At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Is it a “Black Thing” with the Obamas?

posted by Jack Kerwick

Anyone who has read Barack Obama’s autobiographies knows that our 44th president has had a lifelong obsession with discovering (or creating?) a racial identity for himself. He is very candid about this in his Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, his first—and more honest—memoir; indeed, Dreams is nothing more than a recounting of this odyssey, an epic journey that begins within the midst of the contradictions and ambiguities of the overwhelmingly white world in which Obama was raised and that culminates in the clarity and coherence of black Africa.

Obama, that is, is black by choice, and like any convert, he is animated by zealotry to establish himself as a “True Believer.”  If he labors under any self-delusions, they are no less the products of his choice than his “blackness” itself, for it is from Obama’s painful self-awareness that his guilt over his unfamiliarity with “the black experience” in America is begotten: the conspicuous absence in his blood line of American slaves; a black father who abandoned him when he was but a small child; the white grandparents who raised him; his upbringing, not in the “ghettos” or “hoods” of America’s “inner cities,” but the plush islands of Hawaii; the private educational institutions that he attended all throughout his life, from elementary school to law school; and the preponderance of friendships with mostly white kids growing up are among the circumstances that conspire to incessantly provoke Obama to prove his “authenticity” to black America.  This singular focus on convincing himself and others of his authentic blackness explains Obama’s aching need to recast the events of his own life, both its past and present stages, in the light of an imaginary “racism” that allegedly informs them; yet it also accounts for his conduct from before and after he was elected president.

Obama’s decisions to: become a “community organizer” in the “ghettos” of Chicago; join the church of Jeremiah Wright—an ally of Louis Farrakhan who Obama claims to have regarded as a “spiritual mentor—and remain a member in good standing for over twenty years; attend Farrakhan’s “Million Man March”; work closely with ACORN, a corrupt organization responsible for extorting from banks loans for aspiring “low-income” (read: black) property owners;  and, in spite of conceding his ignorance of the facts of the situation, express sympathy for his black friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., while castigating the white police officers with whom Gates had an encounter, are just some of the deeds that reflect Obama’s burning desire to achieve security in his “blackness.”

Yet there are other, more subtle actions that our president has taken that could very well be just as driven by this desire.  For the time being, we can leave to one side Obama’s signature policy position on “Health Care Reform,” his nationalization of significant swaths of the banking and automobile industries, and his attempts to design energy policy around the fiction of “Global Warming,” all of which promise to effect a massive redistribution of resources from “the haves” to “the have not’s,” from whites to non-whites, from Americans and Westerners to non-Americans and non-Westerners.  Such policies are “reparations” by other names and Obama knows it, but the engagements (or disengagements) that betray his fervor to prove his “blackness” have none of the grandiosity of these.

Whether it is his near obsequiousness regarding Islamic nations; his steadfast refusal to secure the southern border and comparably steadfast resolve to insure that neither Arizona nor any other border state realize that goal; the coolness of his reception of such traditional, Eurocentric American allies as England and Israel and corresponding affection for an assortment of Latin American, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries; his reluctance to grant General Petraeus’s request for tens of thousands of additional American soldiers in Afghanistan; his complicity in the left’s smear campaign of the Tea Party as “racist”; his irresponsible and baseless insinuations that Arizona’s latest efforts to address the violent ravages of illegal immigration are the function of nothing other than “racist” and “anti-immigrant” sentiment; his appointment of various leftwing radicals to positions in his cabinet and the Supreme Court; his Justice Department’s decision to refrain from prosecuting not just thugs from the New Black Panther Party who had been caught on video intimidating and threatening white voters who would dare to vote for John McCain over Obama, but, according to one of its attorneys, any black defendants accused of victimizing whites;  his frequent golf outings and other holidays—including his wife’s much publicized extravagant vacation to Spain; and his choice to mark a radical departure from a cherished American tradition of presidents appearing at Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day last year to honor the dead by sending his vice-president in his stead are, I contend, the equivalent of “code words,” acts designed to convey to “people of color” around the world that the Obamas are in solidarity with them. 

In his first memoir, Obama says that he stopped “advertising” his mother’s race when he was still a young boy of twelve or 13, for he feared that in so doing, he would “ingratiate” himself to whites.  Think not that this fear has eased.  In fact, it is likely that it has only intensified, for even with his unrivaled sophistical skills Obama could never persuade himself that he doesn’t owe his current position to the white vote.  The country remains, much to the left’s chagrin, predominantly white.  If Obama loses enough white support, which he already has, his prospects of getting re-elected are nil.  He needs whites, and so he is desperate to alter the growing perception that he is biased against them (thus, the readiness with which Obama urged the termination of Shirley Sherrod when her derogatory comments concerning a white farmer first surfaced), yet this need is outflanked by his need to perceive himself, and to be perceived by others, as “authentically black,” and so he is hypersensitive to giving the impression that he needs whites. 

I am convinced that my analysis of the Obamas is on target.  But even if my speculations should run aground, is it really that unfair to ask whether, with the Obamas, all of this doesn’t ultimately boil down to a “black thing?”

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

Tips for the Republican Voter

posted by Jack Kerwick

As the presidential campaign for 2012 gets under way, conservatives, libertarians, and others typically disposed to vote for Republican candidates would do themselves a good turn to bear a few things in mind as we enter the next election cycle.

Every candidate in the Republican primaries is going to exhaust themselves trying to convince voters of the impeccability of their “conservative” credentials.  And in the run up to the general election, the GOP nominee will continue to insist upon his or her unqualified commitment to “limited government,” “the Constitution,” “individualism,” “the free market,” and the like. 

All of this, of course, is to be expected.  Just as expected, though, is that during neither the primaries nor any time prior to election day will we hear a peep from any of the candidates on the need for, say, “compromise” or “bi-partisanship.”  We will not be treated to lectures of the kind to which condescending Republicans have been subjecting us since this last November when Republicans reacquired control of the House.  Since then, we have been “reminded” endlessly of the need to recognize that Republicans still only occupy “one half of one-third” of the government.  But worry not: no more cautionary notes of this sort will be issued from this point forward—until after the election, of course.

This is one consideration to which the voter should attend, for perhaps he can spend this time both recalling for the candidates the excuses that House Republicans have given for failing to execute their pledges since they took office in November and pressing them to specify details as to how they will follow through with their promises in the event that they meet formidable Democratic resistance.     

There is another consideration that deserves the voter’s focus.

Talk radio and FOX News personalities styling themselves the guardians of “conservative” orthodoxy will debate amongst themselves as to which of the candidates within the field are and are not truly “conservative.”  As the voter beholds these discussions, he should pay meticulous attention to the criteria by which the pundits evaluate the “conservatism” of the candidates.  What he discovers may surprise him.

By the lights of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and most of their colleagues in the so-called “alternative media,” a genuine “conservative” is, first and foremost, a proponent of “strong national defense.”  Now, if you are wondering what is distinctively, much less uniquely, “conservative” about such a position, you should be, for this is a bumper sticker slogan plain and simple, a pep rally expression just as vapid as the plethora of such expressions that Republicans routinely bandy about to distinguish their party from that of their opponents. 

Outside of anarchists, and maybe not even then, no one disfavors a “strong national defense.”  But the “national defense” of which the pundits on the right speak, it is crucial to realize, isn’t the same thing that the average person has in mind when he hears this phrase.  For the average person, national defense consists simply in the government’s pursuing the one engagement that everyone expects for it to pursue: the protection of the citizens of the United States.  For the average person, this in turn means that the government must defend the country from those who would seek to undermine it. 

This, though, is not what “the conservative” means when he talks of “national defense.”  Ironically, his episodic explosions of indignation over our porous southern border—which only seem to occur when the government’s agents begin their push for amnesty—put into question whether he is even all that concerned about border patrol. No, when the guardian of “conservative values” demands a “strong national defense,” what he demands is an ever larger military to involve itself in an ever greater number of countries throughout the world.

Although one wouldn’t know it given all of his criticism of the pro-lifer for allegedly being a “one issue” voter, it is the establishment Republican “conservative” who judges candidates on the basis of whether they endorse his foreign policy vision.  A real conservative, as far as he is concerned, believes that it is America’s mission to export “Democratic” values to the world—even if this means, as it usually means, deploying the United States military to do so.

Two comments are in order here, the one an observation, the other its implication. 

First, with the sole exception of Ron Paul, it appears that every Republican presidential candidate, actual and potential, is committed to promoting a “Democratic Revolution” the globe over.  Their affirmation of “American Exceptionalism,” “Human Rights,” “the War on Terror,” and so forth, is exactly an affirmation of this commitment.

Second, because the punditry class defines “conservatism” primarily in terms of this foreign policy position, and because all of the candidates—again, with the exception of Ron Paul—endorse this position, it follows that the “debates” that will ensue between Republicans over the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis “conservatism” are, in a word, contrived. 

That the debates are, for the most part, scripted, is seen by the manner in which Ron Paul’s rejection of the script is treated.  Paul, the voter will note, is never, ever characterized as a “conservative” by Republican pundits and office holders.  Granted, it isn’t that he is necessarily always derided and mocked; but the “conservative” commentator will be sure to call him a “libertarian.” The idea here is that anyone who rejects the GOP’s robust, militaristic foreign policy, however devout a Christian he may be, or however resolved he may be to honoring—and restoring—the Constitution, such a person might be any number of things, but he is no conservative.          

The right-leaning voter should be mindful of these truths so that he may avoid being taken for the same sucker for which the Republican Party has taken him for far too long.

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

originally published at The New American

The Neoconservative Philosophy

posted by Jack Kerwick

Although it had been in circulation for decades, it was only during the tenure of our last president that the term “neoconservatism” really gained traction.  It is a funny thing, this word, for while it was a Jewish intellectual, Irving Kristol, who first coined it, those to whom it was ascribed would alternately embrace it or, which was more frequently the case, eschew it as “anti-Semitic.”

Whether “anti-Semitism” is or ever was a meaningful concept is a matter with which we needn’t concern ourselves.  What we know is that it is commonly equated with anti-Jewish animus.  The point I wish to make here is that not only is it illegitimate to view the word “neoconservatism” as the function of this sort of animus, but it is wrong to think that it is a pejorative term of any sort.    

Neoconservatism is a distinctive political orientation.  In fact, not only is it distinct from what I will call the classical conservative tradition, it is fundamentally different in kind from the latter. 

We have a tendency to define political orientations in terms of the specific policy positions typically associated with them.  For example, a “liberal” is someone who supports “abortion rights,” “labor unions,” expansive “welfare” entitlements, etc. while a “conservative” opposes abortion and favors “limited government” and a “strong national defense.”  But the identity of any political orientation really comes into focus once we look beyond the substance of the policy prescriptions to the formal philosophical suppositions that inform them.

Epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy are three branches of philosophy.  The first is the study of knowledge.  Those who specialize in epistemology concern themselves with such questions as: What is knowledge? Is it attainable and, if so, how do we attain it?  Ethics is the study of morality.  Ethicists analyze such basic moral concepts as obligation, right, good, evil, virtue, and a host of other topics constitutive of the moral life.  Political philosophy, as the name suggests, is the exploration of politics.  Characteristic political philosophical questions are: What kind of entity is the state?  What is or should be the relationship between the government and the citizen?

Upon analyzing neoconservatism, what we discover is that epistemologically, ethically, and political philosophically, it is much more akin to what is commonly called “liberalism” than it is the classical conservatism of which Edmund Burke is said to be the “patron saint.”


From the neoconservative’s conception of America as a “propositional” or “creedal” nation—a nation erected upon an idea—we can derive his conception of reason.  For the neoconservative, Reason stands over and above culture and tradition.  It is owes nothing to contingency.  There is one and the same Intellect for all rational beings, regardless of time and place. This, of course, doesn’t mean that all people possess equal intellectual facility; what it means is that if there was such equality, then all rational minds would converge seamlessly upon the same ideas.    

The neoconservative is, in other words, a Rationalist.  As such, he is of a piece with leftist Rationalists of various sorts who for the last couple centuries or so have insisted upon the competence of unaided Reason to supply “solutions” to all of life’s problems.

However, this Rationalism of which neoconservatism is the most recent expression is exactly that intellectual fashion against which classical conservatism originally emerged as the distinctive tradition that it is.  It was the Rationalist’s substitution of an omniscient, omnipotent Reason for an omniscient, omnipotent God that inspired Burke and the like to formulate what has since been known as conservatism.  


The neoconservative’s idea of Reason is inseparable from his ethics and his political philosophy.  Let’s look at the former first.

The abstract, universal, omnipotent Reason at the center of the neoconservative’s epistemological scheme provides access to moral principles that are equally abstract and universal.  That is, morality, for the neoconservative, is comprised first and foremost of principles, whether they are called “Human Rights,” “Liberty,” “Equality,” “Freedom,” or whatever. These are principles that, because they are held to be accessible to all rational beings, are self-evident. 

Now, principles are indispensable to any morality; there is nothing distinctive, much less controversial, about a moral vision allotting room for principles.  But the rationalist morality of the neoconservative both assigns principles a central position as well as regards them as timeless.  Since that which is timeless by definition transcends time, what this implies is that the moral principles of the neoconservative transcend tradition, habit, and custom. 

In short, these moral principles owe nothing to just those things that classical conservatives have regarded as the sources of moral inspiration and character formation.  Principles, as I said, are important.  Yet to concede this much is most certainly not endorse the neoconservative’s understanding of principles.  Rather, for the classical conservative, far from subsisting in advance of tradition, moral principles are abstracted from it.  That is, moral principles stand in relation to traditions of conduct the way that grammatical principles stand in relation to living languages: before there are principles there must first be a tradition to give them life.

Political Philosophy

The neoconservative views the state—or what is more customarily referred to as “the nation-state”—as a certain kind of association, what the conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott called an “enterprise association.”  An association of this kind is determined by its end or goal, a substantive state of affairs toward the realization of which all of the associates are expected to contribute.  In the case of the state, this goal has been variously defined: Equality, Freedom, Security, Piety, Prosperity, and Virtue are just some of the candidates that have been submitted. 

When the neoconservative erroneously speaks of it in terms of a system of “free enterprise,” he reveals his bias in favor of this reading of the state.  If this is what the state is, then its end is Prosperity or Affluence.  More telling, however, is the neoconservative’s penchant for conceiving the state, or at least the American state, as a Democracy. 

In one sense, of course, the United States is a democracy.  The neoconservative’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, “democracy” refers to nothing more or less than the terms in which authority is constituted; it does not refer to the engagements that a state will or should pursue.  “Democracy,” in other words, is a certain kind of procedure.  It has nothing to do with the results that a government will seek to produce.  Democracy could give us Ron Paul or Barack Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas.  So, those who think that only a faux democratic system could catapult a terrorist into office are sorely mistaken as to what democracy is.

An enterprise association is incompatible with the freedom and liberty that our Constitution was designed to supply and secure, for the members of an enterprise association are not free to pursue their own ends but, rather, are required to part with some of their resources in order to pursue the end of the collective enterprise. 

The classical conservative knows this.  This is why he sees in the Constitution, at least as it was originally conceived, the terms, not of an enterprise association, but of a civil association. 

Neoconservatism is a distinctive way of attending to politics, but it is eons apart from classical conservatism.    

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

originally published at The New American

Caution: Misology-Free Zone

posted by Jack Kerwick

If, as the eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant had noted, the hatred of reason is “misology,” then he who is guilty of misology is a misologist.   While this language is no longer in vogue (if it ever was), there can be no question that the misologist remains as salient a figure in our day as he was in Kant’s.  Upon reading some of the comments made to my postings on this blog, anyone with any doubts on this score would have them decisively, irrevocably, put out to pasture.

Due either to the lack of ability or will, some people are indisposed to reason.  Argumentation gives way to misrepresentations and, especially, insults.  Because, to my great shame, I am not above repaying harm with harm, I am going to remove the temptation to do so.

Tomorrow is the first day of a new month.  Beginning tomorrow, I will not permit ad hominem attacks against either myself or any other contributor to the discussions that unfold on this blog.  What this means is that in addition to banning ordinary apolitical insults—“idiot,” “moron,” etc.—such choice terms of abuse as “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “fascist,” “Nazi,” “Islamophobia,” “anti-Semitism,” and all such standard Politically Correct weapons of mass character destruction will also be proscribed.  We can discuss these conversation-stoppers, these spoilers of the well of discourse; indeed I have every intention of so doing.  But in the interest of clear thought and constructive and civil discourse, I will not allow them to any longer be enlisted in the service of intimidating and bullying those with whom the bullies—i.e. the misologists—disagree.    

Those lacking in intellectual prowess will doubtless find this ban on name-calling intolerably restrictive.  Fortunately, for their sakes, they are free to start their own blogs where misology can run wild. But as for At the Intersection of Faith and Culture, it is a misology-free zone.    


Previous Posts

Abortion Reconsidered
Judith Jarvis Thomson is a veteran philosopher who, several decades ago, penned a thought-provoking essay that features in virtually all of the contemporary texts used in college-level ethics courses. Her objective is to show that what she takes to be the standard argument against abortion fails to

posted 8:08:09pm Sep. 30, 2014 | read full post »

ISIS: How You Know It's All Hype II
Recently, I cautioned my fellow Americans against falling for the notion that the so-called “Islamic State” is among the gravest threats, or any threat, that the United States had ever encountered. I noted that if the hyperbolic cries of politicians and their media propagandists in both parti

posted 8:37:02pm Sep. 27, 2014 | read full post »

ISIS: How You Know It's All Hype
There is much talk about “the Islamic State,” or “ISIS,” or “ISIL,” or whatever we are calling it. To listen to the talking heads, both Democrats and Republicans, one could be forgiven for thinking that these 15,000 or so Muslim butchers are the biggest threat that the Western world has

posted 8:05:29pm Sep. 24, 2014 | read full post »

The Politically Incorrect (?!) Language of the Politically Correct
It would seem that the Enlightened, i.e. those whose moral sensibilities are offended by the name of “Redskins” for a professional sports team, want to purge our language of every “racist,” “sexist,” “classist,” “imperialist,” “colonialist,” and “homophobic” word. The

posted 5:10:35pm Sep. 22, 2014 | read full post »

History, Not Ideology, is Our Guide for Iraq
While listening to Bill Bennett’s radio program the other morning, a caller, respectfully, yet passionately, expressed his incredulity over the fact that anyone continues to take the Bill Kristols and Max Boots (and, by implication, the Bill Bennetts) of the world seriously when it comes to issues

posted 8:13:07am Sep. 18, 2014 | read full post »

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.