At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

The Debt Ceiling Deal: A Victory for President Obama

posted by Jack Kerwick

The highly publicized debt ceiling debate has drawn to a close.  Politicians and commentators from both political parties are hailing this as a victory for the Tea Party.

I am not so sure. In fact, I am disposed to judge this a victory for President Barack Obama. 

According to the conventional narrative, Obama is the big loser in all of this because, as Pat Buchanan said, the Republicans, thanks to the Tea Partiers, achieved some of what they wanted while Obama and the Democrats received virtually nothing in return.  The President originally demanded an unconditional increase in the debt ceiling.  Then, when he recognized that this wasn’t going to occur, he indicated a willingness to negotiate some spending cuts while insisting upon tax increases.  The Republicans, though, held firm, and in the end, Obama conceded to spending cuts in spite of having abandoned his hope for any tax hikes.

This wisdom, I am afraid, is but a species of wishful thinking at best, deception at worst.

There is no way that Obama could not have known that a Republican-controlled House of Representatives would under no circumstances agree to raise the debt ceiling in the absence of conditions.  And it is doubtful that he had much confidence that Republicans would endorse any proposals involving overt tax hikes.  Yet so that he could obtain at least a good measure of his heart’s desire while perpetuating the myth of Obama the Great Conciliator of conflicting partisan interests, the President began this series of negotiations with requests that he knew were unrealistic.

But it can’t be accentuated enough that, far from getting “nothing” from the debt deal, Obama received no inconsiderable amount of what he wants. 

First and most obvious, Obama achieved a raise in the debt ceiling.  This means that now there are more resources available for he and his fellow partisans to deploy in their task to “fundamentally transform”America, as Obama promised while on the campaign trail in 2008.

Second, real spending cuts are immediate spending cuts.  So-called “projected” or “future” spending cuts are nothing more or less than potential spending cuts.  However, as both experience and logic readily reveal, practically speaking, potentiality is nothingness. Within the next two years, Republicans managed to secure approximately 60 billion dollars in spending cuts.  When it is considered that Obama will have at his disposal 900 billion new dollars over this same period, and when we remember that the national debt is in the trillions, it becomes obvious that Republicans are guaranteed virtually nil. 

Third, along with a motley crew of irresponsible journalists and pundits in the media, Obama succeeded in promoting the lie that a failure to raise the debt ceiling is tantamount to a default on our debt obligation.  In reality, the two are entirely distinct.  But reality hasn’t anything at all to do with the perception that during his tenure, Obama averted economic Armageddon by compromising just enough to get the debt ceiling raised.

Fourth, Republicans cheer and herald this resolution as a victory for the Tea Party.  Democrats in Washington and the media tend to characterize this as a win for the Tea Party as well, but in contrast to their opponents, they have depicted the Tea Party as having pursued their goals at the expense of the country.  In the meantime, Obama openly laments that he was forced to consent to terms for which he lacks all enthusiasm.  When stocks are plummeting and the world’s confidence in America’s ability to get her financial house in order continues to deteriorate as our economy worsens—as it is guaranteed to do (at least) until the next election—Obama’s somberness casts the Tea Partiers and the Republicans in the role of Nero, the tyrant who fiddled while Rome burned. 

In short, when this deal proves to be for naught (vis-à-vis the economy), Obama can remind voters that, as Republicans are repeatedly informing us, this was the Tea Party’s deal.  We tried it their way, he will doubtless say, and it only made matters worse. So Obama will have found himself a new scapegoat for the problems that he has created during his time in the White House.

Fifth, by being able to now shift responsibility off of himself and onto the Tea Partiers and Republicans, Obama can kill a second bird with this same stone.  He can now use the worsening economy as a pretext for pushing through the remainder of his socialist agenda.  This just might work too, for recall, Americans originally voted for Obama and the Democrats because of their belief that it was primarily the Republicans who were responsible for having brought the country to the precipice of financial ruin.  Obama and company, exploiting the perception that the Democrats were generally more trustworthy when it comes to matters of economic significance, convinced an economically and politically illiterate electorate that it was the Republicans’ “tax breaks for the rich” and their support of a “deregulated market” that explains the mess that Obama “inherited.”  As the economy further erodes in the wake of this latest “Tea Party victory,” it won’t be too terribly difficult for Obama and an exceptionally Democrat-friendly media to push this line again. 

Sixth, the debt deal proposes cuts in the military budget.  This pleases both Obama’s left-wing constituents as well as some on the non-neoconservative right—including and especially the much coveted “independents.”

Finally, in spite of all of the talk we have heard from Republicans regarding the dreadful “Obamacare” and their pledge to defund and repeal this Leviathan, it is not so much as touched upon in the latest debt deal.  In other words, Obama gets to keep his signature landmark program (at least for now). 

Republicans tell us that this is as good a deal as they could get given that they control “only one-half of one-third of the government.”  If we really want to restore “fiscal sanity” toWashington, then we need to regain control of the Senate and the White House in 2012.  A couple of brief remarks on this line of reasoning are in order.

First, it is deceptive, for it suggests, and is designed to suggest, that the Republicans have less power than they really do.  The three branches of our government are the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.  Only the legislative and executive branches have anything to do with this debt ceiling issue.  So, while the Republicans do indeed control one-half of one-third of the government, the Democrats control, not everything that is left over, as this argument is meant to imply, but half of the government.  Of course, the numbers here are not nearly as important as we may be misled to think, for that “one-half of one-third” of the government that the Republicans control is the House—exactly that chamber of congress where all spending originates.  To control the House of Representatives is to wield much power.

Second, those Republican politicians and pundits who are now “reminding” the rest of us about how constrained they currently are didn’t issue any of these condescending, disingenuous cautionary tales in the weeks and days leading up to the November election of 2010.  No one said then that if Republicans only take control of the House, they would never be able to arrive at any deal on spending that wouldn’t be better than the one they now have. 

So, my advice to Republican and Tea Party voters is to force those Republicans running for office in 2012 to specify, not just what they want to do in order to restore “limited,” constitutional government, but how they plan on doing it. 

For now, though, we must accept the brute fact that this debt deal, far from being a victory for the Tea Party, is a victory for Obama. 

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. 






The Debt Ceiling Deal: A Victory for the Tea Party?

posted by Jack Kerwick

It appears that Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the White House, have arrived at agreement on the debt ceiling.  To sum it all up: the debt ceiling will be raised (shocker there) and Armageddon will be averted!  Both Republicans and Democrats are claiming victory for their respective sides.  

All of this was more than just a bit predictable. Republicans swore that they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless Democrats in turn swore not to raise taxes.  Presumably, then, Republicans believed that we could afford not to raise the debt ceiling, that the alternative to not doing so, though perhaps not all that pleasant, would nevertheless be tolerable.  At the same time, they continually told us that unless they agreed to raise the debt ceiling, world-wide economic catastrophe would ensue.  So, the debt ceiling would have to be raised.    

Once Republicans reduced their position to a logical impossibility by simultaneously claiming that it is necessary to raise the debt limit and that it is not necessary to raise it, it should have been clear to all with eyes to see and ears to hear that along with their ostensible foes the Republicans had every intention on increasing the debt ceiling.

Considering the Republicans’ track record, it would be foolish to expect otherwise, would it not?  President Obama and the Democrats are unmitigated proponents of a robust Welfare State.  This conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Party activists know all too well. What we do not know as well, however, what we need to be reminded of at every turn—especially now—is that the GOP, the party of “limited government,” is no less committed to sustaining—and growing—the Welfare State. 

Obama famously pledged to “fundamentally transform”America.  His opponents have seized upon this remark as proof that our “historic” president holds the United States in low regard, and that it is from this contempt toward his own country that his desire to remake it in the image of a Western European (socialist) state is born.  Now, that Obama has disdain for the Anglo traditions of liberty in which American was conceived and nurtured can be denied only by those who choose not to recognize it.  Equally certain is that he does indeed seek to “fundamentally transform” our country by stamping out even those few remaining vestiges of our Founders’ vision for the Republic that they bequeathed to their posterity. 

However, as of yet, at any rate, Obama hasn’t come nearly as close to achieving his professed goal as did his immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush. 

Bush never vowed to “fundamentally transform” America, it is true.  Yet our 43rd president and his Republican-controlled Congress made profound and abrupt contributions to the bi-partisan project of transforming theUnited States from the association of free agents that it was originally intended to be to the association of servants that it is rapidly becoming. 

Bush not only never slashed a single government program, let alone a whole agency; he expanded what programs there were, added new programs of his own, and created entire bureaucracies.  For example, just when you thought the states couldn’t be more subservient to the federal government than they already are, along comes Bush’s signature “No Child Left Behind,” a law that, far from divesting the Department of Education of just a modicum of its vast power, further enriched its resources.

Yet this was just the beginning of his agenda of “Compassionate Conservatism.” 

Bush’s “Faith-Based Initiatives” rendered religiously-centered charitable organizations that had always been private and voluntary subject to the mercies of the federal government.  In light of the fact that it was this president that further eroded the autonomy of religious institutions, it is more than just a little ironic that Bush’s critics not infrequently blasted the president for what they deemed to be excessive displays of his religiosity.  But the irony is compounded when it is considered that it was also the “pro-life” Bush who was the first to extend federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a move that, by contradicting the central claim of the enemies of abortion—i.e. the fetus is a human life—substantially weakened the anti-abortion cause.

Many apologists for Bush have justified both his declaration of a “War on Terror” as well as the means by which he has prosecuted it—two wars, one in Afghanistan, the other in Iraq; “the Department of Homeland Security”; and an expansion of the state’s police powers in general—by pointing to the events of September 11, 2001.  “We were attacked!” they will shout, as if the president’s critics weren’t as impacted by that horrific day as anyone else, and as if Bush’s response to those attacks is self-evidently right.  But by declaring war on an abstraction, the president essentially set his nation on a course for a war in perpetuity, for terror there has always been and will always be.  A genuine lover of freedom, though, will engage in war only when absolutely necessary, for he is painfully aware of the reality, both historical and political, that a government is most inimical to freedom when it is at war.   As Rahm Emmanuel famously (or infamously) said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste;” well, war is the mother of all crises, and a war on an abstraction like “terror” is a crisis from which, in principle, relief is sought in vain.

On this topic, much more can be said.  For now, though, suffice it to say that while Bush was undoubtedly concerned to insure that Americans never again had to endure an attack on their soil under his watch, the measures that he appropriated toward the end of realizing that objective were, at the very least, fundamentally misplaced.  The most cost-effective, reliable, and, most importantly, constitutional means to secure Americans against terrorist attacks would have been to, one, seal our porous borders and, two, radically revise our current immigration policy so as to render it vastly stricter than it is at present.  However we would have decided to do this, the point is that Bush did not do it.  Instead, he pursued an aggressive plan of inflating the Welfare State both at home and abroad.

There is much more that Bush and his Republican colleagues did during his tenure that time and spatial constraints preclude me from recounting.  Hopefully, the reader’s memory of their abysmal record on the issue of “limited government” is now refreshed sufficiently to recognize why only a sucker would uncritically (or even critically, for that matter) trust this current Republican congress to deliver on their promise to drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government by acting in accordance with their rhetoric.     

So as to avoid involving myself in any of the quarrels that are now transpiring over the many staggering numbers that have been thrown around throughout this debt ceiling debate, I will further justify my skepticism toward the Republicans by adding this one simple observation. 

Notice, for all of the talk of spending cuts of which this deal is allegedly replete, we haven’t heard of one program, let alone an agency, that is going to be cut. 

No, I suspect that this widely heralded “Tea Party victory” is but the latest instance of political theatre at its best. 

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. 











Reflections on Hell and Evil

posted by Jack Kerwick

Not too long ago, I received word that someone from my old neighborhood had died prematurely.  While discussing the matter with another old acquaintance, the latter confidently asserted his belief that the deceased was now enjoying his eternal reward.  I replied: “We can hope.”

The truth is, for as well-intentioned as my interlocutor undoubtedly was, I regarded his sentiment and the certitude with which he expressed it as the function of a Biblical illiteracy that pervades our culture.  Had the person to whom he referred been known for his Christian virtue or even a more general Godliness, I doubtless would have found my old friend’s remarks less noteworthy.  Yet even when it comes to the passing of those recognized as having lived decent lives, the ease with which untold numbers of self-styled Christians unhesitatingly suppose that they will inherit theKingdomofGodis a curious phenomenon deserving of comment.

From a psychological perspective, it is no mystery why most people—including most Christians—are disposed to uncritically reject as unthinkable the traditional Christian notion that the godless will be subjected to God’s wrath in the afterlife.  Such a notion induces in us no small measure of discomfort; more to the point, it pains us, for there is nothing more terrifying than the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being visiting his justice upon us.

Sociologically speaking, it is also no wonder why in the contemporary Western world generally, and the United States in particular, the idea of a wrathful God would be unpalatable.  When Jesus informed His disciples that only those who passed through “the narrow gate” would enter the Kingdom of Heaven, He was doing nothing more or less than reiterating the central theme of His ministry, namely, that only those who believed in Him would have eternal life. Now, this wasn’t a tough sell in a religiously homogenous, exclusively Christian culture.  Yet in the sort of “multicultural,” militantly secular society in which we reside, matters are obviously otherwise, for in our quest for peaceful co-existence, prudence would seem to dictate relegating the idea of a judgmental, wrathful God to the dustbin of history.  

But from a theological vantage point, it really is quite puzzling that any Christian so much as remotely familiar with his religious heritage would even consider banishing the idea of Divine Judgment from his mind.  From the book of Genesis to that of Revelations, his Sacred Scriptures speak with a single voice on this issue: God is Mercy itself, yes, but He is also Justice. 

And Justice demands that each person receives his due. 

What this means, though, is simply that those who insist on rejecting Christ will be deprived of eternal life while those who affirm Him will enjoy it.

Although Christianity is clear enough on this score, Christians continue to quarrel amongst themselves as to what exactly this means.  So, the reader ought to guard against either drawing any hasty conclusions from this assertion or assuming that its’ meaning is straightforward.  There are several considerations to bear in mind.

First, since only one who has had the opportunity to embrace Christ could either affirm or reject Him, those who haven’t had such opportunity in this life will not thereby be deprived of it in the next. To lack a belief in “X” is not synonymous with disbelieving it.  For example, that I do not believe that you have a friend named so-and-so doesn’t necessarily mean that I disbelieve it; I may not believe it only because I know neither you nor any of your friends.  Non-belief is one thing; unbelief is something else.   

Second, if God can reach out to non-believers in a post-Earthly mode of existence, then it isn’t at all unreasonable to think that perhaps He will as well use it to provide unbelievers another chance to set things right.  This, after all, is what the Catholic notion of “purgatory” is all about.

Third, that affirming and rejecting Christ consist in the fully conscious production of explicit statements of one’s faith is anything but the axiomatic proposition that many Christians—Protestant, Evangelical Christians, especially—take it to be.  That is, a person who never expressly proclaimed Jesus as his Lord and Savior may very well be more Christ-like in his conduct than one who has.  Conversely, a person who gives glory to Christ with his lips may habitually betray Him with his deeds.

The nature of genuine belief and the relationship between belief and conduct are particularly complex issues.  Fortunately, we need not explore them here.  However Christians decide to understand the specific terms in which God will judge us, the point is that they must understand that God will judge us. 

Along with such concomitant ideas as evil, the idea of Hell has fallen on hard times indeed.  In fact, I suspect that it is largely because talk of evil has subsided that talk of Hell has as well.  As a practicing Catholic, I can assure you that except for when the members of my congregation collectively renew their baptismal promises, the language of both “Hell” and “evil” is conspicuously and consistently absent from the pulpit.  On the other hand, the idiom of “compassion,” “equality,” and “social” and “economic justice” is abundant.

Yet the benefits to be reaped from the Christian’s revisiting his tradition can’t be overestimated.

God’s compassion is a reality to which no Christian should be oblivious.  However, neither do Christians achieve as clear an understanding as they could of God’s character and the life He calls us to live unless they also comprehend His abhorrence of evil and the wrath that He reserves for those who purvey it.

In addition to the intellectual reward of reacquainting himself with the concepts of Hell and evil, there is as well a moral return of inestimable worth.  The Christian is called by his God to be a light unto the world, to “overcome evil with good,” as Christ said.  The Christian is no less impervious to the seduction of evil than anyone else, but his confidence that the Godly and the evildoer will indeed alike one day receive their just desserts is a powerful spur to strengthen his resolve in his pursuit of moral excellence.

Third and finally, in regaining the knowledge of a just God, the Christian will have some inkling of what to expect in the wake of his death—something he will never have as long as he continues to be treated to sermons on “social justice.”

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.   



American Exceptionalism: Setting the Record Straight

posted by Jack Kerwick

Dean Malik has been busy fending off critics of his “Identity Politics: the denial of American Exceptionalism,” which American Thinker published a few weeks ago.  I am among those critics. I will focus on what Malik had to say about my remarks in his,“An American First, Always, and Last: a Response to Critics.”

My rebuttal is divided into three sections.  In the first I respond to the specific charges that Malik made against my arguments.  In the second, I correct his mischaracterization of Burke.  In the third, I draw the reader’s attention to three of our nation’s Founders—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin—in order to show that when it comes to the issues of race, ethnicity, and religion, they shared the sensibilities of their contemporaries, not the politically correct sympathies of ours.  

I select these three Founders for two reasons.  First, time and space constraints prevent me from extending the list indefinitely—as I effortlessly could have done.  Second, given Malik’s enthusiasm over what he calls “American Exceptionalism” (AE, from now on), who better to refute his view than “the Father of our country” (Washington), the author of the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson)—that document upon which all champions of AE root their doctrine—and he who remains famous for his liberality, philanthropy, and opposition to slavery, Franklin.

Bogus Criticisms

Malik begins his response to me by claiming that my argument rapidly “devolves into a somewhat obtuse discussion of the origins of classical liberalism (today known as conservatism) in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, peppered with a few ad hominem attacks, strained analogies, oddly out-of-place references, and a few factual errors.” 

Let us begin with the last charge first.

There is one “factual error” to which I admit: I wrongly identified Charles Murray, author of the controversial, The Bell Curve, as Jewish.  Murray, several readers were quick to inform me, is Scots-Irish.  This error on my part is easy to explain.  You see, Murray co-authored this study of IQ with Richard Herrnstein.  I had simply (but, admittedly, sloppily) thought of the latter while I mentioned the former.  Yet not only was this mistake honest enough, it is also negligible, both in itself and relative to the blunders that pervade Malik’s work.

Other than this, there isn’t a single other “factual error” for which I am responsible.  At the very least, there are none that Malik identified.  And his failure to substantiate this charge is just as complete as his failure to substantiate every other charge that he levels against me.

Next, let us turn to Malik’s accusation that my essay was “peppered with” ad hominem assaults. 

It is indeed strange that someone as determined as Malik is to cast aspersions against Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow, men who, to his own admission, possess both “erudition and civility,” and Steve Sailer, who he concedes has both a stellar “wit” and a “good nature” to match, should be so ready to accuse me of resorting to ad hominem attacks against him.  There is nothing in my reply to his original article that so much as remotely approximates the potentially devastating conviction of “white supremacy” that he unreservedly renders against, not just these writers, but, in his latest article, me.

In my last article I said of Malik that inasmuch as his account of America’s origins appears to be rooted in the same rationalistic abstractions to which Burke’s enemies—the Jacobins—subscribed, and inasmuch as this species of rationalism sets itself over and above the wisdom of the ages—“prejudice,” “prescription,” and “prejudice”—it is hubris run wild.  Thus, in endorsing it, Malik succumbs to hubris.  I also called Malik out on his uncharitable treatment of Jared Taylor and Samuel Francis.  Malik referred to them as “white nationalists” and, worse, “white supremacists” (again, while refraining from the labor of defining such emotionally-charged terms) even though his targets have explicitly rejected both labels while articulating reasons for doing so.

But these are hardly ad hominem insults.  In any event, unlike “white supremacy,” they are utterly devoid of the demagogic efficacy that Malik exploits when he attempts to stack the deck against his opponents from the outset by reducing them to a bunch of disreputable and dreaded “white supremacists.”  This is a truly disgusting tactic, the weapon of choice of intellectual bullies.  We needn’t dwell on it, though, for there are still so many weaknesses to expose in Malik’s argument but so little time to do it.  

Third on the list of spurious charges to combat are “the out-of-place references” that I reportedly made.  I admit, I don’t really know what Malik is talking about here.  I suspect that he may be speaking to my appeals to the black thinkers Thomas Sowell and Carol Swain.  However, contrary to his characterization of this move in my argument, by invoking Sowell and Swain I was not attempting to “construct a fig leaf to cover” my “naked white nationalist apologetics.” 

The problem with Malik’s take is that I have no such apologetics, a fact that my discussion of “white nationalism” should have definitively established for Malik and everyone else (in fact, I doubt very much that AT would have published any of my work had its editor suspected that I was associated with anything as nefarious as Malik evidently thinks something called “white nationalism” is).  Moreover, I mentioned the race of Sowell and Swain only to show that the empirical facts concerning race, IQ, and minority identity politics that engages the attention of the Jared Taylors (and Peter Brimelows and Steve Sailers) of the world are equally acknowledged by non-whites like Sowell and Swain.  Thus, if there is something disreputable aboutTaylorand his ilk for relying upon it, there must be something equally disreputable about Sowell’s and Swain’s doing the same.  To put it another way, ifTayloris a “white nationalist” or “white supremacist” because of the considerations that he accepts as facts, then insofar as Sowell and Swain accept these very same facts, they too must be “white nationalists” and/or “white supremacists.”  Does the reader see how very ridiculous this is becoming?

Fourth, in my interrogation of Malik’s uncritical presupposition thatAmericais “exceptional” by reason of its allegedly unique “promise of escape from tribal loyalties and hatreds” I engaged in some analogical reasoning.  If partiality toward the fellow members of one’s race and/or ethnicity is “tribal” and, thus, impermissible, then why isn’t partiality toward one’s family, spouse, friends, and nation not similarly “tribal” and, then, impermissible?  Malik dismisses these analogies as “strained.”  In reality, though, it is evidently his ability to follow an analogy that is strained, for consider his response to them. 

“Kerwick then attempts to justify tribal politics by making an analogy that leads me to believe that he actually thinks that all white Americans may be related to each other in some form of a geometrically expanded polygamous marriage, which frankly leaves me at a loss for words.”

That an applicant to law school should fail as profoundly as Malik has in following a few simple analogies is bad enough; that a practicing lawyer should do so is scandalous.  Hopefully, Malik really does grasp the crux of my point here but pretends not to in order to kill two birds with one stone: he spares himself the hard work of lifting from his shoulders the burden of actually arguing for what he assumes while making me look silly in the process.  But whether his impervious to elementary logic is born through advertence or inadvertence, he invites a most unflattering reading of himself.

Most people would have recognized that the purpose of my analogies was to put into question the unabashed and purportedly “self-evident” moral universalism that Malik supposes is the moral point of view.  For quite some time, ethicists or moral philosophers have noted and explored the tensions between, on the one hand, the idea that morality demands an impartial and universal perspective and, on the other, the fact that the stuff of which the moral life consists, that which invests our lives with meaning and makes us who we are, is the particularity of the relationships within which we find ourselves and the partiality that we experience—and believe we ought to experience—toward those with whom we have those relationships. 

In short, it is not Thomas Paine’s and the French Revolutionaries’ “the Rights of Man” that motivate most of us to aspire toward virtue.  It is, rather, our friends, spouses, parents, children, churches, and local communities—“the little platoons,” as Burke referred to these institutions that stand in between the government and the naked individual—that hold this distinction.


My “somewhat obtuse discussion of the origins of classical liberalism (today known as conservatism) in the philosophy of Edmund Burke” occupies exactly two paragraphs out of a total of 23.  Furthermore, while Burke was indeed both a liberal and a conservative in the classical senses of these terms—he was a conservative-liberal, if you will—my point in supplying all two references to him was not to supply an account of the origins of either philosophy; it was simply and solely to illustrate that this widely recognized “patron saint” of conservatism and ally of the American colonists resolutely eschewed the very same abstract metaphysical fictions upon which Malik presumably relies in order to vindicate his conception of “American Exceptionalism.”  Unfortunately, I have no option but to presume that Malik endorses this dubious vision of morality because he still refuses to define the doctrine for which he insists on being a polemicist.

Malik thinks that my “heavy reliance” on Burke (again, I make but two references to him) places me on “shaky ground.”  Why?  Malik explains: “Burke defended the concept of prejudice as a valuable social commodity and as a ready tool for decision-making, obviating the need for introspection and judgment.” As if this weren’t terrible enough, “Burke was also skeptical, if not overtly disdainful of Democracy, and argued that governing power should be vested within society’s hereditary elite, rather than within regularly elected officials from the common population.” 

First of all, Burke never contrasted “prejudice” with reason, as Malik suggests.  Rather, he contrasts the tradition-centered conception of reason that he favors with the robust, trans-historical, trans-cultural conception of “omnicompetent” Reason championed by the likes of Robespierre, Thomas Paine, and those of his opponents who typified the excesses of Enlightenment rationalism.  Burke’s more humble account of reason has elicited the endorsement of many an illustrious figure, including, in our own day, Thomas Sowell, F.A. Hayek, and the philosopher Michael Oakeshott. 

Secondly, while Burke was “skeptical, if not overtly disdainful of Democracy,” our Founding Fathers were no less distrustful and contemptuous toward it.  As Malik should well know, they were of a single mind on this issue: it was a Republic that they were determined to bequeath to their posterity, emphatically not a democracy.  And as for “the common population” that composed the electorate of the newly createdUnited States, the authors of “American Exceptionalism” made sure that it consisted exclusively of citizens who were: white; men; and property-holders.

Malik couldn’t be wider of the mark insofar as his reading of Burke is concerned.  He writes that “Burke is known chiefly for opposing the concept of natural law [.]”  But Burke no more opposed natural law than he opposed reason.  Not only is neither of these concepts self-interpreting, both admit of a staggering multiplicity of definitions.  Burke opposed the Enlightenment rationalist’s doctrine of Natural Rights.  Insofar as this doctrine relies upon a version of natural law, it goes without saying that he rejected this version of it.  He did not reject natural law as such. 

Interestingly, while Washington, “the Father of America,” and Jefferson, the father of the Declaration of Independence—the document that, embodying, as it does, “the purest expression of natural law ever formulated in a political document,” in Malik’s words, is the basis for belief in “American Exceptionalism”—continued to accumulate more black slaves, Burke, the enemy of both “the Rights of Man” and the institution of slavery was busy designing a plan for the gradual abolition of the latter. 

This observation is not intended to criticize the Founders.  It is intended to put the lie to Malik’s suggestion that it wasn’t until the establishment of Americathat “tribal loyalties and hatreds” dissipated.      


Malik’s “American Exceptionalism” centers around, not the Declaration of Independence as such, but the first line of this document.  This is important to note, for as we read just a bit beyond this line that has become ensconced in the American consciousness, we can’t help to notice that the grievances listed therein forces the abstract universalism of its most famous assertion to give way to a historically and culturally concrete morality. The Declaration, that is, reveals an internecine conflict between the English in Englandand the English in America.  Yet considering that it wasn’t their “human rights” for the sake of which it was written but, rather, their “rights as Englishmen,” this is what we should expect.   

Still, it is worth considering what Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration and, according to Malik, a co-author of “American Exceptionalism,” really thought about, say, the relationship between blacks and whites. 

Jefferson believed that blacks were by nature intellectually inferior to whites and couldn’t have been clearer as to his estimation of the prospects of their inhabiting the same country as equal citizens.  “Nothing is more certain,” he declared, than “that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.  Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

Was Jefferson a “tribalist,” we must ask Malik?  That Jefferson, not unlike virtually every one of his contemporaries, was more partial to his state (in his case,Virginia) than to the country as a whole may constitute further evidence, in Malik’s estimation, that he was.

Neither was Jefferson particularly fond of Indians (“Native Americans”), to whom he referred as “savages” within just that document that Malik thinks supplies us with “the purest expression of natural law” to which the world has ever born witness.  

What about the Father of our country, George Washington?  Surely,Washingtonheld that the members of all races, ethnicities, and religions could co-exist inAmerica, correct?  Well, during the Revolutionary War,Washingtonissued an order imposing a ban on recruiting blacks into the Continental Army.  He states: “The rights of mankind and the freedom ofAmericawill have numbers sufficient to support them without resorting to such wretched assistance”—i.e. black recruits.  At the same time, the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, issued a proclamation inviting blacks to the British side.

It is also worth noting that by the time of his death,Washingtonowned about 312 black slaves.

Benjamin Franklin, though eventually a sworn opponent of slavery, nevertheless owned slaves himself, and his newspaper regularly ran ads for slaves that were on the market.  Moreover,Franklinwas anything but timid when expressing his partiality for anAmericathe vast majority of the population of which wasn’t just European, but specifically English or “Anglo.”  Of the German immigrants flocking into his home colony,Franklinwrote:

“Why shouldPennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.” 

Germans, “not being used toLiberty…know not how to make a modest use of it [.]”

Franklin lamented that the “the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small.”  Africa is “black or tawny,” and “Asia” is “chiefly tawny.”  The peoples of Europe—“the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes,” as well as “the Germans also,” are of “a swarthy Complexion.”  In his estimation, it is only “the Saxons,” along with “the English,” that “make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.”  Of these “White People,”Franklin asserts, “I could wish their number increased.”

The reader should be mindful that it is in no way my objective here to further the leftist’s cartoonish caricature of the Founders as a bunch of villainous “racists.”  It is my objective, rather, to undermine the cartoonish caricature of the Founders that fuels the imagination of a certain segment of the right.  This caricature is a one-dimensional portrait according to which the Founders were gods—or, what amounts to the same thing, as far as this sort of rightist is concerned, 21st century-like democrats whose thought, owing nothing to contingencies of culture or time, was oblivious to racial, ethnic, and religious differences.  Upon a single abstract principle of which no one until that juncture had the slightest inkling, these bulwarks of universal Reason itself, so this story runs, erected a new Heaven on Earth. 

Thomas Sowell once quipped that ideology is just fairy tales for adults.  If so, we know what Malik’s favorite fairy tale is.

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

Previous Posts

When "Race" Riots were White--And What We Can Learn From Them
In light of the “Fergusons” that have erupted in America over the last 50 years or so, it may come as quite a surprise to many of us to learn that from the 19th century clear through to roughly the middle of the 20th, most of those responsible for initiating “race” riots were white. In 18

posted 2:07:15pm Sep. 17, 2014 | read full post »

Interracial Violence Ignored by the Media
For weeks on end, the police shooting death of a black man in Ferguson, Missouri by a white officer had managed to remain front and center on the national stage. The usual suspects in the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC) held up this incident as proof that “black men in America are under attack,”

posted 10:01:01pm Sep. 12, 2014 | read full post »

Iraq, Ideology, and Truth: Dissecting the Political Blame Game
It would be comical if the fate of our country and the world didn’t hang in the balance to watch the Democrats and their neoconservative Republican rivals point blame at one another as ISIS assumes the national stage. Some thoughts on this internecine battle between these two birds of the same

posted 10:19:44pm Sep. 11, 2014 | read full post »

The "Militarization" of the Police?
Making the rounds through libertarian (and other) circles in the wake of the police shooting death of Michael Brown is the notion that the “militarization” of local police forces is a huge problem besetting the country. Though I self-identify as a conservative, I have a considerable affection

posted 7:39:21am Sep. 04, 2014 | read full post »

Against the "Militarization" of the Police II
There’s a notion, popular among self-avowed “libertarians,” that among the largest threats facing our nation is that of “the militarization” of the police.  This idea has been expressed quite a bit as of late, particularly in the wake of the police shooting death of Michael Brown in Fergu

posted 10:43:11am Aug. 29, 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.