E Pluribus Unum

The other day, I received the November [2005] edition of the Claremont Institute's publication, The Proposition. The lead essay titled "The Crisis if American National Identity" was written by Professor Charles R. Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books -- which is nothing less than the antithesis of the New York Review of Books.

Professor Kesler's essay (which was adapted from a lecture given at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC) is excellent. Here is just the opening paragraph:

About a decade ago, when he was vice president, Al Gore explained that our national motto, e pluribus unum, means "from one, many." This was a sad day for knowledge of Latin among our political elite--and after all those expensive private schools that Gore had been packed off to by his paterfamilias. It was the kind of flagrant mistranslation that, had it been committed by a Republican, say George W. Bush or Dan Quayle, would have been a gaffe heard round the world. But the media didn't play up the slip, perhaps because they had seen Gore's Harvard grades and figured he'd suffered enough, perhaps because they admired the remark's impudence. Though literally a mistake, politically the comment expressed and honored the multicultural imperative, then so prominent in the minds of American liberals: "from one," or to exaggerate slightly, "instead of one culture, many." As such it was a rather candid example of the literary method known as deconstruction: torture a text until it confesses the exact opposite of what it says in plain English or, in this case, Latin.

It's an excellent essay. If you are interestecd in reading Professor Kesler's essay in its entirety, or subscribing to the Claremont Review of Books, contact the Claremont Institute by calling 909-621-6825.

From Bad to Worse

This article at Stratfor is deeply troubling. It is only a glimpse of the kind of negative reaction that Bolivia's new president Evo Morales and his ideologically-driven policies will provoke among the few global investors willing to even venture into Bolivia.

There will be more announcements in the coming months. What do you expect when you hike corporate taxes from 18% to 50%?

Historical Particularity

I found something tonight I never really thought I’d find, while reading the excellent monthly, First Things (January 2006). Let me explain.

For years, I’ve been convincing my parents, friends and family to go to the midnight Mass at Our Lady of Czestochowa in Turners Falls, Massachusetts (only about 20-25 minutes from Brattleboro). There, the excellent parish priest always, always, always starts complete darkness, while offering a fascinating prelude to the Mass celebrating the birth of Christ. Then, one by one, people light small candles and the priest and the altar boys march to the front while the organ and choir above sing (and I think bells are rung).

Tonight, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus offers the flowing entry in his “The Public Square,” referring precisely to what the priest in Turner’s Falls says every year. Mr. Neuhaus says:

“Christianity is not a mythology or source of elevating spiritual insights. Historical particularity is all, which is nicely underscored by the following “Proclamation of the Birth of Christ” from the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Mass:

The twenty-fifth day of December.
in the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth
year of the creation of the world
from the time when God in the beginning created the
heaven an the earth;
the two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seventh year
after the flood;
the two thousand an fifteenth year
from the birth of Abraham;
the one thousand five hundred and tenth year
from Moses
and the going forth of the people of Israel from Egypt;
the one thousand and thirty-second year
from David’s being anointed king;
in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of
Daniel;
in the one hundred and ninety-forth Olympiad;
the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the
foundation of the city of Rome;
the forty-second year of the reign of Octavian
Augustus;
the whole world being at peace
in the sixth age of the world,
Jesus Christ the ternal God and Son of the eternal
Father,
desiring to sanctify the world by his most mercifuel
coming.,
being conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and nine months having passed
since his conception,
was born in Bethlehem of Judea
of the Virgin Mary,
being made flesh.”

Not an Issue?

Some readers of my anti-surveillance camera missive (below) insist that it is not important, or that the issue is moot, or that I am basically barking up the wrong tree.

I disagree.

I think little issues (like surveillance cameras) do matter. With the passage of time, and over the course of history, these little things become established. They harden. And they end up mattering in ways we cannot foresee now.

(BTW, I was told of an article about this very issue that was published in today’s The Brattleboro Reformer.)

Some of you have also disagreed with my proposal to improve our social relations, strengthen our communities and develop a stronger, tighter, more vibrant civil society.

I think both criticisms (and others I have received) merit a thoughtful response—if only to remind some of you of the very principles which used to animate and inspire you. Frankly, I think some of you have forgotten what it is tha's been lost in many part sof the world--and what we are trying to preserve in a place like Vermont.

Surveillance

In an article in today’s Washington Post there is a story about surveillance cameras in Bellows Falls, VT ("Federal Grants Bring Surveillance Cameras to Small Towns" by David A. Fahrenthold, Thursday, January 19, 2006, Page A01) which shocked me so much, that it made me want to cry out across the Atlantic. I'll hopefully be preparing an editorial for the monthly Vermont Commons--and calling officials in Bellows Falls--in the coming days. But for the moment, please let me share some thoughts with y'all.

Basically, the Bellows Falls police department, using federal monies, has put up 16 surveillance cameras--just three less than D.C., which has 181 times more people than Bellows Falls, according to the article.

THIS is deeply troubling stuff, ladies and gentlemen, especially considering that we are talking about Vermont. I don’t know what they expect to monitor. Kids playing hooky from school? Someone running a red light? Smoking a joint? Jaywalking?

People say: “Well, those cameras are OK. As long as you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!”

OK. Fair enough. But aren't we then abdicating our collective responsibilities--as a people, as a community and as parents--to be involved in the activities of our fellow citizens, to feel responsible for the good of our communities and the behavior of our kids? Having surveillance cameras along Main Street only generates a sense of complacency among us all, and feeds into an attitude increasingly willing to depend on even MORE government.

Others people say: "Well, in this age of terrorism, we need surveillance, we need more security, we need to trade in our individual rights and curtail our freedoms so that we may feel safe."

OK. Fair enough. But in this age of global terrorism, we have to find a way to NOT fall into that [false] sense of security that big-brother government promises. Like the Communists of the 20th century, Al Qaeda is organized in cells which infiltrate, penetrate and embed themselves everywhere. The best way to fight this is NOT through top-down surveillance on our shores; it is by strengthening our social relations, by getting to know our neighbors and those around us, by contributing to a stronger civil society (think De Toqueville)--in short, by being engaged in our culture.

Like a bloated welfare state that ostensibly takes care of the poor so we don’t have to, increased surveillance--whether at the hands of local, state or federal authorities--usurps the very responsibility that we all have to ensure local safety, respect the law, maintain public order. It is up to all of us (not the State) to make sure that our children know how to behave properly, that our neighbors know how to be civil, that our communities strive to be healthy, wholesome and good.

Isn’t THIS precisely the kind of issue that could--that should--unite us, young and old, liberal or conservative, Yorker or Green Mountain Boy, Democrat or Republican? Isn’t the growth of the coercive and controlling powers of the state our common enemy? Is not the theme--the very raison d'etre--of our decrepit Republic, freedom?

Some of you may cringe when I say this but "government is the problem, NOT the solution." How many more taxes must we pay, how many more federal agencies do we need, how many more bureaucrats must we hire, how many more cameras do we need before we realize that we are, day-by-day, treading more firmly on the road to serfdom?

Or is our goal to be as overtaxed, controlled, regulated, monitored and stagnant as Europe? This is a dangerous and unwelcome development.

But I suppose easy federal money was just too good to pass up, eh Police Chief Clark?

Principled [On-Screen] Men

Wow. I just watched part of another film witch has left me with a flood of ideas related to my whole thesis that the 1960s really destroyed something beautiful in our [American] culture and around the world.

Actually, never mind that for now. Let me just assure you that I am NOT here in my apartment watching TV all day long. At times I loathe that idiot box. But I will admit that I tend to have that or the radio on most of the time as sort of background noise that sets the tone for me and my work (research and writing).

So, today, I happened to stumble across Glenn Ford in another B&W movie from the 1940s. Truth be told, I've only known who he is for a few days when I watched him and Bette Davis in "A Stolen Life" (1946) which was, er, watchable.

Today's movie was, I found out, "Young Man With Ideas" (1952). Ford acts as Maxwell Webster, a young attorney from Montana who moves to Los Angeles in search of better economic opportunities. He runs into problems and in the end clears his name and makes it. It's simply a wonderful film with some lovely co-actresses: Julie Webster, Dorianne Gray, Joyce Laramie.

I think the thing that is most thrilling about these films is the sense of values as portrayed in the lives of principled men. In fact, Glenn Ford ends up being quite a cultural model -- certainly not in real life but in his celluloid existence -- for us all. This is what one online site has about Ford:

Glenn Ford said he always played himself, and on screen he usually played easy-going, intelligent, principled men, calm under pressure. He played the kind of man American men and boys wanted to be, and American women wanted to find.

Apparently, he was quite a philanderer in real life -- but that doesn't take away from the awesome goodness represented by his onscreen character or the films they made in those days, the 1940s and 1950s. It's that lost American ideal based on character.

Thinking about these characters played by Ford reminds me a bit of something said about the Notre Dame philosopher Alasdair McIntyre whose book "After Virtue" apparently describes the loss of a common understanding of basic words -- or political symbols -- that embodied who we wanted to be as a political community. I'm talking about words like Truth and Justice and Good and Right. McIntyre apparently says that these words / concepts have lost their meaning. That using them is like trotting out grandma's rags to put on, empty and tattered with no relevance to today.

The excerpt above about the characters played by Ford also reminds me of Professor [Jeffrey] Hart's essay on "the WASP gentleman as cultural ideal," a fascinating but light romp through some of the best of America's social history, when the institutions of society transmitted certain values.

You know what's ironic?

That the other movie I saw tonight was "Pleasantville," a movie that ridicules and makes fun of 1950s America and that society of ideals and that culture of tradition. The less said about this movie the better (although I may return to give it a well-earned beating another time.)

I'll leave you all with a picture of Mr. Ford:

















We should mourn for the death of this forgotten American culture that Mr. Ford represents.

Justice and Right

I usually have the television on with the volume down, channel on a news show or one of those Merchant/Ivory productions. Today, I happened to catch the last half of a film called "The Winslow Boy" (1999).

The film was directed by David Mamet and is an adaptation of a British play by Terence Rattigan. It tells the story of a young cadet who is accused of petty theft. Set in 1910, it boasts Nigel Hawthorne as Arthur Winslow, the father of the boy, Ronnie, and Jeremy Northam as high-profile attorney Sir Robert Morton who decides to take on the defense of the Winslow boy.

This is an excellent production with an interesting legal predicament -- that both the Admiralty and the Crown cannot be sued since it is presumed that it can do no wrong.

Near the end, in a conversation between the eldest Winslow daughter, Catherine, who is an outspoken suffragette, and Sir Robert, a Conservative opposed to women's suffrage, one hears this line:

"It is easy to do justice. It is hard to do Right."

The film was released April 30, 1999. If interested, you may visit the film's Web site.

Newsless

There are no newspapers in Brussels today. Apparently there is a strike of delivery men (or is it transportation workers?). I've scanned the news this morning but I have found nothing so far.

Too bad. I had a 9:30 a.m. meeting with Matthew, my editor, who is visiting the Brussels office from Paris. While I waited for him, I was hoping to scan the news and perhaps get a few more ideas about pssible editorials that I could work on in the coming weeks.

But the shelves were empty. No dailies anywhere. Instead, and somewhat reluctantly, I picked up Time and Newsweek. Oh, well. A little junk news is sometimes sort of fun.

Right and Good and True

Today, I also happened to catch the broadcast of what I consider on first impression a truly terrible movie: "First Knight." Richard Gere as Lancelot, Sean Connery as King Arthur and other actors delivering terrible lines for semi-cartoonish figures--especially the rebel knight Malagant. Ugh!

But amid all the nonsense, it has to be admitted, there were a few good lines (in the same way that at the beginning of the film "Gladiator," Russell Crowe reminds his battle-ready men, "Remember men: what you do in life, echoes in eternity!"). Excellent stuff.

In "First Kight," there is a scene between King Arthur (Connery) and Malagant (someone unimportant):

Arthur: You know the law we live by, and where is it written, 'Beyond
Camelot live lesser people, people too weak to protect themselves, let them die?'

Malagant: Other people live by other laws, Arthur. Or is the law of Camelot to rule the entire world?

Arthur: There are laws that enslave men and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true is Right and Good and True, for all mankind, under God, ... or we're just another robber tribe!"

Prince John

Today, I happened to stumble across a re-broadcast of one of the installments of "The Lost Prince" on Masterpiece Theater (PBS). I watched this installment -- at times with tears welling up -- entirely enthralled.

This was a beautiful production of the true, heart-rending story of the youngest son of England's King George V, who spent most of his life in isolation. His older brothers -- Edward VIII and George VI -- went on to become King later on life.

The episode I watched today covered about a decade of Prince John's youth and showed how his mother -- in part, out of ignorance -- simply shut him away without understanding the epileptic seizures and other ailments he showed as a young boy.

A highly-recommended production!