Brief Note

Scott Holleran's latest column talks about New Orleans and the upcoming Atlas Shrugged movie. Well worth checking out. As a great fan of the book, I can't help looking forward to the movie, even if it is quite likely that I will be disappointed. Nevertheless, it will be nice if the movie (or TV mini-series -- no decision on that has been made) is finally made and perhaps some further publicity for the book results.

Today's Briefing

My heart goes out to the people of New Orleans and surrounding areas suffering from the devastation wrought by hurricane Katrina. A list of links for aid donations can be found on Glenn Reynold's blog here. Also, blogger Gus Van Horn is asking his readers to donate to the Armed Forces Retirement Home, "whose facility in Gulfport, Mississippi took severe damage from the storm." I recommend donating through your employer if they have a matching funds program. That's what I intend to do.
**
Like Don Watkins of Anger Management I'm in agreement with Peggy Noonan's views on looting:

There seems to be some confusion in terms of terminology on TV. People with no food and water who are walking into supermarkets and taking food and water off the shelves are not criminal, they are sane. They are not looters, they are people who are attempting to survive; they are taking the basics of survival off shelves in stores where there isn't even anyone at the cash register.

Looters are not looking to survive; they're looking to take advantage of the weakness of others. They are predators. They're taking not what they need but what they want. They are breaking into stores in New Orleans and elsewhere and stealing flat screen TVs and jewelry, guns and CD players. They are breaking into homes and taking what those who have fled trustingly left behind. In Biloxi, Miss., looters went from shop to shop. "People are just casually walking in and filling up garbage bags and walking off like they're Santa Claus," the owner of a Super 8 Motel told the London Times. On CNN, producer Kim Siegel reported in the middle of the afternoon from Canal Street in New Orleans that looters were taking "everything they can."

**
George Will in his column today joins the view that Tara Smith has expressed previously that judicial activism is not such a bad thing. Mr. Will however is fairly mixed in quality. He begins by trying to convince Conservatives that "dogmatic majoritarianism" is not a good thing and sites historical examples from the Republican party's history to support this argument:

The conservatives' party, the Republican Party, was born in reaction against repeal of the Missouri Compromise -- against, that is, the right, established by Congress in 1854, of Kansans to own slaves if a Kansas majority approved of that. The first Republican president was propelled to greatness by his recoil against allowing popular sovereignty to decide whether slavery should expand into particular territories.

And he continues with this excellent paragraph:

Lincoln's greatness was inseparable from his belief that there are some things that majorities should not be permitted to do -- things that violate natural rights, the protection of which is the Constitution's principal purpose. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison , the theoretical foundation of judicial review, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written."

However, he following this he deteriorates by relying on Daniel Farber's and Suzanna Sherry's book Desperately Seeking Certainty: The Misguided Quest for Constitutional Foundations, and claiming that "judicial review amounts to blocking a contemporary majority in the name of a past majority" but the founder amount to "an especially dignified majority" which is "owed special deference." True to his Conservatism, Will here shows a reverence for tradition. But the truth is that the Founders ought not to be revered because the reflected a majority at that time or because it was a special time but because, by and large, they were right. To the extent that they were wrong, their errors need to be corrected. Will concludes:

Even when the Supreme Court was most athwart public opinion -- striking down New Deal legislation -- voters sharply rebuked President Franklin Roosevelt for his plan to "pack" the court by enlarging it. So this is another powerful argument for the compatibility of judicial review with America's democratic values: the demos -- the public -- supports it.

Apropos FDR & the Supreme Court. I remember a long time ago listening to an abridged version of Judge Robert Bork's The Tempting of America. In the book Bork completely justifies Franklin D. Roosevelt's machinations against the Supreme Court. At the time Roosevelt was trying to invent new powers of government that the Constitution never allowed and the Justices were ruling one law after another unconstitutional. If memory serves me right, Bork compared the Conservative "activism" of the judges in the 1930s to the Liberal "activism" of judges in the 1960s and 1970s and thought both were wrong. I couldn't disagree more. (my memory on this is faulty -- see the Update and Correction below)

Judicial activism in the protection of rights is precisely what a Supreme Court justice ought to do as the quote above from Will about Lincoln also supports. Tara Smith in her article outlines the necessary qualifications a Supreme Court judge ought to have:

The salient question in assessing any nominee, then, is not whether a judge takes action, but the factors that guide his actions. To be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a person must, at minimum, understand three basic facts: First, that individual rights are broad principles defining the individual's freedom of action. The familiar rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness subsume a vast array of particular exercises of this freedom, some explicitly named in the constitution (e.g., the freedom of speech) and some not (the right to travel). Second, he must understand that the government's sole function is to protect individuals' freedom of action. As Jefferson explained, it is "to secure these rights, [that] governments are instituted among men." Third, he must recognize that our government properly acts exclusively by permission. Articles I, II and III specify the powers of the three branches of government and the 10th Amendment expressly decrees that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states or by the people. The government, in other words, may do only what it is legally authorized to do.

**
Update and Correction 9/2/2005
It has been pointed out to me that Judge Robert Bork did not in fact consider the New Deal court an example of judicial activism in his book The Tempting of America. I stand corrected on that. I was nevertheless correct that Judge Bork objects to what he terms "Conservative Constitutional Revisionism" as much as to "Liberal Constitutional Revisionism" and he has criticised conservative/libertarian thinkers such as Richard Epstein and Bernard Siegan for arguing that the Constitution do more than it should (according to Judge Bork) for economic liberties. He sympathizes with their ends but does not think the Court ought to be the means.

Amazing

Perhaps I haven't read the Los Angeles Times in great detail lately but I was under the impression that its editorial page, which is now edited by liberal ex-Crossfire host Michael Kinsley, was, well, liberal. However much to my great surprise I found today's editorial on the airline industry a breath of pro-capitalist free-market air. Here are some relevant quote:

MORE THAN A QUARTER-CENTURY after the deregulation of the airline industry, the nation's most successful airline is inexcusably barred by the government from flying to Southern California from its home base.

Wait, it gets better:

[The restriction]costs California hundreds of millions of dollars in lost economic activity, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., which is lobbying for its repeal. It also illustrates a larger problem: government intervention that is hobbling the nation's dairline industry, which is projected to lose $5 billion this year. [emphasis added]

Admittedly not a moral argument but better than I've come to expect from the usually regulation supportive LA Times. The editorial continues:

Although the industry would be far healthier if some money-losing carriers simply folded, the federal government is overly protective of failing airlines. The abuse of bankruptcy laws, for example, is becoming routine in the industry — United now has been flying under Chapter 11 protection for nearly three years — but the government allows failing airlines to continue in operation without needing to pay all their bills.

And finally this:

Outdated restrictions on foreign ownership of U.S. airlines are another impediment to needed consolidation, investment and innovation. Northwest is showing welcome signs of surviving a strike by its mechanics union, but there still is a need for Congress to consider changes to the Railway Labor Act that would make airlines less hostage to big labor.[emphasis aded]

A liberal newspaper supporting changes in government support for the unions. Simply amazing! Of course, if it were up to me, all those acts placing the power of government force behind union, would be abolished, since they constitute an initiation of force against employers. Still, it's great to see that at least some free market principles seem to be less controversial in some previously less than favorable quarters.

Today's briefing

I'll begin with the bad, very bad in fact. Early reports on the Iraqi Constitution are not very promising. Fred Kaplan of Slate, in an essay appropriately entitled Articles of Consternation, points out the various problems. One item stands out near the beginning:

The charter is vague to the point of vacuousness in its most basic proclamations. Article 2 reads:

Islam is the official religion of state and a fundamental source for legislation.
(a) No law may contravene the essential verities of Islamic law.
(b) No law may contravene the principles of democracy.
(c) No law may contravene the rights and basic liberties enumerated in this constitution.

Among the "rights and liberties" enumerated are:

There are noble things in this constitution as well. Article 7 forbids racism, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing. Article 35 guarantees "human freedom and dignity." Article 36 guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press. But, again, it's hard to square these provisions with the rest of the document. There is also the occasional silliness, for instance Article 22, which guarantees all Iraqis the right of employment.

It really is difficult for me to understand why, when we have such an excellent example in our own Constitution, the U.S.-supported government there does not try to emulate it as some more intelligent commentators have suggested.
As Fred Kaplan correctly points out in the last sentence:

...it is not at all clear—with or without this constitution—what kind of government, what kind of nation, this war and this process have wrought.

**
Those who are still confused on the issue of Libertarianism vs. Objectivism would benefit by reading this excellent post by Paul Hsieh at NoodleFood. Paul discusses academic libertarian philosopher Randy Barnett's views on the compatibility of Libertarianism with different moral foundations. Paul quotes Barnett:

Libertarians need not choose between moral rights and consequences because theirs is a political, not a moral philosophy; one that can be shown to be compatible with various moral theories, which as we shall see is one source of its appeal. Moral theories based on either moral rights or on consequentialism purport to be "comprehensive," insofar as they apply to all moral questions to the exclusion of all other moral theories. Although the acceptance of one of these moral theories entails the rejection of all others, libertarian moral rights philosphers such as Eric Mack, Loren Lomasky, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl on the one hand, and utilitarians such as Jan Narveson on the other can embrace libertarian political theory with equal fervor. (Page 6 of PDF file.)

The subjectivist foundation of Libertarianism is thus explicitly admitted to.
**

Finally, hat-tip to The Secular Foxhole for bringing to light the fact that there already a link on the Cambridge University Press website for Tara Smith's upcoming book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. Despite the rather steep list price ($80 !!) for the hardback edition, I can't wait for it to get published.

Various annoyances around the web

The Anti-War Left
I didn't get a chance to blog on this article yesterday. Norman Solomon has the rather optimistic prediction that "the Bush administration may ratchet up the Iraq war" -- optimistic for any supporter of the war. Mr. Solomon, is of course, opposed. And if anybody has any doubt as to the left's desired outcome for this war, consider this paragraph:

A lot of what sounds like opposition to the war is more like opposition to losing the war. Consider how Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin concluded a piece on Sunday that disparaged Bush and his war policies. The column included eloquent, heartrending words from the mother of a Marine Corps Reserve member who died in Iraq early this year. And yet, the last quote from her was: “Tell us what it is going to take to win, Mr. Bush.” In a tag line, the columnist described it as a question “we all need an answer to.”

But some questions are based on assumptions that should be rejected—and “What is it going to take to win?” is one of them. In Iraq, the U.S. occupation force can’t “win.” More importantly, it has no legitimate right to try.

I dare say this is the kind of article that Dennis Prager would use to show the utter bankruptcy of the left and he would be right. It is difficult to imagine the profound evil contained in the above quote. If the present administration and much of the Conservative right are fighting this war inadequately, "progressive" intellectuals such as Solomon do not want any fight at all and consider all wars wrong.

Sullivan the Puritan
I generally respect Andrew Sullivan as he seems to try to think through political issues on his own and does not tow any particular party line. I didn't even mind his constant harping on the alleged torture and abuse of our various captured terrorists. I disagree with his conclusion -- that we should immediately stop the torture -- but I think we should prosecute this war with our eyes open because if we are going to win, it may take considerably more violence and mayhem than we have seen so far.

However one of today's entries in his blog was so corrupt that I have to comment. Sullivan agrees with Fareed Zakaria's point about the war on terror requiring greater energy efficiency. In addition he comments:

But what I didn't realize is how the curse of the SUV is so damaging. Fareed writes that 54 percent of today's U.S. fleet of cars are made up by these ugly, behemoth tanks that guzzle gas, and make life miserable for everyone not in them. My anti-SUV ire always goes up in the summer, when I see these vast, bloated symbols of excess bulldozing down the narrow streets of Provincetown, pushing every bicyclist, pedestrian or small child out of their way. My only solace is thinking of how many of these SUV owners are pouring money away to keep their mobile homes on the road. Pity that same money goes to finance Islamist terror. And please don't give me all this guff about how I don't have a car (hey, I'm not indirectly donating to al Qaeda), having to take kids here, there and everywhere, with all their stuff and the dogs and suburbs and soccer practices and on and on. All of this took place before SUVs; kids were just packed into back seats and trunks were stuffed full if necessary. Parents coped. Kids thrived. If all else failed, people could even have less stuff. Imagine that: less stuff. As readers know, I'd gladly put a dollar of extra tax on gas, insist on higher fuel standards for cars, make SUVs comply with the fuel standards of other cars and put a tax on SUVs on top pf all that. We are in a war. As far as I'm concerned, those people driving SUVs are aiding and abetting the enemy, and helping to finance the terrorists that want to kill us all. I'm well aware that the notion that the Bush administration has any interest in energy independence or taxing gas or deterring SUVs is about as likely as their demanding subsidies for sex-changes, but I might as well vent. We can always stigmatize these SUV-terror-enablers. How about bumper-stickers for non-SUVs that simply say: my car doesn't subsidize Saudi terror. Would that help? [emphasis added]

Sullivan has it wrong. We ought to be in a war, a war that destroys our Islamist enemies. We have had two wars and are now in the midst of fighting insurgencies of varying strengths in both countries we had supposedly defeated. The main sources of Islamic terror, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are untouched, and their main ally, Syria, equally so. So first of all it would be nice to have a real war, not a crusade for democracy.

Second, I don't happen to own an SUV but I completely reject Sullivan's argument. I don't accept the claim that the solution to the problem of the oil wealth going to terrorists is to economize on gasoline and thus send less money to the Middle East. The solution ought to be elimination of the terroristic Islamist governments and elimination of the terrorists. I have no interest in eliminating the oil wealth or reducing the use of oil. The oil wealth properly belongs to the Western companies that originally discovered and developed the oil fields before they were nationalized by the local governments. After the relevant governments there are defeated, the ownership of the oil fields should be transferred back to the private hands that developed them.

Around the web today

Thucydides (aka Brad Malestein) of Contemporary History graces us with one of his rare but poignant posts. This one deals with what we should do with Iran and I couldn't agree more:

If, however, we went out tomorrow and declared war on Iran, and bombed their nuclear facilities and cities until they surrendered or were blasted into the Stone Age, the glorious struggle would be a lot less glory, and a lot more struggle. Iran would have difficulty supplying terrorists, for one. Enthusiasm for risky terrorist ventures and suicide missions would wane, since there is a difference between dying for a cause and dying for nothing. Also, rather than guessing that Iran may have nuclear weapons in ten years, we would have a better estimate: never.

Elsewhere Robert Tracy of Illustrated Ideas posts a piece by Jack Wakeland of TIA about Cindy Sheehan with which I am in substantial agreement. Here's the most relevant paragraph:

And - most of all - Cindy Sheehan's grief does not give her license to condemn American civilization. Her grief does not exempt her from being morally judged by the rest of us. There is no excuse for what she is saying. She hates America for its virtues. She's purposely acting to undermine political support for a war of necessity. She is attempting - through the political process - to impair our national defense during a shooting war. She's evil.

Finally there's some positive science news from Switzerland in this story:

Professor Hohlfeld concludes: “We have shown that fetal skin is a substitute for biological skin that can provide burned patients with a very high quality of skin in a short time with no additional grafting techniques . . . In view of the therapeutic effects of this technique along with the simplicity in application, fetal skin cells could have great potential in tissue engineering.”

Book Recommendations

I'm rather depressed by the news from Israel at the moment, and I'm losing what little respect I had for the Bush administration as it pursues an alternatively altruistic or pragmatic (so-called "realistic" -- NY Times Registration required) foreign policy.

So instead of bemoaning the present world situation, I will offer some book recommendations of books I am reading or have read in the recent past.

Readers of this blog are aware that I'm presently reading and enjoying two books. Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto. Lincoln starts off slow but builds momentum as the story enters the 1850s and the issue of slavery becomes more prominent. Bernstein tells the story of the capitalism as it should be told, from the proper philosophical perspective (Objectivism) and with numerous interesting historical facts to buttress the case for capitalism.

Like millions of other fans I have recently finished J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I enjoyed it very much. Contrary to some reviews this book is not darker in spirit than the previous books in the series. The darkest of the Potter books remains Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

The Aristotle Adventure by Burgess Laughlin traces the journey of the works of Aristotle from the initial writings through the various cultures that studied and preserved it until they came fully back to the forefront during the days of Thomas Aquinas. Adventure is written for the layman and as the name implies is a lot of fun to read. In some respects it is similar to Aristotle's Children by Richard Rubenstein, who covers some of the same ground though Rubenstein's focus is on more on how Aristotle was rediscovered than on what exactly happened during the time his works were lost. Laughlin's book is very well organized and one learns about all the difficulties in preserving a set of writings over centuries, the many heroic individuals who studied, translated, preserved, copied and commented on Aristotle and thus helped pass it to future generations and a little about all the cultures that are involved, including Greek and Latin Pagan, Christian, and Moslem. It really is told as an exciting adventure because it is argued that with Aristotle's ideas goes the fate of civilization (with which I would agree).

Finally, earlier this year I read Richard Tarnas Passion of the Western Mind. The book does an excellent job of surveying Western ideas from the ancient Greeks to the present. I particularly liked the sections on Christianity and the details of Kant's Copernican revolution, in which Kant claimed that rather than attempting to have our ideas conform to reality, we should have reality conform to our ideas. On caveat though: As a result of Tarnas's sympathy for Freudian notions, the book contains an epilogue that is so absurd as to almost negate the value of the entire book. I recommend getting the book from a library and ignoring the epilogue.

Noteworthy...

• Don Watkins of Anger Management has announced plans to create "an online magazine, Axiomatic." Axiomatic is described as "a publication for Objectivists who wish to write seriously about Objectivist topics that are inappropriate for mainstream publications, and who do not wish to write for anti-Objectivist publications. " Giving the extraordinary high quality of Don's posts, this is something to look forward to. You can read the complete announcement here.
• With the vocal conservative opposition to federally funded stem cell research, it is easy to forget that there are also elements on the left that are skeptical of this research. Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society, writes in TomPaine.com:

What’s perhaps most disconcerting about unrestrained enthusiasm for stem cell research are the undesirable doors it may open. Stem cells are a key component in developing technologies of human genetic engineering and enhancement. While stem cell research should be supported, we must acknowledge that it is laying the technological and social foundation for our worst nightmares of a society of “genetically enhanced” and “naturals.” In our market-based society, it is easy to see how a new technologically based eugenics could emerge.


I fail to see what's wrong with with producing "genetically enhanced" individuals -- what exactly does Mr. Reynolds have against producing smarter, stronger and healthier individuals? Most of the false arguments in Reynolds's article are addressed in another essay at TomPaine.com by Susan Frank. She concludes appropriately, though naively:


The critics of life-saving stem cell research technologies use false claims, an anti-technology bias and an alarmist view of sensibly and ethically practiced medical research. Instead, progressives and conservatives should join together and affirm that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for those suffering from diseases; thank responsible and ethical scientists for their tireless efforts; and hope that, someday soon, cures will be discovered.


I think Ms. Frank is naive because both conservatives and progressives have inherent ideological anti-science and anti-technology biases that cannot be easily overcome. Conservatives, to the extent that they are religious, will continue to appease religious opposition to scientific advance. Progressives, having some decades ago left their nominal pro-science attitude behind, are now opposed to any technological advance that will, in their mind, yield profits to corporations or affect the environment in any way at all.

• Cox and Forkum's take on the Israeli Disengagement.
  
  
  
  I couldn't express it better myself.
• Finally, the Ayn Rand Institute has announced the title of Yaron Brook's September 12 lecture that I mentioned here. It is entitled "Neo-Conservatives Vs. America: A Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11." I have heard a version of this talk on C-Span Radio this past weekend and he makes a good critique of the Neo-Conservative approach to foreign policy. I remember when I first got disillusioned with the Neo-Cons. I was listening to the Dennis Prager show. Prager had as his guest Bruce Herschensohn. This was after 9/11 but before the recent Iraq war. Herschensohn was discussing his foreign policy views and in addition to supporting the coming war on Iraq was, to my great surprise, going on about how the United States had a mission to actively liberate countries around the world. Prager agreed. I don't. The United States foreign policy should be focused on protecting its national interest as derived from its domestic policy, which ought to be laissez faire capitalism. We may support allies but our foreign policy ought not to be altruistic. For details see Peter Schwartz's recent monograph.
  

What's on the web today

Daniel Pipes writes the truth about Israel's Gaza withdrawal in his column entitled appropriately [The Gaza Withdrawal:] A Democracy Killing Itself. What Israel is doing here is quite sad and the repercussions will unfortunately be as bad or worse as the results of previous appeasements, whether by Israel or other countries.

Lincoln on Slavery

More from Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln. Not surprisingly, Lincoln is at his best when he discusses the issue of slavery such in the fascinating reasoning below written sometime in the early 1850s in a private memorandum to himself.

"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B., why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A.?--You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

Lincoln on free trade and the role of government

I'm continuing with my reading of Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln. I'll have something positive to say about Lincoln in the next post but let me first get this out of the way. Sadly, Lincoln did not appear to have a clear understanding of the benefits of free trade and rather thought tariffs served a useful purpose as the following passage from the book illustrates.
From p.88 (emphasis in original):

"To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." How could a government effect this? One remedy would be to "as far as possible, drive useless labour and idleness our of existence." For example, "Iron & every thing made of iron, can be produced in sufficient abundance, [and] with as little labour, in the United States, as anywhere else in the world; therefore, all labour done in bringing iron and it's fabrics from a foreign country to the United States is useless labor."...
Universal idleness should speedily result in universal ruin; ... and useless labour is, in this respect the same as idleness." Therefore, reasoned Lincoln, to abandon the protective tariff "must result in the increase of both useless labour, and idleness."

Lincoln seems not to have quite grasped how markets work. I claim to be no expert on this but I do understand this much. If a tariff has been imposed on imports, it is because the import is cheaper than the domestic manufacturer. If the imported items were consistently more expensive than the domestic ones, there would be no need for tariffs; the imports couldn't compete. But the very fact that the import may be cheaper than the domestic product serves to illustrate that Lincoln is wrong in his assumption that it makes no difference where the product is manufactured. If the import is cheaper then the foreign company is more efficient than the domestic and a cheaper alternative is provided to the domestic consumers of the product, some of whom may be businesses themselves that employ other people. Thus I don't see a danger of "idleness" when tariffs are abandoned. Instead, I see a tax that hurts both individuals in both countries. Of course, fundamentally if two individuals (or companies) have decided to trade with one another between two countries not at war with each other, no government ought to interfere. Any interference, such as tariffs, import quotas and the like would be a violation of their right to property.

In a separate passage on p. 115, Sandburg writes of Lincoln:

He wrote of the legitimate object of government being "to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves," such as "Making and maintaining roads and bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property." Military and civil departments were necessary . "If some men will kill, or beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of property, by force, fraud, or noncompliance with contracts, it is a common object with peaceful and just men to prevent it."

By the laissez faire standards of Objectivism this passage reflects badly on Lincoln and seems to provide the altruistic justification for all sorts of improper government functions. Still, I doubt his views were particularly revolutionary for his day and they are still a far cry from today's welfare state liberals and conservatives. In his own mind Lincoln did not seem to want expand government too much but ideas have consequences and the ideas the Lincoln supports in the above passages clearly point to a much more interventionist government.

VDH and Reason

In an otherwise typical column decrying the lack of attention paid by the liberal elites to the words of Islamic radicals, Victor Davis Hanson (VDH), includes this passage:

Throughout this war we have an understandable, if ethnocentric, habit of ignoring what our enemies actually say. Instead we chatter on, don’t listen, and in self-absorbed fashion impart our own motives for their hatred. We live on the principles of the Enlightenment and so worship our god Reason, thus assuming that even our adversaries accept such rational protocols as their own. [emphasis added]

Sometimes I really have trouble understanding what Conservatives such as VDH are talking about. To say that in this age of profoundly and explicitly irrational intellectual movements from the nihilist left such as environmentalism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and feminism and all the other Kant-derived absurdities, that we "worship our god Reason" and that this "worship" of Reason results in "assuming... our adversaries" are equally "rational" is really quite astounding.

Clearly, we are not living on the "principles of the Enlightenment," and Reason, as practiced during much of the Enlightenment, has in fact, left the building. Rather, we are living on the principles of 19th century collectivism, now fractured into multiculturalism, and 20th century pragmatism, as well as a seemingly growing religious revival, and various other irrationalities, in various forms, both left and right. And furthermore, how can anyone argue that as a result of reasoning we conclude that our enemies "accept ... rational protocols?" Our enemies are clearly bent on our destruction as they plainly say and VHD quotes:

“The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews — even the stones and trees which were harmed by them…The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.”

and

“What you have you seen, O Americans, in New York and Washington and the losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout, are only the losses of the initial clashes.”

Only someone profoundly irrational would pretend that the people behind these ideas "accept ... rational protocols".

What then is the rational response to someone bent on destroying you? Here, Conservatives do indeed have a problem because they accept Hume's "is-ought" dichotomy. For what one "ought" to do cannot be the result of a rational consideration of the facts because they alone do not tell us what do ... or so Hume claimed. Conservatives then turn to religion in order to find the "oughts" -- the moral guidance that enables them to decide such questions. Presumably, since VDH dismisses the "god of Reason," he just knows by faith what needs to be done. The results of seeking such guidance have historically not been particularly encouraging.

So what is rational action anyway? How do we apply reason to decisions about actions? Well, let's take a simple case. Is it rational to take a nap? How can we evaluate this decision? It depends entirely on the context in which one is planning to take a nap and what purposes one has in mind. If one is at home on the weekend and wants to relax after a tiring week at work, taking a nap can be very rational action. If one is at work and wants to continue to work there, taking a nap is a very irrational action. Rational and irrational, thus firstly relate to whether in a given context an action achieves the actors purpose. In order to evaluate actions as rational or irrational we need to know what the potential actor is trying to achieve. And furthermore, a purpose or end is also subject to evaluation -- thus actions are to be evaluated in two ways: By whether the action is likely to achieve the actor's purpose, and by whether the purpose itself is rational.

The rationality of a purpose can be evaluated only with respect to a more fundamental purpose. As a result, an ultimate purpose becomes necessary, otherwise there is an infinite regress. That purpose is one's life which one must choose to value in order for all of one's other purposes and actions to be evaluated as rational and moral. It is very relevant here to note that the Islamists open proclaim that they do not value their own lives and will gladly sacrifice them for Allah.

Contrary to VDH, if we were living on "Enlightment principles", worshipping the "god of Reason", we would be faring far better in this war. I conclude with a quote from the best of the Enlightenment thinkers, John Locke (Second Treatise, chapter III), discussing what one's rational reaction should be toward the likes that VDH mentions:

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man’s life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. [emphasis added]

We're running out of landfill space...Not!


The business section of today's NY Times has an informative story on landfills and the fact that contrary to popular opinion a few years ago dump capacity has been expanding, not shrinking.

Must Read...

Check out Caroline Glick's (who is fast becoming my favorite columnist) excellent Column One in the Jerusalem Post. Here are some choice excerpts.

...while in the wake of the London bombings the West is finally beginning to take the threat of suicide terrorism in its towns seriously, this newfound sobriety at home is occurring at the same time that the Bush administration is striking out on a policy of curtailing its war on terror abroad. This policy of curtailing US offensive actions against terrorism internationally is evident both in its handling of Iraq's rapid deterioration into a Shi'ite-ruled Islamist state along the lines of Iran and even more dangerously in the US's feckless handling of the rising Iranian nuclear threat.

A couple of items I noticed today

It is common to assume that the sciences whether natural or otherwise are "bastions of secularism" (as Dennis Prager would say). However a recent survey seems to suggest otherwise.

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

This is not really a big surprise. The number of committed atheists in this country is quite small.
I think this is partly because most widely known secular philosophies are of the nihilist skeptical variety or of the communist kind. As a result, many intellectuals turn to religion despite their secular occupations because they must have an integrating point of view. As Dr. Leonard Peikoff put it in OPAR:

Philosophy is not a bauble of the intellect, but a power from which no man can abstain. Anyone can say that he dispenses with a view of reality, knowledge, the good, but no one can implement this credo. The reason is that man, by his nature as a conceptual being, cannot function at all without some form of philosophy to serve as his guide.


**
Jacob Weisberg of Slate has written a reasonably good essay on the incompatibility of evolution and religion. Here's an excerpt:

But the acceptance of evolution diminishes religious belief in aggregate for a simple reason: It provides a better answer to the question of how we got here than religion does. Not a different answer, a better answer: more plausible, more logical, and supported by an enormous body of evidence. Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch.

Weisberg is correct. A systematic application of reason and science to the issues of life completely eliminates God from the picture.

What's on the web today

• Blogger Gus Van Horn writes an excellent "fisking" of Dennis Prager's column.
• Bad News: The NY Times reports today that "Iran Removes Seals on Equipment at Nuclear Plant"
• Good News: The Washington Post reports that the "Rice Genome [has been] Fully Mapped"
  

The missing alternative

In his weekly column today, Dennis Prager continues his series of articles on "The Case for Judeo-Christian Values." Today's column is chapter XX and is entitled, "There Is No Viable Alternative." Prager notes that he "contrasted Judeo-Christian values only with leftist values: secularism, liberalism, socialism, humanism, environmentalism" and has done so because "secular and leftist values are the dominant values of most of the world's elites" and "secular/leftist values are the only viable alternative to Judeo-Christian values."

Sadly, Prager misses the one alternative that does provide Viable Values -- Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. In fact it is only Objectivism that can provide a objective basis for moral values as well as a systematic philosophy with views in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. On the basis of her unique theory of concepts Ayn Rand argued that the concept value is hierarchically dependent on the concept life. It is life that makes values both possible and necessary. Man's life becomes the standard of value and rationality the primary virtue. Details can be found in the links above but the alternative exists. It's just a shame Prager chooses not to acknowledge it.

Pet Peeves...


Dictionary.com defines "pet peeve" as "a particular or recurring source of irritation." I have several philosophical pet peeves, specific views argued by today's intellectuals that to me are so blatantly wrongheaded as to be profoundly enraging. Two examples are below:

1. There is no morality without God. This is of course an old one. Since I used to listen to Dennis Prager a lot, I would hear this refrain all the time but just about everyone on the Conservative side of the intellectual spectrum voices this view. And anybody who has seriously paid attention to what Ayn Rand has written in her novel Atlas Shrugged and her book The Virtue of Selfishness knows that morality is possible without God, in fact God makes an objective morality impossible.
2. Free will and/or consciousness are scientifically impossible. For an example see this article. Usually such assertions of determinism or epiphenomenalism come from the Liberal side of the intellectual spectrum, from people who fancy themselves as having a scientific point of view and cannot be bothered with such mystical notions as volition or consciousness. Frankly, the level of dishonesty necessary to proclaim that free will is an illusion simply boggles the mind. The problem with their viewpoint is the very obvious fact that if it applies to them then they have no choice as to what views to accept or reject. They are determined to believe in determinism just as I am allegedly determined to believe in free will. Instead of accepting free will as a self-evident axiom the determinists pretend that scientific discovery begins in a vacuum without any underlying assumptions. As a result, atoms and molecules are a certainty but the faculties of man's consciousness that were required to discover them are a problematic phenomenon requiring explanation.
   

The Capitalist Manifesto

In addition to reading Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln, I've just recently received Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto -- I have to say I am very much impressed. The book seems well organized and full of fascinating historical details. Right now I'm in the middle of chapter 2: The Pre-Capitalist Political-Economic Systems. Here's an excerpt from the Manifesto about what life was like before the Industrial Revolution:

Prior to the advent of industrial capitalism (in roughly the 1760s) the lot of the English working class was generally miserable. Utter destitution was rampant, literal starvation not uncommon and the country was overrun with paupers.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of it. I've also ordered Brian Simpon's Markets Don't Fail! -- it's starting to be difficult to keep up with all the books Objectivist intellectuals are publishing. I think that's great!

Cox and Forkum hit one out of the ballpark...

Here's the permalink if the picture below is absent.

What's on the web today

The NY Times reports today that some bombs used in Iraq are made in Iran, U.S. says. Here's an excerpt:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - Many of the new, more sophisticated roadside bombs used to attack American and government forces in Iraq have been designed in Iran and shipped in from there, United States military and intelligence officials said Friday, raising the prospect of increased foreign help for Iraqi insurgents.

American commanders say the deadlier bombs could become more common as insurgent bomb makers learn the techniques to make the weapons themselves in Iraq.

One hopes vain that someday this government will wake up to the fact that we are at war with Iran and act accordingly.

**

Victor Davis Hanson writes about the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

Americans of the time hardly thought the Japanese populace to be entirely innocent. The Imperial Japanese army routinely butchered civilians abroad — some 10-15 million Chinese were eventually to perish — throughout the Pacific from the Philippines to Korea and Manchuria. Even by August 1945, the Japanese army was killing thousands of Asians each month. When earlier high-level bombing attacks with traditional explosives failed to cut off the fuel for this murderous military — industries were increasingly dispersed in smaller shops throughout civilian centers — Curtis LeMay unleashed napalm on the Japanese cities and eventually may have incinerated 500,000.

In order to win the present war it will be necessary to adopt the same attitude toward the country of Iran (and others) as was held during WWII toward Japan.

What's on the web today

Lincoln the fatalist

While I'm continuing to read Carl Sandburg's biography of Abraham Lincoln, I came across this interesting statement, published by Lincoln in response to attacks on him by Christian critics:

"FELLOW CITIZENS:

"A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity" -- that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.

"I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me." -- Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity, 31 July 1846 (copied from here)

So it would seem that Lincoln while not being particularly religious was something of a determinist. Of course determinism in the guise of predestination was always a feature within Christianity, which continues to struggle with the implications this poses to the existence of free will. One wonders if Lincoln got his determinism directly out of Christianity or out of reading some secular philosophers. It seems to be the former.

What's on the web today...

I browse several dozen news, opinion, blogs and other websites every day. Here's what I found of broader interest today:

Mark Steyn writes eloquently in a column entitled The etiquette of modern warfare in today's Jerusalem Post:

...an enemy folds when he knows he's finished. In Iraq, despite the swift fall of the Saddamites, it's not clear the enemy did know. Indeed, the western peaceniks pre-war "human shields" operation proved to be completely superfluous mainly because the Anglo-American forces decided to treat not just Iraqi civilians and not just Iraqi conscripts but virtually everyone other than Saddam, Uday and Qusay as a de facto human shield. Washington made a conscious choice to give every Iraqi the benefit of the doubt, including the fake surrenderers who ambushed the US marines at Nasiriyah.

In happier technological news Akio Namiki and colleagues at the University of Tokyo, Japan have built a Robot catcher grabs high speed projectiles, as reported by Newscientist. See the video (about 9 MB) -- it's pretty cool.

On the Ayn Rand Institute's web site I am pleased to see that a couple of new local (to Irvine, California) public lectures have been announced:

Monday, September 12, 2005, Free Public Lecture (title TBD) By Yaron Brook
Thursday, November 17, 2005, Creationism in Camouflage: The "Intelligent Design" Deception By Keith Lockitch
Time: 6:30 PM: Bookstore opens, 7:30 PM: Lecture, 8:30 PM: Q & A
Location: Hyatt Regency Irvine 17900 Jamboree Rd. Irvine, CA 92614

More baby blues
Click on the Dilbert comic below for more detail.

With the birth of a newborn comes sleeplessness. So far my son still mostly wakes up every 2 hours and that means my wife and I wake up as well. At least I'm only working half-days this week.

There are all sorts of books on my list to read, many of which I own already. Presently, I'm trying to finish Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln. I acquired it within the last two years when I noticed it among the special value hard covers at the local Borders Bookstore, but I've only started reading it recently. So far I'm about 80 pages into it. Lincoln's early years certainly make plain the humble background in which he grew up. He engaged in lots of manual labor. At one point he even was a wrestler. At this point in the book he is still a young lawyer with some political connections with the Whigs. I am not yet particularly impressed with him. He has so far supported legal measures that I would be opposed to such as tariffs. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to further reading and hope to acquire a more detailed knowledge of the Civil War period, of which I am ignorant in many ways.

On a personal note...

My son was born July 23, 2005 at 12:26am. Here's a link to brief album of photographs.

Europe and the Nihilism of Intellectuals

In a fascinating article (registration required) in today's (June 17, 2005) Wall Street Journal, author Paul Johnson presents his analysis of What Europe Really Needs. He begins by describing the problem:

That Europe as an entity is sick and the European Union as an institution is in disorder cannot be denied. But no remedies currently being discussed can possibly remedy matters.
...
The fundamental weaknesses of the EU that must be remedied if it is to survive are threefold. First, it has tried to do too much, too quickly and in too much detail.
...
The EU's economic philosophy, insofar as it has one, is epitomized by one word: "convergence." The aim is to make all national economies identical with the perfect model. This, as it turns out, is actually the perfect formula for stagnation.

Of course, the European bureaucracy and attempt at a successful mixed economy (with equal parts of capitalism and socialims) are fairly well known. Even Sweden, which used to be held up as a model welfare state, is now seen to be less than ideal (for example, see this op-ed in the Washington Times). Johnson also mentions rising anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism as part of the problem. Less well understood is the third point that Johnson makes:

There is another still more fundamental factor in the EU malaise. Europe has turned its back not only on the U.S. and the future of capitalism, but also on its own historic past. Europe was essentially a creation of the marriage between Greco-Roman culture and Christianity. Brussels has, in effect, repudiated both.
...
Equally, what strikes the observer about the actual workings of Brussels is the stifling, insufferable materialism of their outlook.
...
The EU has no intellectual content. Great writers have no role to play in it, even indirectly, nor have great thinkers or scientists.

Note that Johnson observes that both Christianity and Philosophy (described as "Greco-Roman culture") has been rejected. He does not explain what led to the rejection. But the answer is known to all who have read Dr. Leonard Peikoff's book The Ominous Parallels -- the answer lies in the philosophical trend that led to the present intellectual milieu. Great writers were once admired because they expressed profound views on the important issues in life whether directly through philosophical writings or indirectly through art. Unfortunately, today's intellectuals reject any attempt at greatness or importance as a result of the explicit nihilism that they have adopted. It does not matter to them whether the greatness is religious or secular. That nihilism can be seen in the form of multiculturalism and environmentalism, two ideologies that are fundamentally destructive of all values, spiritual and material.

History vs. Philosophy

In a fascinating column in the Washington Post of Thursday, May 19, 2005, George Will presents and supports Donald Kagan's case for history as the "queen of the humanities." Will argues for "moderation" between the two sides in the current culture wars. Arguing that the study of history presents an alternative as against both postmodern denial of objectivity and religious reliance on faith, Will writes:

Historians, however, say to the post modernists that the defining characteristics of postmodernism -- skepticism and cynicism -- have long histories. And the historians' riposte to those who say that religion is the only foundation for knowledge or virtue is, Kagan says, to insist that in the study of history, knowledge, far from impossible, is cumulative.

How does the fact that some view has "long histories" constitute an argument against it? This is not explained but on religion Will adds quoting Kagan:

"Religion and the traditions based on it were once the chief sources for moral confidence and strength. Their influence has faded in the modern world, but the need for a sound base for moral judgments has not. If we cannot look simply to moral guidance firmly founded on religious precepts it is natural and reasonable to turn to history, the record of human experience, as a necessary supplement if not a substitute."

Will also quotes Kagan's view of how philosophy rates below history:

All writers of history have "the responsibility of preserving the great, important and instructive actions of human beings," says Kagan, which is why history is "the queen of the humanities," ranking above literature and even philosophy.

Philosophy, he says, is valuable for untangling sloppy thinking. But philosophy, like religion, leads to investigations of first principles and ultimate reality, and such investigations have produced profound disagreement. Hence the primacy of history as the study from which, especially today, we can take our moral bearings[.]

Is philosophy's only purpose "untangling sloppy thinking"? If there are and continue to be philosophical disagreeements, are there not historical disagreements as well?

Even a superficial reading of Will's column raises some of the questions that I have listed above. I sympathize with George Will's intention, to find a "firm middle, or perhaps higher, ground for moral confidence" and knowledge of history certainly has to play a part in a rational, sensible approach to morality. But knowledge of history is not enough. For the last few centuries science has prided itself on the claim that it is "value-free." Thus modern science, whether natural or social, is descriptive, not prescriptive. As such, even accurate knowledge of historical events does not prescribe any actions in the present, nor does it, strictly speaking, evaluate the actions of the past. It mere recounts them. Of course various historians as well as other scientists have applied value judgments to their researches. But such normative conclusions depend on the philosophical as well as religious views of the person and as their values vary so do their normative conclusions.

This goes back to the fundamental issue in attempting to form any ethics. How does one bridge fact and value? I know for a fact that Colonial America won its independence from the King, I know that NAZI Germany was defeated by the allies, I know that the Romans conquered much of the ancient world, I know that the fall of Rome was followed by the Middle Ages, the first part of which is usually termed the Dark Ages. So what? How does any of this lead me to any ethical conclusions without prior ethical knowledge? Of course, it cannot. Certainly it can form part of the raw data to be used in reaching ethical conclusions but something else is needed to reach it.

The answer has to be philosophy. Within the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition it is God as the creator of all, who has revealed the commandments of right and wrong that you must obey. Using God's commandments one can then, to some extent, evaluate historical events as good and bad. Since religion's decline beginning in the 18th century, various attempts have been made to bridge the gap in a non-religious way. Usually, this meant some form of collectivism substitutes for God: Society has decreed what is right and what is wrong. With the massive apparent failures of various collectivisms in the 20th century, philosophers have begun to deny that ethics is anything other than an emotive expression. In other words, this is wrong because we feel it is wrong. My feeling constitutes my evaluation as well as my justification.

It is no wonder that given the current state of philosophy that many people seek a return to the apparent sense and stability of religious values. But they are mistaken, a proper approach to morality must rely on the application of reason and science to human affairs because there is no such thing as the supernatural and thus all attempts to base morality on it are doomed to failure. Morality must begin with an analysis of what values are and why man needs them, not midstream with moral intuitions. The analysis must rely on a proper understanding of the nature of conceptual knowledge and its objectivity, as well as an understanding of the basic nature of the world and man. Such an analysis has been done superlatively by 20th century novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. The result is a radically new approach to the whole subject of morality, one that provides the first objective code of values and virtues that man must follow if he is live his life as a rational being.

The prediction...

One of the interesting things about reading the Ayn Rand Journals a few years ago and many years after first reading the Fountainhead, was the realization that the various seemingly absurd statements made by the various irrational architects in the book were not exaggerations but were taken straight from her research into the profession.

I am presently rereading the Fountainhead and I ran across this interesting paragraph:

"Jules Fougler said in last Sunday's Banner that in the world of the future the theater will not be necessary at all. He says that the daily life of the common man is as much a work of art in itself as the best Shakespearean tragedy. In the future there will be no need for a dramatist. The critic will simply observe the life of the masses and evaluate its artistic points for the public. That's what Jules Fougler said. Now I don't know whether I agree with him, but he's got an interesting fresh angle there."

It seems that here we have a prediction for the unfortunate phenomena that for the past few years has been making the rounds of the television program schedules: Reality TV. It was predicted by Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead over 60 years ago.

The Election: Values vs. Terrorism

In light of my previous comments on the role played by religious values in this election, it is important to point out that at least two sources have been interpreting the statistical evidence coming out of the exit polls quite differently. Paul Freedman of the liberal online magazine Slate offers the following analysis in a column entitled "The Gay Marriage Myth: Terrorism, not values, drove Bush's re-election":

More to the point, the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help.

If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry.

Another commentator offering a similar view is David Brooks, a NY Times columnists. In his column entitled "The Values-Vote Myth," he writes (free registration required to read the NYT article, the article may eventually not be freely available):

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

Well, this is certainly good news. If these analyses are true then the majority of people who helped elect Bush did so because they thought he would be better at fighting the war, rather than as some kind of effort to impose religious values (for which there really wasn't that much evidence to begin with, at least so far).

With the present effort in Fallujah underway (Operation "Phantom Fury") I would like to remain optimistic, at least for a while, and await what the administration will do with respect to domestic and foreign policy. I suppose there really isn't a very good reason to expect drastic differences but at this point I'm inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

The Election Results: Implications & the War

I was happy to be proven right in the results of the elections, having predicted a little after the Democratic National Convention that the Kerry would lose. I admit to being a little worried by the constant media references to a "close race" but in the end I just could not believe that the majority of the American people were so dissatisfied with Bush as to elect somebody with the kind of history that Kerry had and positions that Kerry held throughout his Senate career. Actually that would have required more than dissatisfaction. It would have required the majority of this country to abandon its basic fighting spirit. And I just didn't think that would happen. While ultimately this is irrelevant, I admit to liking President Bush on a personal level much more than Senator Kerry. Despite many things that I think are wrong with President Bush, there is far more to respect about him than there ever was about Senator Kerry and that is part of the reason why I voted for Bush.

Of course, Kerry did not run his campaign as a leftist pacificist and Bush lacks much of the fighting spirit necessary to inspire a much clearer majority but nevertheless, for me at least that's what this election was about.

The media is presently reporting that according to exit polls "moral values, such as abortion" was the most important issue for the largest fraction (22%) of the electorate, with terrorism at 19%. This is a depressing statistic and is another piece of evidence confirming the increasing religious trend in this country that Dr. Peikoff detailed in his DIM Hypothesis Lectures. In fact, if Kerry had won I would have considered that evidence against Peikoff's view that the religious trend is increasing. However, before we get too alarmist I think this hopeful explicit statement on the issue from President Bush himself during his recent press conference needs to be taken into account:

Q Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular, Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide, it seems, becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, my answer to people is, I will be your President regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no President should ever try to impose religion on our society.

A great -- the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad -- I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you -- you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is -- that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.

The above is a far better statement on this issue than that given by President Bush's father who did not seem to think that atheists really have a place in this country. Particularly as an Objectivist who believes that objective moral values, far from relying on religion, in fact come from recognizing the nature of man and his relation to this world, it is reassuring to hear the President proclaim that we can be "just as patriotic." I hope that this will not turn out to be idle rhetoric.

Now for the war. Here I think it is Bush's weaknesses that have been the primary reason why the race was so close. I came across a transcript of a fascinating lecture by Victor Davis Hanson called "What Would Patton Say About the Present War?" For me the money passage is the following:

But Patton would insist that it is only by military defeat and subsequent humiliation first that the supporters of terrorism against the West will understand the wages of their support for Islamic fascism. Once people in the Middle East, like the Germans, see that the Islamic fascists are defeated - and that all who support and condone that ideology are synonymous with it and thus must pay for their complicity through some measure of sacrifice and suffering - radical bellicose Islamicism really will end. Patton was quite clear about defeating, humiliating and then helping Germans - the proper order of such a progression in attitude being absolutely critical.
[Emphasis added]

I am heartened by the fact that a Conservative like Hanson understands the lesson that Patton taught. This is the kind of point that Dr. Peikoff and ARI Director Dr. Yaron Brook have been making in their recent speeches and lectures. Unfortunately the Bush administration seems to be operating under a different principle as illustrated by the following quote from the recent press conference:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. On foreign policy, more broadly, do you believe that America has an image problem in the world right now, because of your efforts and response to the 9/11 attacks? And, as you talked down the stretch about building alliances, talk about what you'll do to build on those alliances and to deal with these image problems, particularly in the Islamic world.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. Listen, I've made some very hard decisions: decisions to protect ourselves, decisions to spread peace and freedom. And I understand in certain capitals and certain countries, those decisions were not popular.
You know, you said -- you asked me to put that in the context of the response on September the 11th. The first response, of course, was chasing down the terror networks, which we will continue to do. And we've got great response around the world in order to do that. There's over 90 nations involved with sharing information, finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. That is a broad coalition, and we'll continue to strengthen it.

I laid out a doctrine, David, that said if you harbor terrorists, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists, and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban, and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn't agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American President speaks, he'd better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people.

And, of course, then the Iraq issue is one that people disagreed with. And there's no need to rehash my case, but I did so, I made the decision I made, in order to protect our country, first and foremost. I will continue to do that as the President. But as I do so, I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make.

There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I've heard that criticism. Remember, I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East. And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.

If we are interested in protecting our country for the long-term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. And I -- I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking. And that's why during the course of the campaign, I was -- I believe I was able to connect, at least with those who were there, in explaining my policy, when I talked about the free election in Afghanistan.

There were -- there was doubt about whether or not those elections would go forward. I'm not suggesting any of you here expressed skepticism. But there was. There was deep skepticism, and -- because there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free -- they just don't long to be free or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved -- proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy. And that will be a central part of my foreign policy. And I've got work to do to explain to people about why that is a central part of our foreign policy. I've been doing that for four years.

But if you do not believe people can be free and can self-govern, then all of a sudden the two-state solution in the Middle East becomes a moot point, invalid. If you're willing to condemn a group of people to a system of government that hasn't worked, then you'll never be able to achieve the peace. You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better -- if you have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I've got one, based upon a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.

The best part of the president's strategy is his statement "if you harbor terrorists, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists." The worst part derives from his continued insistence on referrring to the enemy as "terrorism." As Victor Hanson has stated:

Applying Patton's thinking to today's situation, we can first recognize the so-called "war on terror" as a misnomer. There has never really been a war against a method other than something like Pompey's crusade against the pirates or the British effort to stifle the slave trade. In fact, we're no more in a war against terror than Patton was fighting against Tiger and Panzer tanks. Patton, who understood the hold of a radically triumphalist Nazism on a previously demoralized German people, would have the intellectual honesty to realize that we are at war with Islamic fascists, mostly from the Middle East, who have played on the frustrations of mostly male, unemployed young people, whose autocratic governments can't provide the conditions for decent employment and family life. A small group of Islamists appeals to the angst of the disaffected through a nostalgic and reactionary turn to a mythical Caliphate, in which religious purity trumps the material advantages of a decadent West and protects Islamic youth from the contamination of foreign gadgetry and pernicious ideas. In some ways, Hitler had created the same pathology in Germany in the 1930s.

The refusal by Bush to name the enemy severely constrains his actions. It implies that if only the few terrrorists and their immediate supporters go away, the enemy will be defeated. However, a recognition that the enemy is ideologically driven would imply that while the present violent representatives of the ideology must be killed or captured, the basis for any belief in the ideological goals must be completely destroyed. This is the "humiliation" that Hanson argued Patton thought necessary. And unfortunately it seems to be largely missing from our strategy.

Next I would criticise Bush's "faith in freedom." The issue is not that I believe that there's some inherent biological reason why people in the Middle East cannot be free. The issue is again, ideological. If freedom, as we understand the term, is not a value to people due to their own beliefs then they will neither seek nor accept it. This is the Libertarian mistake -- to assume that everybody would really support liberty and that no specific moral ideas are necessary to ground it. But liberty as we understand it is a completely different idea from freedom as an Islamic Fundamentalist would hold, or a Nazi or a Communist. It is not a self-evident idea. It is an intellectual achievement that the West took centuries to reach. To assume that the culture of the Middle East is such as to be presently conducive to freedom as we understand the term, is to admit one's ignorance of that culture. The fact that man needs freedom (properly understood) in order to live and live well, does not mean that any given man understands that. And in the Middle East in particular, with its numerous irrational and barbarous religious and tribal traditions, and conspiracy mentality the problem of introducing rule of law, individual rights and representative governments is a daunting one indeed. It would be helped if the existing ideas had at least been discredited and if we properly understood, were confident about, and propagated our own ideas and political system, something which has not been the case so far.

It is hoped that the Bush administration will be more agressive in its war strategy in its second term, though in some ways this is doubtful. If as Dr. Brook has argued, the administration is guided by Just War theory (for details, see here and here), then it is likely that the war will continue to be pursued by less than fully effective means. It is also hoped that we will target Iran next, an action, which as Scott Holleran has pointed out, is 25 years overdue. It remains to be seen what the administration will do. Perhaps it will surprise us.