Levin Defines Conservatism

As any responsible writer will, Mr. Levin, within the first several pages of Liberty and Tyranny spends some time defining his use of the word "conservatism". Levin traces the philosophy of modern conservative to, along with the philosophers mentioned in my last post, Edmond Burke, a British statesman and thinker. Burke believed in the "interconnection of liberty, free markets, religion, tradition, and authority."

The Founding Fathers believed, and according to Levin so do modern conservatives, in God-given natural rights. That's a whole other discussion. In what sense do we have have God-given rights? But for the sake of an intact summary of Levin's definition, I'll post separately on that at a later time.

Levin continues his definition by noting a conservative's recognition of a harmony of interests. This is a phrase used by Adam Smith to refer to the "spontaneous order" I wrote of in my last post. The idea is that societal rules have gradually evolved to promote peaceful and productive co-existence. Levin includes three other terms that describe this, terms he continues to use throughout his book: ordered liberty, social contract and civil society.

Within this civil society, according to Levin, a conservative acknowledges and operates under certain assumptions.

The individual... is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment.

An individual within a civil society, Levin continues, has a duty to respect the idea that the above mentioned rights also apply to other individuals. One may not behave in such a way as to trespass upon these rights of others.

The right to pursue the acquisition of private property is also a necessary corollary of liberty. An individual's property "represents the fruit of his own intellectual or physical labor." Usurping one's right to private property "enslaves him to another".

A civil society must also ascribe to a rule of law which is "just, known, and predictable, and applied equally albeit imperfectly." Such rule of law serves as "a check against the arbitrary use and, hence, abuse of power."

Levin summarizes his definition of modern conservatism, "the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement."

All the above italics are Levin's.

What I Thought I Knew, but Don't

On the second page of Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin summarizes the primary influences that effected the ideas of the Founding Fathers. He mentions Adam Smith and spontaneous order; Charles Montesquieu and separation of powers; and John Locke and natural rights.

I am always amazed at how little I know. I consider myself a fairly well-rounded individual. I had the blessings a good solid elementary education; a good college prep high school curriculum; and two years worth of college classes in political history. When I dropped out of college I also made a pact with myself to always read and learn. So I've continued to read about political philosophy since that is a subject I really enjoy. But alas, there is always more to learn. Much more.

I always associated Adam Smith with free market capitalism and the invisible hand. But I didn't even know what spontaneous order was until I pulled up a couple of web sites. And I've even read the section on Adam Smith in The Worldly Philosophers within the last few years. I see there is a free online Cliff's notes for that book. Perhaps I should bookmark it, so that next time I pick it up I can remember what I'm supposed to get out of it.

Then we continue on to Charles Montesquieu. I have this vague familiarity associated with his name. But I really had no clue who this guy was until I looked him up. Thank goodness for Wikipedia. I know it's not a recommended research tool, but still, it gave me enough info to realize that yes, in fact, I did learn about Montesquieu at some point. Boy, this brain stuff is hard work at this point in my life. I always thought James Madison cooked up the separation of powers all on his own. I even read a young adult biography of Madison recently and don't remember a reference to Montesquieu. I'll have to go back and check on that. But then, maybe the book was not that detailed. After all, I guess the reason I read my kids' books is because I don't have the extra memory available for too much detail. Those memory bytes are filled with with the flotsom of life in a twelve person household.

Now John Locke I do remember. I even remember him from grade school. Don't ask me why. I remember having a discussion with my teacher about the difference between natural law from a Biblical definition, the law written in our hearts; and the Locke's use of the word to refer to the ethical code that can be extrapolated through reason. I didn't really get this at the time, however. Perhaps my teacher did not, either. I also associate with Locke the term social contract, which, to show off my new knowledge, is the "spontaneous order" into which society evolves when people surrender a part of their freedoms to a governing body for the purpose of promoting the common good.

But Locke's ideas of Natural Rights...now here is where I start to get my hackles up. I have a hard time with the way our framers used the term rights. As a Christian, I don't really think we have any rights. We have gifts from God, privileges, blessings...but rights?

Because I am not as astute and well read on this as I'd like to be, I kind of have to trust others on this. I've argued/discussed this with many people whose opinions I respect. The closest I can come to making the word rights fit into a Biblical framework is the way my husband explained it. According to him, Locke (and further along Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence) used the term rights to refer to those things which we have through the flip side of the commandments. For instance, we get our right to life from the fifth commandment; the right to a stable marriage from the sixth; from the seventh, the right to possessions and so on.

I've read a bit more on this lately and I think the word used in ethics for this sort of flip side rights is secondary rights. Probably there is someone who can (maybe needs to?) clarify this for me. I am not sure I go for it, but I let myself function in kind of a suspended belief for the purpose of discussing these things. Pastor Jesse Jacobsen has written on this same subject on his blog, The Plucked Chicken. He's had several posts in which natural law is mentioned, but this one I linked I think goes into the most detail.

So now, after writing this post and reading a whole bunch of on-line stuff in order to write it, I feel smarter. Whether it will stick with me for the long haul or not, I don't know. But it's always fun to feel smarter for as long as it lasts, right?

New Series of Blog Posts

I have been reading Mark Levin's new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. Yes, Levin is a conservative talk radio personality. Yes, he is a bit obnoxious on the air. OK, sometimes more than a bit. I know that sometimes that is enough to discourage a person from reading a certain author's writing.

But here's the thing, besides being a sometimes very obnoxious radio host, Mr. Levin is a constitutional history scholar. I read his book, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, several years ago. That book is a summary of the primary court cases the rulings of which have fundamentally changed our county. How can a person write on this topic and still hold the interest of the regular guys? I don't, know, but in Men in Black, he certainly held mine. So many things made sense to me that I had previously wondered about.

I am not very far into Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. But I keep having these thoughts that I want to bounce off someone. So as I have these thoughts, I will try to post them. I'd like to hear what anyone else has to say. So please read and comment as I do this series.

More on writing styles

Once again, I am relying on the creative energies of another in order to have something to post. No apologies, merely an excuse. I am busy with other things. Some important, Godly, vocational things. Other things that, while not ungodly, are purely for my personal pleasure.

With that preface, here is a comment from Jesse on my picturesque speech post from way back on April 3.

I've been thinking more about prose style lately too, with a possibly vain hope to produce something worthy of publication. Your examples reminded me of the one Clive Cussler book I've read on the one hand, and Victor Hugo's Les Miserables on the other hand. The former style I found a bit tedious in a ridiculously entertaining way, almost like watching Army of Darkness. The latter style I found tedious in the way of 19th-century loquaciousness, yet almost painfully descriptive. Compare Clive Cussler to Brad Thor, whose adventures are similar, even a shade toward James Bond. Yet Thor's style is both easy to consume (partly an effect of good pacing) and lacking ridiculosity -- to use a Bushism.

I am mostly going to let this stand alone, because I have read perhaps one Cussler book, and nothing by Hugo or Thor. I am unfamiliar with Army of Darkness, and only moderately familiar with James Bond.

Perhaps I sell myself short on the James Bond thing. I've seen a number of the movies and have even read a few of the Bond novels by Ian Fleming. Still, compared to a real Bond fan, such as a certain pastor who lives South of us, I consider myself mostly ignorant regarding things Bond.

Alas, I digress. Jesse, are you familiar with the book on prose, "Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse" which was recommended by my husband in response to my former post. I would be interested in getting your thoughts on it, if you have. I have not read it yet. I rely on the thoughts of others.

I sometimes frustrate my husband. When he wants to know something, he immediately finds the answer. He pulls a book from one of our shelves. Or he searches on line. Or he requests a book from the library. And so he learns.

I like to think about things. I like to wonder. I like to talk about those things I have swimming around in my brain. But I have very little gumption to actually pursue these things in a concrete way. Does that imply that I do not progress in my learning?

On Motherhood

I received a comment on the motherhood section of my June 11 blog entry. Since it has been so long since I posted the original I thought Mary D's thoughts warranted their own post.

Ah, Mary, how blessed we are to be among seemingly only a few women who remain unfettered to the shackles of Feminism! So many who have abandoned their husbands, children, and home in pursuit of 'freedom' and 'self' and 'personal development' discover themselves to be in a state more miserable and less fulfilled than the first. It is admitable that homemaking is not always personally fulfilling. It is admitable that wifehood and motherhood does not bring us true, everlasting fulfillment - but that is only because we are sinners, sinned-against, in a terribly fallen world. To the degree we receive and live in the Paradise Christ Jesus regained for us and gifts us in His Means - and to the degree we maintain the natural design and order of the family - we have that much fulfillment in our roles as wives and mothers. In this life we will never be as perfectly content as Eve was before the Fall, but, we do experience many times of being almost that content, almost that needed, almost that useful, and almost that much personally developed. Those who reject their natural roles - their very reasons for even existing - and run here and there looking for Paradise where it is simply not found, are doomed to never even almost come close to knowing who they are or how to be fulfilled. In Christ and also in God's wisdom about families and order, females and their roles, you and I, as wives and mothers, indeed possess the 'secrets' to fulfillment that so many desperately long for. Just when you think it doesn't get any worse, girlfriend, let me tell you from what I've seen in Mendocino County amongst my secular friends, it doesn't get any better than what you've got! Praise Him who has SO blessed us! -Mary D.

Thanks Mary D.

Apology, Excuses, Etc.

OK, I know it's been forever since I wrote anything here. I have several really compelling and relevant posts in my head. They never seem to get on the computer. Here are my excuses. Pick the one you like the best and roll with it.

1) I hate to get interrupted half way through an entry. Since I have so many lengthy and interesting thoughts rattling around in my brain, I have had to deprive you of them all for the sake of not being interrupted.

2) I am so self-disciplined that I have had to deny myself the pleasure of writing so that I can focus on other more important things. Putting in a garden, going to Denver for a book signing, cleaning up John's and Stella's latest disasters, reading a few books here and there,...

3) I am expecting another baby in December and so have been sort of out of commission for a few months.

That's the best I can come up with. Hopefully sometime soon I can get caught up with all my thoughts. They are starting to vie for the limited number of available brain cells, so I better get them down soon.

A Plum Lot of Thoughts on Life

First of all, this weather.

I try to never complain about the weather. I know that God has is all planned out. And that although a certain set of meteorological conditions may not be to my liking, it is probably necessary in some way to somebody.

That said, this weather really stinks. It is nearly the middle of June. I have periodically thought, living here in the far northern reaches of Minnesota where we have a last average frost date of May 31, and a first average frost date of September 1, that we have a week to plant our gardens. If we do it earlier than June 1, the seeds rot in the ground or the seedlings freeze. If we get later than the first week of June, nothing will mature before it freezes again.

Well this year we have had rain and wind almost non-stop from the last week of May through the present. Needless to say, I have no garden in. I did get my new strawberry patch put in. I got Joe's asparagus be cleaned out. Matt got part of the sweet corn area worked up for planting. But that is it.

My seed potatoes are cut and ready and molding on my garage freezer. They are really late. My seed packets all sit idle. I bought started plants yesterday even for cucumbers and herbs, things I usually just plant from seed in the garden.

I had to laugh today, as I sad huddled in the living room, fending of the chill from the constant wind and drizzle. I was reading Three to Get Deadly, and came upon the following description.

It was another gray day with a light rain beginning to fall. Temperatures were in the fortes, so nothing was freezing.

The thing is, in the story, it was January.

Thank you to our law enforcement relations and friends.

I think of you each time I read this section. I am sure Trenton does not have a monopoly on overworked officers. I think this passage from Three to get Deadly expresses well what you do for us all.

I watched him walk down the hall and disappear into the elevator. Only an idiot would think they could talk to Morelli and not be talking to Morelli the cop. Cops never stopped being cops. It had to be the hardest job.

Trenton cops wore more hats than I could name. They were arbitrators, social workers, peacekeepers, baby-sitters and law enforcers. Their job was boring, terrifying, disgusting, exhausting and often made no sense at all. The pay was abysmal, the hours were inhuman, the department budget was a joke, the uniforms were short in the crotch. And year after year after year, the Trenton cops held the city together.

On Motherhood

From Two for the Dough.

We had warm homemade apple pie for dessert. The apples were tart and cinnamony. The crust was flaky and crisp with a sprinkling of sugar. I ate two pieces and almost [fainted]. "You should open a bakery," I said to my mother. "You could make a fortune selling pies."

She was busy stacking pie plates and gathering up silverware. "I have enough to do to take care of the house and your father. Besides, if I was going to go to work, I'd want to be a nurse. I've always thought I'd make a good nurse."

Everyone stared at her openmouthed. No one had ever heard her voice this aspiration. In fact, no one had ever heard her voice any aspiration that didn't pertain to new slipcovers or draperies.

When I read this passage I am always reminded of the days I feel like I am losing myself in motherhood and homemaking. Like I no longer have anything to offer the world but supper and clean laundry.

My second thought is then usually one of guilt realizing that my Aunt Joan, who raised my sister and me--and her own six children-- probably also felt this way.

As children, we notice those things our mothers don't get right. We probably remember periodically to thank them for the dinner. But other than that we don't really think much about them. We are consumed with our own little world.

Only later, when we ourselves are mothers or fathers, can we imagine that perhaps our own mothers and fathers had never-fulfilled hopes and dreams and aspirations. Hopes and dreams and aspirations that they set on the back burner never to be revisited. Instead they dedicated themselves to bringing up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

And compared to that, what higher calling is there. Really. I wouldn't trade motherhood for anything.

But there are days...