American founding fathers

Is Chelsea Clinton a Closet Conservative and Future Republican Strategist?

Posted by

0

DSC_0094Even Chelsea Clinton recognizes the intrinsic value of the elephant – a fact lost on Republican strategists, the political establishment, and even the GOP itself.  The recent birth of her first child, Charlotte, is “scooped” in the current issue of People Magazine.  In the opening paragraph it is revealed that not only is Charlotte’s nursery swathed in elephants but Chelsea has “collaborated with an Oxford pal on a line of pachyderm products to help fund elephant conservation.”  Might the new mom be a closet Conservative and have a bright future as a Republican strategist?

Screen Shot 2014-10-04 at 2.56.52 PMTo those unaware, the emblem of the Republican Party is an elephant.  While confessing ignorance of the historical meaning – if any – of the GOP’s selection of this particular party animal, I like to think of the elephant as symbolic of the Founders’ memory.  For whatever reason an elephant is know for its memory, captured in the saying “he/she has the memory of an elephant”.  The Republican Party was established in 1856 and organized around the universal, political principles of the Declaration of Independence.  Lincoln was the first president elected from the new party on the eve of the Civil War.  Claiming the mantle of America’s Founding Fathers for the Republican Party, Lincoln employed original research on the anti-slavery views of “our fathers” and cast himself as a conservative.  It was the work of Lincoln and his Republican Party to recall Americans to the Founders’ model of self-government grounded in the transcendent moral principle of “liberty to all”.

DSC_0091

The essence of Conservatism is the belief in the constitutionally-defined role of government embraced in the American founding.  Chelsea Clinton’s conservation work recognizes the elephant as worthy of saving – as are our founding principles.  This uniquely qualifies her as a possible future Republican strategist and unlikely closet conservative.

 

Robin Williams: The One That Got Away

Posted by

0

Williams in Good Will Hunting

Williams in Good Will Hunting

I first learned of the apparent suicide of actor Robin Williams when I turned on the news the morning after. Shock and disbelief were followed by a poignant sadness. How ironic it is that someone so gifted at making others laugh experienced sadness so profound that it led him to end his own life. A monumentally talented human being, Williams achieved the outward signs of success – fame and fortune – while true happiness apparently eluded him.

This begs the question what is true happiness? The Founding Fathers had an answer for this. Drawing on Aristotle’s extended reflection on virtue, happiness, and friendship in “Nicomachean Ethics”, they considered true happiness an ultimate good (something pursued for its own sake and the most “choice-worthy”) and placed it on par with life and liberty in the Declaration of Independence. Far from being guaranteed, the pursuit of this ultimate good is an unalienable right given to every individual by his Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. Benjamin Franklin famously made this distinction in his statement “the Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” In other words, true happiness is an activity, a worthy pursuit, and the aim of the American Republic. And while tragically, true happiness eluded Mr. Williams in his lifetime, his pursuit of it via his passion for ” . . . work and creating” brought happiness to his audience.

Reel Revealing: Were The Founders Surfers?

Posted by

0

Riding the ultimate surf in Point Break movie

Riding the ultimate surf in movie “Point Break”

After a brief trip to the lake to mark my husband’s last day of vacation, we plopped down in our family room and began watching “Point Break”, a movie starring Patrick Swayze as the ringleader of a group of surfers that don masks of ex-American presidents to rob banks. While resisting the obvious urge to draw parallels between the movie’s plot and reality (presidents defrauding an unsuspecting American public) I can’t resist highlighting some notably philosophical lines in the movie. In a dialogue with an undercover FBI agent Swayze’s character criticizes fellow surfers for their ignorance of the “spiritual side of the sea.” He characterizes riding waves as a state of mind, where you both lose and find yourself in the same moment. To achieve this sublime state requires total commitment – “no backing down, a rare quality in this world” – as you paddle out into the unknown sea. Further, the surfer reveals that his whole life has been about experiencing a rare moment when the legendary Fifty Year Storm produces the biggest surf the planet has ever seen off the coast of Australia and the ocean “lets us know how small we really are.” This oneness or accordance with nature Swayze calls the ultimate rush and counsels “if you want the ultimate you have to be willing to pay the ultimate price,” concluding that “it’s not tragic to die doing what you love.”

Uncertain how the surfer achieved this awareness of Natural Law, it is reasonable to conclude his knowledge did not come from modern American public education or Hollywood. More likely, he learned these fixed and discoverable laws – what Jefferson termed the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence – by observing his surroundings and recognizing self evident truths. He witnesses the hierarchal order of the universe – the natural ascension from man to the Divine – and acknowledges that living in accordance with the highest or ultimate things in nature is a very desirable thing – the most desirable state. This natural standard inspired the founding of America and gives rise to her constitutional form. Perhaps a more fitting question is how did the Founders learn about Natural Law? Was it by reading the “elementary books of public right” as Jefferson noted or were they surfers?

Personal Note: Worth Mentioning

Posted by

0

I previously mentioned that I’ve “dialed back” my exposure to talk radio, in order to maintain positive mental health.  But I can never resist occasionally tuning in.  Today I heard this little nugget that I thought was worth mentioning.  It is true and right and beautiful.  Like many things its power lies in its simplicity:

“The bigger the government, the smaller the citizens.”

Let that marinate and I’ll add my two cents in a subsequent post.

Happy mental health!

Culture: Why Madonna and other Celebrities Ought to be Conservative

Posted by

0

Screen Shot 2014-02-06 at 3.57.53 PM

So I’m passing through my bedroom  in the rushed, morning ritual of getting 3 kids to schools on different campuses, at slightly varying times – this keeps it exciting – and a story on the morning news catches my attention.  (I leave the TV on while I dart in and out of my room hoping to stay connected to the outside world).  The story highlights Madonna’s support of a boycott of the Winter Olympics in Russia in protest of the Communist regime’s imprisonment of the female rock band, “P*ssy Riot.”  In fairness to the context of the story, I am not sure if the band’s imprisonment was the result of the Russian government’s attempt to (a) squelch their “First Amendment” rights (recall the First Amendment in America’s Bill of Rights guarantees five freedoms, one of which is freedom of expression); or (b) punish their lawless behavior – specifically, staging a raunchy riot in a church, no doubt vandalizing someone else’s property.  We’ll leave the topic of rights having corresponding responsibilities, like respect, for another discussion.

The first order of business it seems would be to remind Madonna that the incident occurred in Russia not America!  The American regime is unique among all the nations in that it is founded on the belief of the equal, natural rights of individuals.  This is what is meant by “American Exceptionalism” – America is the exception to the rule.  In America, uniquely, (we believe) government exists to secure these equal, natural rights, our Declaration of Independence eloquently states.  Hence, the Russian band enjoys no “First Amendment” protection because freedom of expression – or any other kind of freedom – is not guaranteed in a Communist regime.  (For a list of Communist regimes – past/present – consult Wikipedia or the t-shirt collections of many celebrities).  The collective State is supreme in such regimes NOT the individual.  And they employ force – not consent – to govern.  I submit the band’s two-year prison sentence and Obamacare penalties, as evidence. (force = employing the power of the state/gov’t. to ensure compliance)

Which brings me to my point about the ideology/politics of celebrities.  These are the people who make their living and whose vocation IS self expression – “the First Amendment incarnate.”  They should be the standard-bearers of the American regime AND free enterprise, which simply put, is freedom of expression in the marketplace.  In other words, celebrities ought to be Conservative not Progressive (synonym for liberal but more positive sounding).  Conservatives believe in the preservation of the Constitutionally-defined role of government, embraced in the American founding; Progressives want to get past or “progress beyond” this pre-defined role of government, in favor of an ever-expanding government role.