July 4 and the Triumph of Liberty

What was the American Revolution really all about? Modern cynics would have us believe that it was about something other than freedom. But examining the words and actions of the American rebels shows that they were struggling for freedom. And not just some abstract notion of freedom, but what they perceived as the “liberties of Englishmen” — specific, historically-grounded liberties.

David Hackett Fischer’s masterful book Paul Revere’s Ride makes this clear. Some of the New Englanders refused to flee as the redcoats came past on their retreat from Concord, on that greatest of days, April 19, 1775. One such was Jason Russell of Menotomy, Massachusetts.

One of these embattled householders was Jason Russell, fifty-eight years old and so lame that he could barely walk. Russell sent his family to safety, then made a breastwork from a pile of shingles at his front door. Friends urged him to flee. Russell answered simply, “An Englishman’s home is his castle.” Others rallied to him, and a fierce fight took place in the dooryard of the Russell house. A party of grenadiers was sent to storm the building. Most of the Americans retreated inside or ran away, but Jason Russell was too lame to run. He stayed and fought, until a grenadier killed him in his own doorway. His wife and children returned to find his body pierced with many bayonet wounds. Altogether eleven Americans were found dead at the Russell house.

One of the great dividing lines in American life is between those who have an emotional, pre-rational love for their country, similar to their love for their parents or children, and those who are repelled by this. I have a friend who is a liberal lawyer, an activist, a smart, hardworking, skillful, honest, dedicated man. On the anniversary of 9/11 I had lunch with him. I offered him an American flag pin. He recoiled. To people like him, even the best of them, American history is one of struggle and reform against injustice, a story of the failed effort to establish a more egalitarian society, a struggle which goes on, and any American greatness exists in a vision of what it might some day be. As Richard Rorty put it, liberals hope some day to “achieve their country”, a country which exists in their minds.

I’ll stick to my approach. America is not a project in the present requiring the bulldozing of the past. Nor, especially is it a mirage, an imaginary and pernicious utopia lodged somewhere in the future. It is a concrete reality of land and people and laws and customs. It is the gift bought with blood at Midway and Bastogne and Little Round Top and Yorktown. It is the work of countless hands that laid the bricks and railroad tracks and power lines, that dug the mines and dredged the harbors, that built the farmhouses and town squares, the skyscrapers and bungalows. It is the work of generations of jurors and schoolteachers and engineers and salesmen and mothers wiping muddy faces. It is the hard suffering of the Atlantic crossing, whether by slaves or free people. And back before all this, even before the rattling of musketry at Concord Bridge, before the pronouncements in the Declaration, the English liberties transplanted to these shores. And even farther, into the distant ages of the past, the slow growth of those liberties over the centuries. And progress, change, development for a conservative must take place with an awareness of this inheritance, and humility before it, in a spirit of custodianship, as part of the larger democracy, as Edmund Burke put it, which includes both the dead and those yet to be.

The universalist statements of the Declaration, “all men … ” were founded not on abstractions but on real institutions, legal norms and practical conduct which embodied and give substance to these rights. The Anglosphere countries have inherited all this. It is up to the rest of the world to come up with their own solutions to realizing in practice these universal rights. Merely pronouncing them won’t do it nor, most likely, will simply transplanting American methods into alien soil. The world presents many challenges and tasks, and the domain of liberty will expand only by hard effort, and then only by fits and starts, and the end of history remains far, far off.

God rest the soul of Jason Russell, American, who knew that an Englishman’s home is his castle, and died for it.

God bless America.

Yet Another Cool French Woman

Libertarian Samizdata has this post about Cécile Philippe, director of the newly formed Molinari Institute, a “free market think-tank”. Lib Samiz goes on to say that she is ” both a fearless and uncompromising libertarian activist, and a thoroughly charming and civilised person, two things which don’t always go together. ” That is delicately put. Too many libertarians have a bucket of good ideas, zeal and energy — but such a dearth of social skills that they couldn’t sell a sandwich to a starving man. A wave of groovy French women pushing this sort of good idea will be way more effective. As Lib Samiz notes, that would be formidable indeed.

Until next week

I won’t do any blogging for the next week, so I have collected these items to make up for the lost time. Those lower down are links to older articles I had never had gotten around to posting.

I got most of links from these news sources:

Arts & Letters Daily
SciTechDaily
BusinessDailyreview

Public Relations on the cheap:

PR on a Low Budget: Combine 3 Tactics for Peak Impact

A long-awaited “Star Wars” role playing game is set to be released for the Xbox this month:

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

It’s set 4000 years before the movies, though.

How to become a disastrous boss:

7 Habits of Spectacularly Unsuccessful Executives

US companies can now officially be sued for defending themselves against criticism:

Supreme Court paves way for trial on Nike’s free speech rights

A bubble bursting?

Gartner says Wireless LANs fair way away

Working overtime to make mischief:

Virus writers boost output in 2003

Patents granted for somewhat peculiar inventions:

You Can Patent That?

I just might try the “Semen taste-enhancement dietary supplement”.

Future interconnected networks of sensors:

Sensors of the World, Unite!

Proposed new airport scanners reveal a bit too much:

‘Nice Bombs Ya Got There’

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in computer games

Mind Games

Electronic Arts becoming”the greatest entertainment company ever”?

Could This Be the Next Disney?

Bjørn Lomborg and Olivier Rubin review the latest edition of “Limits to growth”

Chris Taylor whose company made the great roleplaying game Dungeon Siege on the Future of PC Gaming

The Spectator on the “savage new religion of celebrity”:

Why our gods must die

Comedian Jeff Wayne does to Michael Moore what Moore did to Roger Smith:

Michael And Me

A great book review by Paul Krugman, from the time before he became a political activist:

The Accidental Theorist

An article that claims that Moore’s Law isn’t good for the high tech industry:

Forget Moore’s Law

A not quite official homepage of the science fiction author Larry Niven:

Known Space

The hierarchy of High School:

Why Nerds Are Unpopular

Not So Bright, Not So Liberal II: The Attack of the Atheists

One of our valued readers left, in part, the following as a comment to Jonathan’s earlier post:

Wouldn’t atheists find the assertion from religious people that they are plugged into some cosmic truth through their faith to be smug, arrogant and insulting? But I suppose it’s only a sin if the other side does it. If you do it it’s just asserting the obvious.

I started typing a comment in reply, which had a hostile tone. I deleted it. Then I decided to just leave it there, move on. Then on third thought I decided I would respond. But that comment got out of hand. I then had a fourth thought, the old saying about never arguing with the guy who buys ink by the barrel — “hey, this is my blog, I’ll just put MY response out in the open”. So here it is:

The tone, sir, the tone. The gratuitously insulting tone. We must work on that. Civility is a virtue which we all should have. It is the mortar holding together our pluralistic society. It is the foundation of our priceless civil peace, which is the envy and wonder of the world. So, starting out assuming that someone who disagrees with you has various moral failings is bad form socially and bad citizenship, as well as being intellectually unsound.

I will tell you that the Roman Catholic religion is true. I assert that. I assume the burdens of that assertion. I try to live up to the standards imposed on me by that assertion. This necessarily means that I also assert that contradictory statements are not true. (Incidentally, I certainly don’t think this is an “obvious” truth, so you are wrong about that. It takes some prayer, reflection, experience and study to get there. I’ll also assert that it is worth the effort.)

OK, I did it. I have made a “truth” statement. Pause. Look around. The sky has fallen on neither of us. Nor does that mean I cannot remain friends with people who do not make this assertion, or who aren’t sure, or who don’t want to think about it. There is no inconsistency between my assertion of the truth of Roman Catholicism and my genuine friendship with and respect and affection for those who do not do so. You have a poor, and false, idea of Roman Catholicism if you think otherwise.

We all live, function, act and think based on what we believe to be true. All human conduct is necessarily rooted in some set of premises about what is true. These premises may be well thought out, not thought out, or incoherent, but these premises are there. So, making an assertion that something is true does not present any problem in itself. We all do that all day long, in deed if not in word.

Now, some people may say, “if you cannot show me empirically or by means of scientific, quantifiable measurements, that your religious belief is true, then you may not speak about it.” I reject this. I reject the proposition that someone may engage me on a life or death matter, in fact a life-after-death matter, and say that I must accept that person’s truncated and false view of the world and of humanity and of what constitutes relevant evidence, all as some kind of ground rule for having a conversation. That strikes me as smug and arrogant, to use your adjectives. Someone initiates a conversation with me and insists that certain relevant matter is off limits, ab initio? Sorry, dude, Lex don’t play that.

Now, if the tone of religious believers whom you have met has been “smug, arrogant and insulting” that is a bad thing. That is not how it is supposed to be done. Christianity is supposed to be about love, charity, patience, understanding, service, humility, etc. It’s in the New Testament in a bunch of places. You can look it up. Also, many people down the centuries have actually approached this ideal, some of whom we know as saints, most of whom are known only to God. I have found that this approach is far more common among sincere believers, even among those Christians who think my Catholicism will damn me to Hell, than anything like what you describe. But, hey, you had some bad experiences. Sorry about that. But I repudiate your judgement of me based on your experience with some unknown third parties. I refuse to be included in whatever group of people you had a bad experience with. And I reject your categorical lumping of religious believers into some pejorative category. And I am mystified that you think anyone with any self-respect would just knuckle under to such overbroad and, frankly, bigoted statements.

Anyway, we believe in open and even hard-hitting free speech on this blog. But let’s treat each other with respect. Our model should be the old Victorians like Lord Acton, Cardinal Newman, Mill, James Fitzjames Stephen, Gladstone, all of whom were engaged from time to time in debates pertaining to religion in one way or another, and all of whom fought hard for their causes, all of whom threw hard oratorical punches, but who did not sink to personal rancor or insult the intentions of their opponents — whom they assumed to be serious men seriously engaged with serious matters, at least as an initial presumption.

In closing, I will say that the truth or falsity of Catholicism or Christianity or Islam or religion generally is NOT what I particularly want to discuss in this forum — though I have decided and I daresay well-founded views on these questions. My fellow ChicagoBoyz have their own divergent opinions and I don’t want to use this blog as a soapbox for my views on these issues, which are very serious ones, where their views may differ to a major degree. We have enough to talk about on this blog where we either agree, or might have a shared interest, or where we will have grounds for constructive disagreement. But if someone insults me or my religion, I may choose to respond, depending on what I deem appropriate under the specific circumstances.