few choice words.
Mary Poppins’s Edwardian girlboss credentials end there, though. Her work is devoted to helping families prioritize their children. She isn’t a biological mother, but she is a fairy godmother figure—a spiritual mother, if you will. In their “wanted” advertisement for a new nanny, Jane and Michael, the children, share a litany of desired attributes. Slipped among requirements both fanciful and funny is the one that betrays their deepest longing: “Love us as a son and daughter.” Although she refuses to admit it, Mary Poppins does just that; in fact, her decision to disregard her own feelings and step aside in favor of their parents is itself a sign of maternal, self-sacrificial love. Her playful sayings, such as “a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down” and “feed the birds for tuppence a bag” are in fact calls to the Banks parents (and parents everywhere) to give their children the attentive care they need to thrive.
6. At Reason, Ari Bargil and Daryl James point fingers at “zoning policy” and NIMBY types for playing a role in homelessness. From the article:
Far too often, local officials do the opposite, using restrictive zoning laws. They talk about the need for affordable housing but do everything they can to block it.
Michael and Kellie Ballard are experiencing the obstruction in Santa Clara County, California. The couple owns the Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards, a historic winery nestled in an out-of-the-way spot on a 60-acre site.
Looking to help their vineyard manager, a long-time employee, the Ballards allowed him and his family to move a trailer onto the property in 2013 when housing costs threatened to push the family out of the area. Since then, the Ballards have provided a safe, free location for the family to live without harming anyone. The trailer is not even visible from the highway or neighboring properties.
Everything was fine for years until an anonymous complaint led to a county inspection. The zoning police, unconcerned about the human toll, gave the Ballards an ultimatum: Evict the family or pay daily fines.
7. At Tablet Magazine, Itxu Díaz explains the nexus of heroism and generosity, a relationship exposed in the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. From the essay:
Heroism in difficult situations is a quality that is integral to the soul of the American nation. It was not so long ago that this was beyond the shadow of a doubt, on 9/11, when American civil society gave a demonstration of why it remains the backbone of the most important nation in the world. In the midst of danger, a fearless man emerges, a man who gives his life for others, a man who protects his own, a man who fulfills his moral duty even if he loses his life. Take that away, and you don’t have America.
Often, people believe that heroism is only an act of bravery. It is nothing of the sort. It is always, first and foremost, an act of generosity. Only those who are generous can risk their own lives for others. He who gives himself to others has no time to think about whether or not he should be more selfish, or more prudent, or more cowardly. He has no time to measure the risk to which he exposes his own skin. In the hero, there is therefore also something of the essence of love. The generosity of the hero who risks his life for others is intrinsically linked to love, for others, for God, for his nation.
Civil society, in order to be healthy and effective, needs heroes who are generous, capable of giving up part of their lives, their comfort, or their anonymity, to defend noble causes. One of the great evils of the contemporary West is the slow proscribing of heroes. There are fewer and fewer of them. Is it because we are becoming more and more selfish? Or simply because they occupy less and less space in the media and in public opinion? Nevertheless, it is comforting to think that, at the most dangerous moment, when real heroes emerge and the whole world is able to witness them in action with their own eyes, people know how to identify them, recognize them, and thank them.
8. At Front Porch Republic, David Bannon finds that in the face of loss, consolation is best found in silence, and maybe casseroles. From the piece:
This may be one reason that the tradition of giving casseroles continues today. Supportive friends slave over their treasured recipes and present them to the house of mourning. When I worked at a busy funeral home, the bereaved sometimes scoffed, “Nothing says I’m sorry like a casserole,” only to learn later that their derisive statement was surprisingly accurate. In the onslaught of acute grief, faced with seemingly endless tasks before and after the funeral, mourners may slip a healthy and delicious casserole into the oven. No more effort is required. Such practical help is an act of love.
Our visits to the bereaved may be welcome, but sometimes our words are not. Silence is often more meaningful than chit-chat. Much of what we say can come off as trivial or harmful. “Human beings are grieving animals,” writes Christoph Jedan of the University of Groningen, “and consolation, an experiential assemblage through which grief is ameliorated or assuaged, is an age-old response to loss.” Our best gift may be to sit, hush, and listen.
In the Jewish consolation tradition of sitting shivah, or sitting seven (days after the burial), visitors to the bereaved are advised to say nothing and answer briefly when spoken to. Mourners sit in low chairs and abstain from wearing jewelry or makeup. Men do not shave. The point is to make a sacred space for the natural reaction of grief.
9. At Modern Age, Pierre Manent highlights the serious problems of European democracy. From the essay:
Do we still live in the Tocquevillean period? It is here that I finally meet the question I was asked to treat. And in order to make up for lost time, I will respond a bit brutally: No! We are in the process of leaving the Tocquevillean period. It opened in 1776. We can mark its closure with a date that first and foremost concerns the United States: September 11, 2001.
What defines this new period? More and more clearly there appears what was prepared under the veil and by the means of the democratic unanimity of the end of the twentieth century. I am speaking of the calling into question by democracy itself, or as the result of democracy pushed to its extreme limits, of the very conditions of the possibility of democracy: on the one hand the sovereign state, and on the other a distinctively constituted people, better known as the nation. Tocqueville saw democracy overturning everything, homogenizing everything within the nation-state, but leaving the framework of the nation-state essentially intact. It seems today that democracy puts into question this framework itself. Tocqueville retains all of his pertinence as an analyst of democratic life, but we have without doubt entered into a period at once both pre- and post-Tocquevillean.
I therefore will take up, in order, these two points: the state and the nation. Since the developments that I am going to consider principally concern the European countries, and much less or not at all the United States of America, I will devote a short third part to a comparison of the two sides of the Atlantic. There will be a conclusion with a Tocquevillean form for a thesis contrary to Tocqueville’s own. He saw democracy bringing together these two continents, bringing together two different species under the power of the genus he so powerfully characterized. In Tocqueville’s eyes, the democratic movement both united and brought about the resemblance of Europe and the United States. Before our very eyes, however, the democratic movement causes Europe and America to grow distant and to become ever more different from one another.
10. At The Spectator, Michael Auslin delves into that summer of discontent, 250 years ago, that led to the American Revolution. From the piece:
Instead of taking stock of a rapidly deteriorating relationship, London doubled down. The Boston Tea Party resulted in the harshest British response yet to the colonies, the so-called “Intolerable Acts,” which were passed in the spring of 1774. The new acts mandated the blockade and closure of Boston’s port, placed much of the Massachusetts government under direct royal control, reduced the colony’s judicial authority over royal officials, and allowed the quartering of British troops with private families. Yet what was meant to solve a local issue, the resistance of the particularly obstreperous Bostonians, was the spark that lit the fuse of revolution.
As word of the Intolerable Acts spread throughout the colonies that spring, a vigorous debate emerged as to what collective response, if any, there should be. Merchants, including those in Boston, wanted to avoid further suppression of trade and were willing to try and pay for the destroyed tea. Radicals headed by Samuel Adams tried to drum up support for more unified measures, above all a colonies-wide agreement to no longer import British goods. Committees of correspondence sprung up to share intelligence and try to coordinate a response among the diverse colonies. Many colonists outside Boston were lukewarm, thinking the Puritans had brought it upon themselves. Yet others, more radical, believed that a more fundamental question of American liberty was at stake. London’s intransigent stance worked against compromise, giving ammunition to those who argued that a turning point in the colonies’ relationship with the mother country had arrived. Discontent grew as the days lengthened.
11. At City Journal, Jacob Howland profiles the Censorship Industrial Complex. From the article:
The war against free speech is being fought with treaties and official agreements with wording as broad as a shotgun’s blast. One of many examples is the OAS’s 2013 Inter-American Convention Against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance. Article 1 of the Convention includes in its definition of intolerance “disrespect, rejection, or contempt . . . [for the] opinions” of others, while Article 4 states that the “duties of the [35 signatory] states” include “ [to] prevent, eliminate, prohibit, and punish, in accordance with their constitutional norms . . . all acts and manifestations of discrimination and intolerance.” But what is “disrespect”? What constitutes “rejection” of an opinion? Is, say, discussion of the connection between Islam and violence punishable intolerance? There are no clear answers to these questions, because the censors never define their terms. The vagueness deliberately encourages self-censorship by communicating an implicit warning: caveat loquens, let the speaker beware. . . .
Athenian democracy, as one Forum speaker observed, was characterized by isegoria, equality in the exercise of freedom, and parrhesia, frankness. The CIC rejects these core democratic values. Its notion that “legal but harmful” information must be censored presupposes that the citizens of liberal democracies cannot think for themselves.
12. At Strategika, Bing West reminds that when it comes to high-tech weapons production, we should remember the Wampanoag. From the analysis:
The potential consequences are perilous. “We are at an absolute pivot point in maritime warfare,” retired Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander in NATO, said. “Big surface ships are highly at risk to air, surface, and sub-surface drones. The sooner great-power navies like that of the United States understand that, the more likely they are to survive in major combat in this turbulent 21st century. Like the battleship row destroyed at Pearl Harbor, carriers are at the twilight of their days. It is absolutely time to move the rheostat away from manned warships and toward more numerous and far less expensive unmanned vessels.”
During the Civil War, the Union navy constructed an original coal-fired steamship named USS Wampanoag. When the war ended, the navy reverted to sailing ships. Two more decades passed before sailing ships were replaced by steamships. Admiral Stavridis is alarmed that today’s navy is repeating that mistake. Unmanned drones guarantee that surface warships must stand farther and farther from the conflict zone in order to survive, rendering them less effective.
The proven effectiveness of drones renders vestigial the ritualistic declaration that America needs more warships. Why build more targets? A classic example is the Marine Corps. A few years ago, the Commandant decided Marines should be ready to sink Chinese warships by shooting missiles from atolls in the South China Sea. At $2 million per unit, 64 missiles with a hundred-mile range were purchased. To get within that hundred-mile range, the Commandant then requested 35 small amphibious ships, each costing $350 million to transport four missiles.
Lucky 13. At the Mountain Home Observer, Chris Fulton reports on a big meal—with a side dish of auction—that rustled up mucho bucks for local victims of a nasty Arkansas tornado. From the beginning of the story:
The recent fundraiser for Baxter County tornado victims has shattered expectations, raising over $70,000, Mountain Home Mayor Adams said on Monday.
“We’re going to actually bust, as of today, we’re going to break the $70,000 barrier,” Adams said. “That’s a great day.”
The fundraiser, held on Friday, consisted of smoked chicken and pork steak dinner with an auction. Both events saw overwhelming community support.
Adams reported that all 1,000 chicken lunches sold out. The evening event nearly matched that success, with some 400 pork steak dinners being sold before the night’s auction, which sold items such as power equipment, chain saws, coolers, fishing trips and a trailer from Platinum Trailer Group.
Bonus. At Providence, Eric Bordenkircher profiles the “new progressive imperialism” now tormenting Africa. From the piece:
European powers of the 19th and 20th centuries operated in a similar fashion. A colony was off-limits to the outside world. It was the colonizer who decided who could trade, interact, or enter the colony. Isolation achieved several objectives. It solidified a colonizer’s control. The colonizer could reap the benefits (i.e., economic) of its monopoly over the territory. It also helped to minimizing domestic confrontations to their control. Domestic opposition was challenged to receive external assistance against the colonizer since the area was effectively “cut off.”
Emulating historically problematic behaviors is not wise policy. The Biden Administration is considering forceful measures against African governments that would also offend an overwhelming majority of their populations. The discussed mechanisms become weapons for an assault on African cultures. A culture may be secular at the surface level but underpinning it is often traditional religious beliefs and values (i.e., Christianity). Tampering with the glue of culture which holds together already fragile states in Sub-Saharan Africa is a recipe for disaster. Societies would further fracture. Governance would worsen. Any semblance of order would unravel.
Bonus Bonus! At Philanthropy Daily, Bruno Manno offers a “Donor’s Guide to Career and Technical Education.” From the beginning of the piece:
As the college degree pathway becomes ever more expensive, Americans—including young people—want more and different education and training pathways to good jobs and opportunity. One such path is through career and technical education, or CTE—an established and growing way to realize opportunity.
CTE prepares young people for skilled, high-demand, and well-paid jobs through classroom instruction and on-the-job training. It is an example of opportunity pluralism, which enjoys widespread support. Opportunity pluralism encourages policymakers to create a variety of education and training pathways and personal support programs so that individuals can acquire the knowledge, skills, and networks they need for jobs, careers, and human flourishing.
For the Good of the Cause
Uno. At Philanthropy Daily, Emily Marble ponders when fundraisers find true love with donors. Read it here.
Due. In the new “Givers, Doers, & Thinkers” podcast episode, Jeremy Beer discusses the “Humanitarian Party” with Matthew Crawford, and discerns its impact on civil society. Listen to it here.
Tre. “We need to do a capital campaign. By the way, what is a capital campaign?” Good question, one among many that will be answered at the Center for Civil Society’s “In the Trenches” Master Class scheduled for Thursday, August 8th, via Zoom, from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern). If you’re a nonprofit worker bee, or even trustee, who is noodling the idea of a capital campaign, you’ll regret not attending. So sign up. Do that, and learn more, right here.
Quattro. Attention, all Givers, Doers, and Thinkers: The Center For Civil Society is holding a consequential conference on K to Campus: How the Education Reform Movement Can Reshape Higher Ed. It takes place at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA, from October 23–24, and just about every bit of info you want/need to know can be found here. Fun fact: The kick-off event will be Yours Truly interviewing the great Victor Davis Hanson. The agenda is super, with plenty of inspiration on tap. Be there.
Department of Bad Jokes
Q: Why can't dinosaurs play baseball?
A: Because they're extinct.
A Dios
Oh, for one day of peace!
That We May Be Called Children of God,
Jack Fowler, who nurtures his exhaustion at jfowler@amphil.com.
