The Truth and Nothing but the Truth, So Help Me God

Letters to a Growing Catholic #1

NOTE: This post was originally published at my Substack. The footnote links go there instead of to the bottom of the page.

My beloved daughter,

As you mature from a girl into a woman, you will naturally start to ask new questions about things that you have always believed. You will discover the answers to most of these by yourself, although I hope that your mother and I always be patient and eager to help. Many of your questions will be about small things, like how to be a good party host or why the economy sometimes has recessions or what in the world a boutonniere is. You will also have some big questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? What does it mean to do good and avoid evil? We have given you answers to these questions from Jesus and the Catholic Church, but you will start to ask whether our answers are correct.

After all, when you look around the world, you see many people who believe many different things. We are Catholics, but some people are Jewish, some Islamic, some Hindi. There are a thousand flavors of Protestant Christianity, of course. The other Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, dwarfs Judaism and every single Protestant sect. Materialist atheists, who believe that there is no God, no Heaven, and nothing in the cosmos except matter, make up a sizable and growing chunk of the U.S. population. All these religions (and several others) (although not as many as you might think) have different answers to those big questions: Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? What does it mean to do good and avoid evil?

So how can you know that your answers are right and their answers aren’t?

However, you are unlikely to encounter many actual Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or even Protestants. If anyone tries to actively evangelize you as you grow, it will most likely be a materialist atheist, and God bless them for trying to save your soul in their own funny way! But even they are fairly rare. The common religion in our country is very different. It is poisonous, not just to our Catholic religion, but to all sincere beliefs.

Let me give you an example.

A few weeks ago, when we were up at the cabin, I was floating on the lake with my book as usual, but the wind was strong and I had to give up on reading for a bit in order to keep my floaty close to the dock. I got to talking with one of our old cabin friends. (I won’t say which.) Our friend’s daughter has apparently started dating a Jew, and she is apparently doing this (among other reasons) because she thinks it will annoy her Christian mother, our friend.

Our friend sighed and shook her head at this point in her story and said, “Of course, it didn’t work.”

I, floating next to her, nodded thoughtfully, attempting to agree. “Oh, yeah, I’d take a serious Jew over the average Christian today, too.” (For reasons I’ll explain, I really do believe this. However, to you, I will add that it is still very far from the ideal.)

Our friend shook her head. “It’s not that. I told her, ‘It doesn’t matter, as long as he has faith.’ Who are we to say whether his beliefs are better or worse than ours, as long as he believes in something?” So our cabin friend doesn’t care what this young Jewish man believes. She cares only that he believes.

Our friend is a very normal American adult (and a perfectly average “Christian”). You will hear versions of this all the time, if you haven’t started hearing it already. I have seen variations on “As long as he has faith” and “Who’s to say our beliefs are better?” many times since my conversation at the cabin.

The average American considers herself a Christian, but is not a Christian. The average American follows a different religious system. Theologians and sociologists call it “indifferentism.” That is a fancy, Latin-sounding way of saying “doesn’t-matter-ism”. According to doesn’t-matter-ism:

  1. no religion is better than any other,
  2. all religions are equally valid paths to God or Heaven, and
  3. the only important things in life are to enjoy things while still being nice to people; the rest doesn’t matter.

In doesn’t-matter-ism, it doesn’t matter what particular religious beliefs you have, because you don’t actually believe your own “beliefs.” You go to Mass or mosque or whatever simply because it’s a family tradition, or because you “get something out of it,” or because you like the people, not because you think Jesus Christ was actually the Son of God or that Muhammed was actually God’s final prophet. To you, those details don’t matter—not really.

There are Catholic doesn’t-matterists, Muslim doesn’t-matterists, and agnostic (even atheist) doesn’t-matterists. They think they belong to different religions, but they all believe exactly the same things about who we are, why we are here, where we are going, and what it means to do good and avoid evil. Specifically, they think (surprise) it doesn’t matter, because things will all work out for the best (as long as you’re nice). The differences between how they pray mean no more to them than the differences between how Italians and Mexicans make pizza. For them, religion is just there to be beautiful and make you feel happy and remind you to be nice to people.

Doesn’t-matterism is the dominant religion of American society. “It doesn’t matter, as long as he has faith.”

This is a pretty strange idea, when you think about it.

If you, someday, bring home a perfectly lovely young man who is very kind in every particular, but who believes with all his heart that the Sun revolves around the Earth (even though we know, from science, that the Earth revolves around the Sun), I would find that very weird. I might regard it as a simple eccentricity, since heliocentrism very rarely impacts your daily choices. But it would be still be weird, even if I let it go.

On the other hand, if your beau believed that the only path to a healthy life was by getting infected by a tapeworm once every few months (because “the tapeworms consume your negative ions, which prevents your heart-protective antioxidants from going out of balance”), I would be concerned, because I think tapeworms are dangerous, and his contrary beliefs could have a very big impact on your daily life. Still, I’m no doctor, so I would hear out his pro-tapeworm arguments.

My concern would escalate to alarm, however, if I mentioned my concerns to you and you replied, “Oh, Daddy, who cares what he believes about health as long as he has beliefs about health?!”

These beliefs about tapeworm-based health care are either true or false. I strongly suspect they are false, but I could be wrong. What I know for certain is that it matters whether they are are true or false. If he routinely ingests tapeworms, and you marry him and start ingesting tapeworms to “celebrate his beliefs” or to keep the peace or to set a “good example” for your tapeworm-eating kids, but his beliefs are false, then you will be sick and unhappy a lot of the time (because you’ll be full of tapeworms). You could even die! I care very much what your future boyfriends believe about health, not just whether they have beliefs about health—and pretty much everyone agrees with me! This stuff is serious!

Yet when we come to the most important questions of all—the questions that define for us how we live, how we die, and why any of it matters—many of our well-intentioned neighbors adopt a cold indifference. “It doesn’t matter, as long as he has faith!” I think our friends are just trying to be nice. By minimizing their differences, they avoid having to disagree with their friends about important beliefs, and they avoid having to worry about whether their friends are living good lives. That’s nice, right? But it is not kind. It is not honest. It is not human.

Humans (if you ask me) are made to believe true things and reject false things. The truth matters.

This is the nature of the world in which we live, which does not give two farts about whether you believe tapeworms are bad for you. Tapeworms are bad for you whether you realize it or not. Our world has many such dangers. We must learn the difference between true and false just to thrive in our dangerous world. Even babies learn real and not-real long before they learn the difference between good and evil.

Believing true things is not just a survival trait in nature; it also our nature, our human nature. Humans were designed by a good God to know and love the truth. Ultimately, He wants us to know, to love, and to serve the Truth, capital-T (which is God Himself). People who believe even the smallest falsehood (which, to be fair, is all of us) are impeded from this, our ultimate purpose. People who believe false things therefore cannot live as freely and as fully as people who believe true things. They are, in other words, unhappy.

Even if someone settles into complacency with a comforting lie (or even a dubious truth!), there is always an unsettling whisper, deep down, that reminds him: “You know better. You know this isn’t right.” It’s like the Adventure Time comic where Finn, Jake, and Ice King end up in the illusion-world created by the Lich:

See the source image

You may recall (it was a long time ago) that everything in that illusion world was actually Lich-bugs, and our heroes were all being anesthetized so they could be eaten alive. Finn and Jake’s pursuit of the truth, although painful, was heroic. Our happiness, right now, today, depends on whether we are chasing the truth (wherever it might lead us), or hiding from it. The more important the questions are, the more our happiness depends on our quest for the truth. And there are no questions more important than the religious questions.

Religions themselves do not usually come out and embrace doesn’t-matterism. (A lot of mainline Protestants tried it, and now there are a lot fewer mainline Protestants.) Religions know that the truth matters. They are on fire for the truth (as they understand it); that’s what makes them religions. That’s why I find it much easier to respect and agree with a serious Orthodox Jew than a doesn’t-matterist Catholic. The Jew is playing for a different team, but at least he’s playing the same game. At least he cares about believing truth and avoiding falsehood!

Yet religious people have their own ways of hiding from uncomfortable truths, and I’m sorry to say that this includes many Catholics (although not Catholicism itself).

Many religious people are afraid they are wrong about the most important questions of their lives. Actually, let me rephrase that: every sane person is at least a little bit afraid that they are wrong about the most important questions. They want to protect themselves from that possibility.

There are good reasons for this fear. If we ever find out we are wrong about the big questions, then we have to change a great deal about our lives. If you learn that Christ did not rise from the dead, then you should stop being a Christian. That’s not my opinion; that’s Christian doctrine: “If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain.” (1 Cor 15:14) But many of us have put down roots in our church communities, as friends and volunteers. We have set up our lives and our relationships around our beliefs. We choose our vocations based on our religion, marry people who share our religion, and raise our kids in our religion. (Everyone does all these things, even atheists and doesn’t-matterists.) So wouldn’t turning away from our religion destroy everything that is good in our lives? Wouldn’t it be better not to know? This is a reasonable fear! (I will have more to say about the usefulness of this fear in my next letter.)

There are also bad reasons to fear. Religious people, in particular, are often afraid that God will punish them severely for believing the wrong things, or even for having doubts. I have known many Catholics who think that their religious duty is to prevent their minds from even thinking thoughts that are contrary to Catholic teaching—or, at least, their understanding of Catholic teaching. (Their understanding is usually pretty bad, because they are so afraid of asking questions about it!) This aversion is not how the Catholic Church actually understands faith, doubt, or the motives of credibility, but enough people think it is that they are terrified of asking questions or (worse) getting unsatisfying answers.

If you give into these fears, hiding from your own best understanding of the truth because you fear the consequences of admitting it, you only doom yourself. Your doubts and fears will grow and grow, harder and harder to keep locked in a closet, until finally they burst out and swallow you whole. By that point, they won’t even have to fight you. By locking them away, you will have given them all the strength they need to sweep you away from everything you believe in—even if, in reality, your beliefs were true but you were just too scared of exploring them to find that out. There are many people in my prayers these days who followed just this path on their road out of the Catholic Church.

You must pursue the Truth wherever it takes you, even when it comes to the big questions of life, the universe, and everything. That is what you have been made for. I strongly and deeply believe that, followed honestly and to its conclusion, that journey will always bring you home to the Catholic Church and closer to God—yes, perhaps after some churn in the rapids—because that is where the Truth has always taken me.

We should model ourselves after the Apostles. All of them were Jews (some devout, others not) who believed normal Jewish things. Then along came Jesus, who promised to make them “fishers of men” and who had many strange sayings about the Sabbath and the Kingdom of God. Many departed, because they refused a Truth they found too strange to accept, but the Apostles, zealots for Truth, remained. “Lord, to whom else would we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68) At first gradually, then all at once, the Apostles were not quite Jews anymore. They converted to the true faith because they were not afraid of chasing the Truth where He led, even as He led them across stormy seas and unimagined trials.

We worship a God who Is Truth itself, whose very Incarnation is the logos, the true Word. Never fear the truth, because, in fearing it, you fear Him. You can be certain that you will never be damned for following your conscience after doing your very best, to the limits of your Earthly ability, to honestly and humbly inform it. You need only fear surrendering to the gentle anesthesia of America’s ambient doesn’t-matterism. Embracing doesn’t-matterism would protect you from many conflicts, but it could not possibly be true, because these questions—who am I? why am I here? where am I going? what is good?—matter more than anything else in the world.

Love,

Dad

Posted in Mere Opinion | Comments Off on The Truth and Nothing but the Truth, So Help Me God

My New Substack (…But You Can Still Get The Milk For Free!)

Yes, I did it, I started a Substack. Here it is!

Here’s the button where you can sign up!

I want you to be happy about this, because I am happy about this… but I think I have to start by reassuring you about what’s not changing:

  • This blog will remain online.
  • Everything I have ever published on this blog will remain online.
  • Everything I write in the future—with two exceptions—will be freely available on Substack.
  • I intend to back up all my future writing here on the blog, because I am not crazy enough to trust a corporation to guard anything precious.

In short, I’m not locking myself behind a paywall and demanding you throw money over a fence for peeks of me. I don’t think that would even work; this blog needs to be pretty public to do the kind of work it does. Those of you who are used to this blog and like coming here (which is, almost by definition… all of you?) can continue doing so. You’ll find very little that changes.

So why am I bothering to change at all? I have six reasons, but four of them are WordPress:

Continue reading
Posted in Housekeeping | Tagged | Comments Off on My New Substack (…But You Can Still Get The Milk For Free!)

Worthy Reads for Whatever Week It Is Right Now

I dunno, I’m in quarantine, and I have a huge backlog of Worthy Reads because I haven’t run this feature in three months. I’ve got enough material now to break it out into topics, and this week is Decline & Fall + Religion Week. (Next might be Culture + Antitrust Week.) Lezgo.

Retweets are not endorsements! I found these articles thought-provoking. There’s a good chance I agreed with something important in each, but maybe not, and, in any case, I absolutely do not endorse each and every claim made in each and every article.


The kids are not alright – A look at US religious belief and practice,” by Brendan Hodge:

When you slice up the data in interesting ways, you get interesting results. It’s rare enough for surveys to go beyond mere religious self-identification (which is very close to statistically useless for detecting Catholics qua Catholics) to whether the subject actually attends Mass. It’s even rarer to see a survey approach the question generationally. These results are fascinating — and, very interestingly, they don’t show any significant decline in religious practice among young adults since the 1980s babies came of age.

In other words, Catholicism will bleed badly as the Silent Generation finishes dying and the Boomers start dying in earnest. The number of parishoners will shrink by… half? Three-quarters? Just eyeballing it there. But this graph suggests the decline won’t simply continue indefinitely until the Catholic Church vanishes from the United States; it will eventually hit a floor and stop.

Will this be the “smaller, purer Church… a Church that has lost much” that Fr. Ratzinger spoke of, long before he became pope? Or will it be a hellscape where the only Catholics left are the ones who argue angrily on the Internet — Mark Shea and Austin Ruse throat-punching each other in the corridor between universes for all eternity?

Continue reading
Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Worthy Reads for Whatever Week It Is Right Now

Explaining Your West Saint Paul (Dakota County) Property Tax Statement

OR: Why Did My Taxes Go Up While My Neighbor’s Went Down? What the Heck Kinda Deal is That?

Bill from Schoolhouse Rock with a Veto stamp
An average Minnesotan reads his property tax bill.

Every year, we in West Saint Paul, Minnesota get our property tax notices in the mail. Every year, people ask the same questions in the West St. Paul Neighbors Facebook hellscape group. What the heck is going on with my property taxes? Is the city council robbing us blind? Or am I just house-wealthy and paying for it?

These questions are very reasonable! Property tax is weird.

It’s easy to understand a sales tax: I spent $100 dollars at Kohl’s Target, so I must pay an extra $7.60 to Mr. Government ($6.90 to Minnesota, $0.50 to West Saint Paul, and $0.20 to Dakota County).

It’s easy to understand an income tax: I made X dollars this year, so I must pay Y% of those dollars to Mr. Government. Figuring out X and Y takes a lot of math and reading IRS documents, which is why most people have tax preparers do it for them, but we all get the gist of an income tax.

Property taxes are harder. I don’t use a tax preparer for my income taxes, I normally do them by hand, so I’m pretty good at reading tax documents for a total layman… but even I find the property tax process weird and confusing. The city website features this earnest but devastatingly uncanny movie, but it’s not very specific. It took me years to work out this simple understanding of the process, and I’m still not certain it’s 100% correct. (If you see an error, please let me know!)

Continue reading
Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Explaining Your West Saint Paul (Dakota County) Property Tax Statement

Dashed-Off Daily Dobbs upDate: 1 November 2021

I dashed this off in about 15 minutes after today’s updates in Dobbs v. Jackson and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (different Jacksons, mind!). Didn’t really check for typos, certainly didn’t bother with many links. That might be a theme of my Dobbs coverage this year.

I’ve seen enough: based on today’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court is going to strike down the Texas abortion law (SB8)’s mechanism for evading judicial review, which will lead to SB8’s quick death in lower courts.

Only question now (in my mind) is vote count. Could be anywhere from 5-4 to 9-0, but I think 7-2 (Gorsuch, Alito in dissent) is most likely. Thomas and Gorsuch are the most questionable votes. Of course, one should never infer too much from orals, because things can change a lot when the justices go back to write opinions, but it was hard to see how you could get 5 justices to sustain SB8 after the stripping Texas took at the podium today.

Again: the question the Court is deciding today is “can a state pass a law outlawing a constitutional right and use shenanigans to prevent courts from protecting that right?” not “is abortion a constitutional right?” The second question gets argued in Dobbs v. Jackson on December 1st.

The Texas law was designed primarily as a tricky way to force the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of abortion rights, and I supported the law for that purpose. (The Supreme Court itself has used shenanigans to avoid confronting the obvious & murderous falsehoods of its Roe/Casey precedents. Looking at you, Johnny Roberts. Shenanigans for shenanigans, I say.) But the Court’s decision to review Dobbs largely obviated the “need” for the Texas law, and SB8’s shenanigan is clearly so subversive of our constitutional order that that aspect of it had to get killed one way or another — so SB8 has been sort of a zombie since late May.

Of course, SB8 is still doing a lot of good! Statistics show that abortions in Texas have been cut in half since the law went into effect, from the mid-4000s/month to the low-2000s/month. (Don’t let anyone tell you that abortion bans don’t decrease abortions. They sure as heck do, even after accounting for mothers who travel out of the jurisdiction to abort, and have no negative impact on maternal mortality… as even a passing glance at Ireland under Amendment 8 proved.) Literally thousands of people are alive today because the Texas legislature acted to protect them from murder. Whatever legal shenanigans were involved in saving those lives, it’s quite a lovely outcome! And when the Supreme Court strikes the law down (as I am now convinced they will, and probably should), thousands of people are going to die because of that, too.

But as long as the Supreme Court makes the correct decision in Dobbs — and I think it will — the blood on our nation’s hands will be limited, or (if the Court moves swiftly in Dobbs and slowly on SB8) perhaps minimized.

Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Dashed-Off Daily Dobbs upDate: 1 November 2021

Dashed-Off Daily Dobbs upDate: 23 October 2021

I dashed this off in about 15 minutes after today’s updates in Dobbs v. Jackson and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (different Jacksons, mind!). Didn’t really check for typos, certainly didn’t bother with many links. That might be a theme of my Dobbs coverage this year.

First, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (the main Texas abortion case), the Supreme Court granted cert before judgment, and on a timeline of just 10 days before oral arguments (!!!). That’s seems to be the fastest since Bush v. Gore, over twenty years ago, and that case was almost constitutionally mandated to move that fast because of the impending electoral college vote. They apparently want to hear this case so fast because they view it as just that big of an emergency situation.

The Supremes will be considering only the procedural question in WWH (basically, “Can a state structure a law to evade pre-enforcement judicial review?”), and will not actually consider to what extent the Constitution protects the right to abort a child. The law will remain in force (under a 5th Circuit order the Supremes declined to overturn) while they consider this… but wowza, they will not be considering this for long!

Given the judgment, the timeline, and the perhaps-dire consequences for constitutional rights of all sorts across the country if they decide otherwise, I suspect that the Supremes will vote that the Texas law is subject to immediate judicial review, and that will lead to its swift suspension — because abortion is still considered a constitutional right in the courts.

Furthermore, I suspect that they want this done before they hear Dobbs in early December. Dobbs is the case where they will actually decide whether to uphold or overturn the right to abort a child, based on a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks — a popular law that is nevertheless inconsistent with Roe v Wade and its descendants like the Casey decision. (Notably, Roe v. Wade itself is also quite popular. The best explanation for this contradiction in polls seems to be that most Americans have no clue what Roe or Casey actually said.)

Honestly, I expected something like this to happen fully a month ago, but the 5th Circuit’s (frankly, it seems to me) obstreperousness in this case (obstreperousness in the defense of innocent human life is still obstreperousness) has lengthened the timeline.

In part because the Supremes refused to touch the abortion question in the Texas case, I think it likely that they will ultimately uphold the Mississippi law in Dobbs, overturning Roe/Casey in the process. But that is still many months away, and very much in doubt. For next couple weeks, the simple procedural question is, does the very weird structure of Texas’s law successfully shield it from the courts’ injunctions?

In other news, Mitch McConnell gave a speech highlighting how much he loves Clarence Thomas’s abortion decisions, because they are clear, concise, and unquestionably correct pieces of judicial reasoning. (He’s right.) That part of his speech seems to me not to have been intended for his audience at the time, nor for the general public, nor even for Justice Thomas (who was present). It seems intended for the Court’s moderates (Roberts, Kavanaugh, perhaps Barrett).

There’s a widespread fear among Republicans that Roberts & Kavanaugh, who know full well that Roe/Casey are made-up nonsense (heck, so do Kagan and Breyer) will decide to uphold Roe/Casey anyway, sheerly out of fear of the backlash against the Court. McConnell is one of the best political tacticians out there; he understands where the wind is blowing better than anyone alive, and he knows how to maximize the odds of achieving his political objectives. This McConnell speech seems (to me) like a message: the way to minimize the overall backlash against the Court is to write like Justice Thomas and overturn Roe/Casey — take the left-wing backlash on the nose instead of trying to split the baby and get both right-wing and left-wing backlash at once.

Given that pro-life voters are traditionally more active and more motivated and more focused than pro-choice voters, that’s fairly plausible on its face, and McConnell seems to have licked his finger, stuck it in the air, and decided it’s still true.

Of course, no good judge would decide a case on which important rights and human lives hang on anything so crass and irrelevant as possible political backlash. The Court’s job is to follow the law, and let Congress worry about the politics. But John Roberts is not a good Supreme Court justice (alas how far he has fallen), and nobody’s sure about Kavanaugh, so it makes sense to speak to Roberts in the childish language he understands.

As always, I welcome your comments below (if the fickle Disqus box decides to show up today).

Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , | Comments Off on Dashed-Off Daily Dobbs upDate: 23 October 2021

The People’s House Holds the Purse-Strings (Some Constitutional Amendments #2)

Many writers propose constitutional amendments in order to demonstrate their fantasy vision of the perfect regime. In this series, I propose realistic amendments to the Constitution aimed at improving the structure of the U.S. national government, without addressing substantive issues. Today’s proposal:

The bet-he's-thinking-about-other-women meme, but he's thinking a paraphrase of Col. Mason's comments to the Constitutional Convention on 8 August 1787.

AMENDMENT XXIX

1. All Bills which raise or appropriate money, or which issue or limit the size of the public debt, or which fix the salaries of Officers of the Government of the United States, shall originate in the House of Representatives, and shall not be altered or amended by the Senate.

2. The Senate shall vote on all such money bills within one year, voting by the Yeas and Nays, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn shall cause the bill to be passed. If, after one year, this vote has not been taken, the House may present the money bill to the President of the United States for signature, in like manner as if it had been passed by the Senate.

3. These provisions may be enforced by judicial proceedings.

That’s right: today’s proposal is an Origination Clause! It dictates that “money bills” must come from the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

Now, the Constitution already has one of these. But the current Origination Clause is so old, musty, and irrelevant that you may have forgotten that it even exists:

Continue reading
Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The People’s House Holds the Purse-Strings (Some Constitutional Amendments #2)

Geld the Veto (Some Constitutional Amendments #1)

Many writers propose constitutional amendments in order to demonstrate their fantasy vision of the perfect regime. In this series, I propose realistic amendments to the Constitution aimed at improving the structure of the U.S. national government, without addressing substantive issues. Today’s proposal:

AMENDMENT XXVIII
A two-thirds majority is not required to override a presidential veto.

As a result of this amendment, the relevant paragraph of Article I, Section 7 would be revised to read as follows:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

I put it to you that the central problem in the American system of government is that Congress is broken.

Bill from Schoolhouse Rock with a Veto stamp
Look how sad the Bill is after it gets vetoed? You don’t want Bill to be sad, do you?

Congress is (according to the Constitutional plan) the branch that makes the laws, the branch that sets all non-emergency policies (through laws, through the power of the purse, through its power to issue debt, through its power to declare war), and the branch that exercises the most direct and effective oversight of the other branches (not to mention the other house of Congress!). This is because Congress is the branch that most directly represents the interests and will of the voters, who are the ultimate source of authority for the entire system. All our branches of government are equal, but the Founders also clearly designed Congress as first-among-equals.

Congress is (in reality) the weakest branch, least-among-equals. Most laws are made by the executive branch through the regulatory process, or by the judicial branch through creative “interpretation.” Congress is unable to pass laws of its own, and routinely struggles to have its laws followed when it does. Congress is a squib, a spent force, the fundraising arm of the two-party system, a soundbite theatre, a Twitter trending topic… but it isn’t a legislature, and has not functioned as one for some time.

Continue reading
Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Geld the Veto (Some Constitutional Amendments #1)

Some Principles for Proposing Constitutional Amendments (On One’s Blog)

The Constitution at the National Archives. Warms your heart to see it, doesn't it?
The Constitution at the National Archives. Warms your heart just to look at her, don’t it?

Let’s recklessly start another series! Worthy Reads is going well, but I don’t want the blog to be taken over by my clippings from other blogs, so I’ve been saving up Worthy Reads for months without writing anything else. It’s time to fix that. In each entry of this series, I’ll propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution for your consideration.

Except for this entry. Today’s entry is an introduction.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

James Madison

James Madison famously believed that the Constitution required no Bill of Rights, because its fundamental structure was enough to secure the rights of the people. I think history has proved him wrong about that — but not entirely wrong. The structure of our government can, to a tremendous extent, shape its actions towards (or away from) the common good. By many measures, the most generous and popular Bill of Rights in the history of the world was contained in the Constitution of the Soviet Union… but the Soviet Union was structured in such a way that nothing its Bill of Rights said actually mattered or was in any way protected.

Continue reading
Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Some Principles for Proposing Constitutional Amendments (On One’s Blog)

Worthy Reads for 2021 July 28: Resisting Temptation

Retweets are not endorsements! I found these articles thought-provoking. There’s a good chance I agreed with something important in each, but maybe not, and, in any case, I absolutely do not endorse each and every claim made in each and every article.


Giving the Sickness A Name,” by Jeff Reimer:

A wily demon, acedia is difficult to pin down. It’s a trickster, a shapeshifter, a boggart. It goes out of focus when you try to look directly at it. The term itself defies translation: despondency, sloth, lassitude, ennui, melancholy—each displays an aspect, none the full image.

The desert monks who first wrestled the demon acedia to the ground did so by grinding through their prayers in the pitiless heat of the Egyptian wilderness. In doing so they became superbly intimate with their failures. Evagrius had a theoretical bent and began cataloging the modes and patterns of failure he and his fellow monks encountered. […]

Percy’s gaze turned outward in his subsequent work. In 1971, he said that Love in the Ruins “deals, not with the takeover of a society by tyrants or computers or whatever, but rather with the increasing malaise and finally the falling apart of a society which remains, on the surface at least, democratic and pluralistic.” By 1986, in fact, when asked by an interviewer, “Is there any concrete issue that engages your attention most in connection with what is going on in America at the moment?” he could answer, “Probably the fear of seeing America, with all its great strength and beauty and freedom…gradually subside into decay through default and be defeated, not by the Communist movement, demonstrably a bankrupt system, but from within by weariness, boredom, cynicism, greed, and in the end helplessness before its great problems.” The interviewer follows up: “In connection with what is going on in the world?” Percy’s response: “Ditto: the West losing by spiritual acedia.”

This is my sly way of recommending Walker Percy’s Love in the Ruins. When I first read it, 15-odd years ago, I found it entertaining, but in some ways thought its parody-prediction of America had barked up the wrong tree; things Percy had predicted had not panned out. Unsurprising for a book written in 1968!

However, when I re-read the book last month, I was dumbfounded. Love in the Ruins is become more prescient over time… and proved itself, in 1968, a better interpreter of the American situation than I was in 2005.

Acedia, indeed.

Continue reading
Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Worthy Reads for 2021 July 28: Resisting Temptation