Thoughts on the Immigration Debate

I believe that the debate on immigration policy in the U.S. is one of the most important policy questions of our time. It will shape our future as a nation. In a broad sense, the debate is about how we view ourselves as a nation.

This debate needs an intelligent dialogue about the economic and social effects of immigration. I'm tired of the word "amnesty" being some sort of unthinkable evil designed to end all debate. Sadly, it often has been reduced to that. Anytime someone even mentions a path to legalization or citizenship of any form, another voice is bound to pipe up, "You want amnesty!" as if that was the only argument they had to make. This is one of the most important issues and, without hyperbole, the decisions that are made in the next few year about immigration policy will literally shape the future of the nation. My congratulations to anyone from either side of the issue who is seeking to elevate the debate rather than reduce it to stifling dogmatism.

I have a lot to say on this issue, so future posts will develop the idea further.

Catharsis is Priceless: My Favorite Sad Songs

"Bob Dylan's 49th Beard"
Wilco

You’ll be happier when I’m gone

Much too busy to worry

I’ll be sad and you’ll feel bad

But I know you won’t be sorry

“Brick”

Ben Folds Five

Now that I have found someone

I’m feeling more alone

Than I ever had before

“Nothing Better”

The Postal Service

Man: Tell me am I right to think

That there could be nothing better

Than making you my bride and slowly growing old together

Woman: Don’t you feed me lies

About some idealistic future

How can I heal right if you keep tearing out the sutures?

“High and Dry”

Radiohead

Oh, it’s the best thing that you ever had

The best thing you had had is gone away

Don’t leave me high; don’t leave me dry

“Poison Oak”

Bright Eyes

And when I press the keys

It all gets reversed

The sound of loneliness makes me happier

Judicial Independence and the Substance of Democracy

On August 4, Federal District Judge Vaughn D. Walker overturned Proposition 8, the now-famous measure that amended the California constitution to ensure that the state would only sanction marriages between a man and a woman.

Many people have come out against the decision. One of the most popular arguments against the ruling is that Judge Walker showed blatant disregard for the will of the people.

“By overturning the original vote, Judge Vaughn Walker has merely shown that the courts no longer listen to the voice of the people”. – BYU Student as quoted in the Daily Universe

I understand the frustration. After all, many proponents of traditional family values, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, fought a difficult battle in California to ensure passage of Proposition 8. It can seem incredibly un-democratic that one man could quickly overturn something that millions had struggled to achieve. Democratic, however, is exactly what it is.

The judiciary does not exist to directly reflect the “will of the people”. “The people” do not elect judges. This is no accident. Judges are supposed to make their decisions based on the legal merit of the arguments, while respecting precedent and existing law, especially constitutional law. They are not supposed to be influenced by voters, businesses, or politicians. They don’t need to worry about who funds their campaign, whether their constituents will appreciate a certain ruling, or whether their party leaders will promote them to a coveted committee position for their performance.

An independent judiciary is an indispensable component of a strong American democracy. We believe that there are certain limits on all types of power – even the power of the will of people. This point is best illustrated by example. Imagine that the year is 2014 and there is a new proposition in California; let’s call it Proposition 13. Proposition 13 would make it a crime to say that homosexuality is a sin. The proponents would argue that when religious ministers or other say that homosexuality is a sin, they are using “hate speech” and attempting to incite violence against gays. The proposition passes by a sizeable margin, clearly demonstrating that the “will of the people” is to outlaw calling homosexuality a sin. Then, soon after passage, an LDS Bishop is arrested for the crime of saying that acting on homosexual desires is wrong – that it is a sin. His conviction is appealed and it reaches the 9^th Federal District Court. The judge on the bench hears the arguments and then overturns Proposition 13. She writes that the proposition is in clear violation of the First Amendment, which bars the government from impeding the “free exercise” of religion. If a person’s belief, she argues, is that homosexual acts are wrong, then they have the right to express that belief.

In our example, this judge clearly acted against the will of the people. The majority of voting California citizens sent a clear message when they approved Proposition 13. How could she overturn the law? Doesn’t she believe in democracy? Where is the accountability?

One of the import roles of the judiciary is to defend the rights of minority groups. Tyranny of the Majority is a real threat, not some antiquated, elitist notion. Hugo Chavez, for example, has often enjoyed the support of the majority of Venezuelans as he has trampled on the media, sponsored political motivated arrests, and used public funds to buy lavish gifts for family members.

Perhaps an independent judiciary is not necessary if we seek to merely have a procedural democracy, but it is essential if we desire a substantive democracy. That is, we could eliminate independence of the judiciary if democracy to us means simply that the will of a large number of the citizens is often reflected in the actions of the government and that regular elections are held. However, if we believe that true democracy must exist with basic human, civil, and political rights intact, we must respect the role of judges.

I’m not defending Judge Walkers decision; I am defending his right to make it. Any argument against his decision should be made on legal grounds, not on the grounds that he should have had greater respect for public opinion. Judges don’t study the polls, and I hope they never do.

Notes:

1. My example about an attempt to outlaw preaching against homosexuality on moral grounds may seem outlandish. Similar attempts, however, have been made in nations like France. If I was to explain this example to a politically-savvy person living in Belgium, France, or the Netherlands, I doubt they would find it far-fetched at all.
2. I am in favor of Proposition 8, but I don’t feel prepared yet to fully articulate that position.

The Hardest Words

Sometimes “it’s up to you” are the hardest words to hear

Deeply hidden insecurities cry out, they doubt

They yearn for instruction, direction, coercion

But it never comes. This time I’m on my own

I protests, struggle, wonder, crying, “Where art thou?”

And the answer comes, “I never abandon; I merely trust in you.”

Baby Names

Though I’m not married and I don’t have a baby on the way, I’ve been thinking about baby names recently. Which names do I like? Which first names create a pleasant cadence when combined with my last name? I like the idea of saving middle names as tributes to influential friends and relatives. Which ones will receive this tribute?

My Guiding Personal Preferences in Name Selection

1. I once shared a 9^th Grade P.E. class with 5 other Adam’s. I’m not saying I don’t like my name, but I would like to select something a bit more rare when I pick my own children’s names.

2. I’m not a fan of names that seem overbearingly masculine (Thor, Steele, etc.)

3. I think names should be spelled as intuitively as possible. The originality should be sought in the name itself, not in the spelling.

4. I don’t plan to have an Adam Jr.

Boys:

Elliott

Note: I’m partial to the double-l, double-t spelling.

Pro: Elliott is relatively uncommon, but not unheard-of name. The name also has a prestigious musical legacy thanks to the band Elliott and the singer-songwriter Elliott Smith.

Con: It’s a name that would be commonly misspelled. I don’t know if I want my son to have to constantly correct the spelling of his name. In addition, Elliott Smith ended a famed music career by committing suicide (or by being murdered, depending on who you ask) after relapsing into heroine addiction. I’m no superstitious, but the name might carry a negative connotation to some people.

Holden

Pro: Holden Fine has a great cadence. The name seems to be so old-fashioned that it’s suddenly modern again. After all, Names, like fashion or music, come and go in cycles. Another name that I like that seems to be after the same tradition is Nolan.

Con: Would Holden be plagued by Catcher in the Rye references his entire life?

Hyrum

Pro: Solid man’s name, without the overbearing masculinity I mentioned. I have deep respect for Hyrum Smith, the unceasingly faithful, loyal, humble, and loving brother of the prophet Joseph.

Con: I supposed it might expose my son to anti-Mormon bigotry. Of course, this is something any faithful member of the church faces, but it adds another dimension if he could be discriminated in college and job applications, before he has the chance to prove his worth in person. I’m kind of just scrambling for a “con” here.

Girls:

Erin

Pro: The name is short, simple, and beautiful.

Con: I have an uncle and good friend named Aaron.

Amber

Pro: I love the sense of radiance that the word “amber” conjures. I also had the sense that the name was fairly uncommon, but according the Census Bureau, it was the 15^th most popular name in 1988, my birth year.

Con: Do people like being named after fossilized resin?

Addison

Pro: A very cute name. It seems simultaneously playful and dignified.

Con: “What was that? Allison?”

I enjoy brainstorming, but, in the end, I’m grateful that I won’t be making these decisions alone. :)

Popular Appeal

Clint Eastwood once said:

Most pictures that I’ve done I’ve had no idea whether anybody would ever want to see them. I’ve figured I’d like to see it.

So far, that has largely been my attitude toward my blog. I thought, I’m going to write a blog that I will enjoy writing and reading and hope that others will find something interesting and valuable. Recently, however, I’ve admitted to myself that I do have a desire for greater readership. As much as I enjoy writing, I see more value in writing something that will be read. Ideas, after all, need to have a following to be powerful. Common Sense would not have been a catalyst for the American Revolution had it only been fare for Thomas Paine’s houseguests. Of course, I’d be lying if I said that I don’t have a slight emotional stake in the success of this enterprise.

I have thought of several ways to expand the appeal of my blog and to bring in more followers:

1. More pictures
2. Shorter entries
3. Balancing accessible, personal entries with weightier philosophical and political fare
4. Unabashed blog promotion on facebook and other forums (sort of a joke…)

After all, Eastwood also said:

The reason I’m still making pictures is because I enjoy it and I want everybody to enjoy it. It’s a fun process. When it doesn’t become fun, you won’t see me doing it anymore.

There is something to be said for a bit of mass appeal. It makes everything more fun. I'd take my model from shows like the Colbert Report or bands like Wilco. Comparatively, they don't have enormous followings; instead, they have medium-sized followings of extremely loyal fans.

This is not a formulaic process and it may take time. Even so, I welcome any suggestions. Your thoughts?

Explanatory Note: I'm not actually talking about massive numbers of readers in the near future. I'd be happy with a "Wilco-style" following 2 or 3 dozen in the near future.

The Foundations of Morality and Wisdom: A Classical Analysis of Modern Thought

I had a conversation with a close friend this week that highlighted many salient questions about rationality, faith, knowledge, morality, and human influence.

Is science the only legitimate method of seeking knowledge?

Is morality simply a social construct, or do immutable moral laws exist?

Can a compelling argument be made for generally applicable moral standards outside the belief in a higher power? Does atheism necessarily lead to relativism?

Does a person have any right to tell another person what they should or should not believe? Doing so would seem to imply that there are immutable truths and that our human experience is similar enough to warrant generally applicable morals. In other words, the fact that we are both human is a truth that reaches beyond the anatomical.

The following essay of mine does not answer all of these questions, but it strikes at the debate through analysis of two classical thinkers, one ancient and one contemporary.

Aristotle’s reason holds little resemblance to the empty modern view of rationalism. To Aristotle, the end of reason was to give purpose and direction to human action. Modern rationalism, on the other hand, offers no direction to human action, claiming that such matters are purely subjective. Aristotle’s rationalism is informed by virtue. Under modern rationalism, virtue is, at best, a convenient myth, necessary for living in human society. In Aristotle’s view, the ability to reason is the highest expression of man’s humanity. Under modern rationalism, reason is divorced from humanity and filtered exclusively through method.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains reason in his discussion of practical and contemplative wisdom. These two forms of wisdom arise from the rational portion of the human soul. In Aristotle’s view, the human soul is divided into rational and non-rational halves. Each half is further divided: the rational portion containing contemplative and practical reason, and the non-rational portion containing moral virtue and the nutritive sense, concerned with physical health. Practical wisdom, the applied knowledge gained from the exercise of practical reason, functions to guide human action. In fact, practical wisdom is defined as “a true and reasoned state of capacity to act with regard to the things that are good or bad for man” (Book VI). In other words, practical wisdom tells us how we can achieve good ends. However, Aristotle recognizes that this knowledge is useless unless man has a standard by which to determine which ends are good. This is the role that virtue must play. Aristotle refers to “natural virtue” as the sense of just action inherent in the human soul. However, this “natural virtue” is useless and even harmful if it is not guided by reason. As a result, Aristotle places moral virtue in the non-rational half of the human soul. Morality is partially inherent in the human soul, but must also be guided, trained, and refined by the rational principle of practical wisdom (Book VI).

The other half of Aristotle’s rational soul is contemplative, or philosophic, wisdom. “Philosophic wisdom is scientific knowledge, combined with intuitive reason, of the things that are highest by nature” (Book VI). Thus, this type of wisdom also is rooted in something inherent or “intuitive” to the human soul. Beyond the intuitive, however, man can grasp higher truths through contemplation of invariable truths like the cosmos. Indeed, this form of contemplation is the highest activity of the human soul, for “reason is divine” (Book X). The life of contemplation is most like the life of the gods, who have no cares for human virtues like liberality, which are rooted only in the physical world. Reason, then, will lead man to the ultimate happiness as it points to something higher and more permanent than man. Because happiness is the end of human action, “reason more than anything else is man” (Book X).

Virtually everything that Aristotle and other classical thinkers identified as rational is stripped away by the modernism. As Philippe Bénéton writes in Equality by Default, for the moderns, “Whatever lies outside of the scientific method lies outside reason.” Science claims a monopoly on legitimate knowledge. In this view, there is no rational way to answer the fundament questions of Aristotle’s philosophy. What is virtuous? What is the best way of life? What is the best political regime? To the modern rationalist, these questions have no meaning. Science cannot answer them; therefore, they have no answers.

To Aristotle, reason should be the guiding force of human action and the reasoned path of virtue can be discovered by human contemplation. The modern view states that reason can only be accessed by the scientific method; it has nothing to do with the essence of humanity. Man does not reason, the method merely reasons through him. The scientific method cannot distinguish between good and bad actions, so all ways of life must be equally good and, thus, equally meaningless. Aristotle placed great responsibility on the individual to seek virtue and wisdom in pursuit of the good life. By claiming that no life is better than any other, modern rationalism releases man from any responsibility. Thus, human nature and Aristotle’s “natural virtue” are either discredited or reduced to the processes of evolutionary biology. In contemporary society, modern rationalists may have succeeded in winning claim over the domain of rational knowledge, but only by drastically reducing its size.

This paradigm shift on the idea of rational knowledge has deep political implications. Aristotle believes that politics is the master science because it is responsible for ordering men’s souls. This claim is based on the belief that there is a model order for men’s souls – that some souls are in better order than others. To a modern rationalist, there is no way to determine which order of the soul is best. Therefore, politics has no place in attempting to order men’s souls. In other words, modern rationalism begs the question, “How can the good life be the end of political action, when reason cannot give us any idea of what the good life is?”

The first effect of the modern rationalistic view of politics is the atomization of society. Aristotle discusses the common good, or the good of the city, because he believes that men share a common human nature. To him, what is moral and good for one man is moral and good for another. The good life may vary, as men’s interests and faculties vary. Some men will be soldiers, others artists, others philosophers. However, the good life for each man is founded in virtue and wisdom. The modern rationalists cannot make the same claim about the common good. To them, morality is an illusion – each man engages in self-actualization according to his own values. The city no longer claims the solid foundation of a common concept of the good life. Thus, the political order of liberal democracy evolves toward the idea of the radical autonomy of the individual. The individual is not responsible to contribute to the common good, for the common good is no longer seen as an attainable goal. He is free to pursue his own self-interest. In this way, the individual is freed from his duties to the community, and granted rights by which he seeks self-actualization.

This atomization is not merely theoretical. It can be seen in all sectors of society. Bénéton offers a striking example of atomization in contemporary American society. The military, above all other institutions, must be devoted to the common good and recognize the value of devoting the individual will to a higher cause. Even so, Bénéton pulls his example of the atomization of modern society from the evolution of recruitment advertising for the American military. In an attempt to recruit soldiers for the First World War, the military distributed the famous poster of Uncle Sam pointing at the viewer and sternly declaring “I want you for [the] U.S. Army”. The poster evoked a sense of patriotism and duty. In the 1990s, the U.S. Army launched a campaign with the slogan “be all you can be,” appealing to the potential recruits’ sense of self-actualization. One of the Army’s most recent slogans, “an Army of one,” evokes the modern sense of atomization and pride in individualism. As a motivator, self-interest is rarely surpassed.

Modern society can learn much from Aristotle’s rational political thought. In this age, scientistic rationalism rolls forward blindly with no external guiding principles, and “progress” is praised for progress’ sake. Now more than ever, Aristotle’s voice of reason is needed as a reminder that practical wisdom should guide our actions toward ends that promote the common good. Even in the realm of human rights, Aristotle’s reason provides us with a more substantive view of freedom than modern rationalism. After all, if human rights are to be meaningful, it must still mean something to be human.