March 5, 2016

Barbarians Among Us

G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis are well known Christian apologists. However, except for more Catholic readers, many who know the first two are not as familiar with Hilaire Belloc, though Joseph Pearce and others have been doing good work to make him better known. In his book, "This and That and The Other," a collection of essays on various topics, Belloc devotes chapter 32 to "The Barbarians." Who are "The Barbarians" for Belloc?

Belloc begins by describing "the barbarian" invasions of Rome, but quickly moves from a cause to describing the barbarian invasions as a symptom of internal rot. For, "if the fundamental institutions of a polity are no longer regarded as fundamental by its citizens, that polity is about to pass through the total change which in a living organism we call death." These, I think, are Belloc's Barbarians - those who willingly take the advantages of many who have come before them, but are unwilling or incapable of sustaining them.

Belloc confirms this, in an oft-quoted (ofter quoted than, perhaps, the chapter is read):
The Barbarian hopes — and that is the mark of him, that he can have his cake and eat it too. He will consume what civilization has slowly produced after generations of selection and effort, but he will not be at pains to replace such goods, nor indeed has he a comprehension of the virtue that has brought them into being. Discipline seems to him irrational, on which account he is ever marvelling that civilization should have offended him with priests and soldiers.... In a word, the Barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this, that he cannot make: that he can befog and destroy but that he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.
Not necessarily external to the society, the Barbarian, but perhaps growing among the populace, like weeds. Belloc observes that the barbarian is a sort of barometer in society - if the barbarian succeeds in changing the fundamentals of society, in becoming respected and listened to, then the society is fractured and undergoing "total change."

In our own society, consider the (now nearly successful) crusade to both legalize and normalize gay marriage. As legal challenges to "normal" marriage mounted, gay marriage's proponents engaged in a simultaneous cultural campaign to normalize gay marriage as "the same thing" as heterosexual marriage. Belloc is here, too, noting in his time that both proponents of eased divorce laws and opponents used the same utilitarian concepts to justify their positions, rarely (if ever) using the language of "sacrament."

Marriage, then, is one of the fundamental things in a culture, in our culture, that is no longer regarded as such by many. Equally true and growing foreign to most of our culture is the idea that marriage is tied to child-bearing and child-rearing. We see also that, with taboos against gay marriage falling, other taboos have as well - against bearing children outside of marriage, against voyeurism (porn), against divorce. 

Now we turn to consider a candidate for president who has had multiple wives, as well as admitting to affairs publicly. This does not seem to have hurt his chances in any way - indeed, it is barely a topic of discussion. That he made a great deal of money in a business formerly considered at least problematic (casinos) is never mentioned. This is a man who recently (though since recanted) stated that he would deliberately target families of terrorists, calmly stated that he has no problem with waterboarding, and declared that he was adequately endowed - all during a presidential debate. He is the very figure of a barbarian, even having declared that, if his daughter were not his daughter, he would be dating her.

And, unfortunately, he is entirely a product of modern American consumer culture. It is not that divorces, adultery, gambling, and other such have not existed for generations - it is that now they are not discussed as problematic, and even considered "normal." (The incest taboo, thankfully, still exists, but even here and there there are signs that this is weakening.) If this were not the case, Mr. Trump could not consistently garner 30% or more of votes in primaries - his supporters must be ignorant of these things, or must not care about them. 

And so, we should not look for an external enemy for America. Our foreign wars may even be a distraction for us, perceiving an enemy abroad when we grow them quickly at home. If Belloc (and others like him) are at all accurate, we are facing a time of turmoil, perhaps war. On a final cautionary note from Belloc, as I recall that Trump was a reality TV personality for several years:
In a word, the Barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this that he cannot make; that he can befog or destroy, but that he cannot sus tain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilisation exactly that has been true.
We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him ; in the long stretches of peace we are not afraid.
We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us : we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond : and on these faces there is no smile.
We permit our jaded intellects to play with drugs of novelty for the fresh sensation they arouse, though we know well there is no good in them, but only wasting at the last.

CathCon Daily - 3/5/2016

Is the GOP Worth Saving? - Maggie Gallagher, NRO

Religious Liberty in America: The Next Chapter - Michael Needham, American Interest

Donald Trump Is the Effect, Not the Cause - Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO

What Trump Teaches Us - R.R. Reno, First Things

The Age of Outrage - Matthew Block, First Things

The Strong Man and the Weak Party - Ross Douthat, NYT

A Pop-Psychology History of the American Right - Fred Siegel, City Journal

March 4, 2016

Fun's Over - Let's Decide

An Open Letter to Supporters of Donald Trump for Presidency

Dear Fellow Americans:

The past eight years have been very difficult under a President who seems to have it as his mission to transform American society in any way he can. With more laws, more regulations, more treatment of Americans citizens as fodder for social experiments, and more manufacturing jobs vanishing, among other things, the anger at an elite which seems all too eager to embrace all of these things is understandable. It is an anger I share.

This anger, however, seems poised to elect Donald Trump to a position in which he will be able to wield, domestically and abroad, more power than any one other man in the world. The United States of today is comparable in power projection only by looking at places like ancient Rome. The United States Armed Forces have no equal now, and perhaps in history, for deadliness and purpose. Many of your own sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents, and others, have served proudly in these Armed Forces, in great and necessary expeditions. 

Now, with the support of Donald Trump, he is riding high in the delegate count. After last night's debate, I want, however, for you to pause for a moment and consider something. Mr. Trump has stated, twice now, that he will use the U.S. Military to pursue terrorists. In itself, this is perhaps a laudable goal, if pursued with purpose, and with morality. Mr. Trump, however, has added that he would go further.

In one interview, Mr. Trump stated:
We’re fighting a very politically correct war....And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.
Last night, during the debate, when asked whether the military would do that, he stated, "They won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me."

Pause to consider this for a moment. Really imagine such a scenario. I have children who will (too) soon be of the age to serve. An order comes to my child, stating, "Go into the village and arrest or kill this wanted member of Isis. While you are there, if you observe any children or women around this man, whether armed or not, kill them." I would hope my child would refuse. I would hope my child would resign and face charges for disobedience to a superior officer. Would you want your child to be faced with that order? With that situation? Would you want your child to obey that order?

In his book, "The Brothers Karamazov," Dostoevsky's character Ivan tells his brother of these horrors:
Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby's face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby's face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn't it?
Is this what we want? We have always had a pride, especially among Christians, of protecting the innocent. The rage against ISIS is developed in part from its treatment of women and children. Not because these were women and children who were of the enemy, or what have you - it's because execution of the civilian is wrong. It's because execution of the innocent is wrong. Why...WHY...elect a man who seems to have very few truthful and direct things that he has stated, of which this is one, consistently reiterated?

Being "tough" while being a "thug" is not strength. It is quite the opposite. Please...rethink your position...before our children are asked to point the rifle, and slay the innocent.

UPDATE: Mr. Trump reverses: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/index.html

UPDATE (3/5/2016): Wait now..maybe he didn't quite repudiate it...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/05/did-trump-truly-repudiate-torture-and-the-murder-of-civilians/

CathCon Daily - 3/4/3016

Is Contraception a Legitimate Response to the Zika Virus? - Jennifer Roback Morse, Crisis

Canada Declares War on Christian Doctors and Nurses - Wesley J. Smith, First Things

Economists for the Nanny State - David Gordon, Mises

Romney Versus Trump - Ross Douthat, NYT

Is It Worth Stopping Trump? - Ross Douthat, NYT

The Ultras and Their Ultimatums - Peter Minowitz, Liberty Law Blog

Bird Brains and Cross-Species Empathy - William Carroll, Public Discourse

Unfit for Commander in Chief - Hooah_Mac, Red State

Higher Ed Subsidies and Lazy River Rides - Mary Clare Reim, Daily Signal

Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage is Driving My Restaurant Out of Business - EcomCrew

March 3, 2016

CathCon Daily - 3/3/2016

Conservative Populism Divided - Pete Spiliakos, First Things

The Strange Case of the Campus Cry-bully - V.D. Hanson, Hoover

Exploring Trumpism - David Limbaugh, Human Events

Last Chance for America? - Thomas Sowell, Human Events

Ted and Marco Can Save the Country - Randy Barnett, NRO

What One BBC Journalist Discovered About Trump - Elaina Plott, NRO

Joined the #NeverTrump Movement - David French, NRO

Why #NeverTrump Isn’t Working - Gracy Olmstead, American Conservative

Welcome To The Conservative Counterrevolution - David Harsanyi, The Federalist

Eric Voegelin’s Search for Order - Bradley Birzer, Imaginative Conservative

March 1, 2016

CathCon Daily - 3/1/2016

The Albatross of a Trump Endorsement - George Will, Human Events

First (and Only) Post on Donald Trump - Rick Garnett, Mirror of Justice

The Wolf Comes as a Wolf - Greg Sisk, Mirror of Justice

Donald Trump and the Future of the Court - John O. McGinnis, Liberty Law Blog

Robert Royal’s Catholic Humanism - R.J. Snell, Public Discourse

Garner Is Beautifully Frank On Her Divorce From Affleck - Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist

On Being Satisfied with God - James V. Schall, The Catholic Thing

Trump and the Constitution - Ilya Somin, Volokh

A Trump Nomination Means Victory for Clinton - Rachel Lu, Crisis

The Sacredness of Marriage - Msgr. Daniel B. Gallagher, Crisis

The Nomination Debate - Berny Belvedere, First Things