It was not shocking to me that the plurality of an angry Republican primary electorate — grown distrustful of establishment leaders — might choose a populist who appeals to racial prejudice. It is shocking to me — and depressing and infuriating — that almost no elected Republicans of national standing would stand up to it. 

By this standard, Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.) is the moral leader of the GOP. But given the thinness of his company, many of us will never be able to think about the Republican Party in quite the same way again. It still carries many of the ideological convictions I share. Collectively, however, it has failed one of the most basic tests of public justice: Don’t support racists — or candidates who appeal to racism — for public office. If this commitment is not a primary, non-negotiable element of Republican identity, then the party of Lincoln is dead. 

Without a passion for universal human dignity and worth — the commitment to a common good in which the powerless are valued — politics is a spoils system for the winners. It degenerates into a way for one group to gain advantage over another. And for Trump in particular, politics seems to be a way for white voters to take back social power following the age of Obama.

Michael Gerson, "The Party of Lincoln Is Dying"

We no longer see the person in the uniform or the human being behind the company, we do not see our neighbors. Rather, we see individual human beings as little more than avatars for political or religious opinions. And when those opinions prove objectionable, we feel no remorse or regret about separating ourselves from the person in their entirety. We must shun them in every realm of human life, not merely in our personal friendships but in our commercial behaviors as well. (Thus there is a close link between our boycott culture and our shame culture.) Because we no longer see human beings when we look at our neighbors but only avatars for political agendas, we must separate ourselves from anyone who supports an agenda we find distasteful lest we would ourselves somehow become complicit in their support of that agenda. 

 If Christians will boycott Starbucks, let it be because of the way they do business, not because of the opinions their higher-ups profess. What is at stake in our ability to buy Starbucks with a clean conscience is not simply a few dollars, but our ability to look at the creatures who surround us and see not an amalgamation of opinions and commercial interests, but a human being.

Jake Meador, "Boycotts and the End of Neighborliness"

Why is "excellence" a bad word? It's not, in and of itself. But people around universities who use it are people who want to talk about worldly distinction without talking about ethics. "Excellence" means we're smart, we're accomplished, we're successful--and we can be these things without any obligation to help our fellow human beings. When colleges start talking about "humane excellence" or "generous excellence," then I'll want to listen.

You also have my permission--in fact my encouragement--to gently snout-pop people who talk about "leadership." Why is leadership so bad? In itself, it's not. But what people usually mean by a leader now is someone who, in a very energetic, upbeat way, shares all of the values of the people who are in charge. . . .

The residents of scholarly enclaves are harder to spot than the denizens of the corporate university, and I can't give you a definitive field guide to finding them. But I'll say first that they don't talk about being a leader and being an entrepreneur. They talk about working in a lab or developing a questionnaire for psychological research or writing a novel, or getting people who don't belong in jail out of jail, or defending their country against its enemies. And they are not smiling all the time. They are aware of the enormous gap between what humans aspire to and what remains to be done. They tend to take joy in their work, but they never feel that they have quite gotten it right. The people in the corporate university are forever pleased with themselves. They are always succeeding, getting A's that will soon be converted into dollars.

Mark Edmundson, "The Corporate City"

In Paradise Lost, Book IV, there's an amazing passage in which Milton describes Satan's first look at Adam and Eve in the Garden. Satan cannot speak--he is in awe as he gazes at these two creatures in all their unfallen majesty. In this scene, Milton reminds us that every human being holds a unique place of dignity among all of creation. We are created in the image of God Himself--and this makes all the difference.

     Two of far nobler shape, erect and tall,
     Godlike erect, with native honour clad
     In naked majesty, seemed lords of all,
     And worthy seemed; for in their looks divine
     The image of their glorious Maker shon,
     Truth, wisdom, sanctitude severe and pure—
     Severe, but in true filial freedom placed,
     Whence true authority in men: . . .
     So hand in hand they passed, the lovliest pair
     That ever since in loves imbraces met,
     Adam the goodliest man of men since borne
     His Sons, the fairest of her Daughters Eve.
     . . . Satan, still in gaze as first he stood,
     Scarce thus at length failed speech recovered sad:—
    “O Hell! what do mine eyes with grief behold? 
     Into our room of bliss thus high advanced  
     Creatures of other mould—Earth-born perhaps,
     Not Spirits, yet to Heavenly Spirits bright
     Little inferior—whom my thoughts pursue    
     With wonder, and could love; so lively shines
     In them divine resemblance, and such grace 
     The hand that formed them on their shape hath poured."

What Soylent's proponents don't seem to understand is that food cannot be reduced to mere nutrition anymore than all of movement can be reduced to simple exercise, or sex and parenthood to mere reproduction (although in the latter case, the more strenuous socialists have tried!). Mealtime is a place of communion, conviviality, even sensuality. It is where we learn to be human.

Food production teaches us gratitude, because even with all the advances of chemistry and industrial agriculture, we did not invent photosynthesis, or the sun and the rain. We know, or ought to know, that living things were made to die for our sake. There is a satisfaction, difficult to articulate, in making one's own meal that cannot be found in the mere detritus of packaged meals. Yes, preparing food for others can be hard, annoying work. But as Gracy Olmstead points out in her fantastic defense of family mealtime, it is usually more than compensated in an enriched family life and affection. But in the autistic way that Marxists reduce so many human activities to the detested category of labor simpliciter, they also incinerate labors of love.

Michael Brendan Doughtery, "Soylent Food Is Here--And It Is Tyrannical"

Recently I have been reading through the book of Exodus in the Literary Study Bible, and I've been enjoying it. I'm now in the section known as the Book of the Covenant, where God gives Israel laws for community life. A note on this passage says the following:

"The Book of the Covenant is more like a guide to cases than a strict legal code. ... [It was] never intended to cover every conceivable case but rather to establish legal precedents that wise leaders could use to adjudicate other situations as they arose. Although these laws were given to Israel as a nation under God and thus are no longer binding in all their detail, they are based on moral principles that teach us the character of God and can still help to guide society today."

Some thoughts as I was reading:

1. One section of the Book of the Covenant that can be troubling for modern readers is the guidelines for slaves and their masters. But "here it is important to know that because servitude was usually voluntary and intended to be temporary (people often worked as slaves to pay off their debts or to make restitution), the institution of slavery in Israel was different in some important ways from the degrading and dehumanizing practice of permanent, involuntary slavery that was later practiced in Africa and the West. ... The laws in this section are intended to protect the rights of slaves and their families."

In other words, this section actually promotes love for one's neighbor. It demonstrates that human beings are creatures with inherent dignity and respect. It's notable that Exod. 21:16 prescribes the death penalty for anyone who kidnaps a slave or anyone who owns a kidnapped slave. 

The Bible assumes the inherent dignity of every human being.

2. I was also struck by this section's emphasis on respect for the land. The Bible shows that the land itself is important and ought to be respected and not overworked. Every seventh year, the land itself was to be given rest. How different from the way Americans treat land. The subculture I have grown up with sees environmentalism as a dirty word, but they have no problem with industrial farming. From what I read here in Exodus, I believe that industrial farming is a great evil, and that God despises it.

3. Although the regulations here are not permanent, this section does assume a real, permanent Moral Order that we must follow if we desire to have a good life. Everything has its place--respect for the land, respect for other people, sexuality, marriage and family life, the worship of God, the rhythm of work and celebration (interestingly, feasts are required). To have a good life, everything must be in harmony--human beings must be in harmony with themselves, with God, with each other, with the land, with strangers, with all things. This passage also shows that our affections must be in tune with this Moral Order, that we might follow it not only externally, but internally. The Moral Order must guide our affections.

What are People For? by Wendell Berry
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Although I don’t always agree with Wendell Berry, his essays are written with such grace that they are a pleasure to read no matter what his opinions are. Berry sees his writing as a craft, a calling, and it is obvious that he writes with great care.

This craftsmanship is shown in Berry’s writing process. Berry writes out his essays by hand, then reads them aloud so that he can experience them with the ear, not just the mind. As he goes through this process, he keeps revising and rewriting. The result is precise and elegant prose that makes his essays worthwhile to read regardless of what he is writing about.

The book What Are People For? is a collection of twenty essays and two poems. In them, Berry touches on a lot of subjects: the economy, food, technology, literature, the environment, and farming. In each of the essays, Wendell Berry shows that he has a strong sense of history and of the direction our country is headed. The essays show us what our society used to be, what it is now, where it’s going, and where Berry thinks it should be going.

But the truth is that Berry's solutions won't work. They just won't. The world is too entrenched in its so-called progress, and there is no turning back to the way things once were. But I love the fact that Berry makes a valiant attempt. It is an attempt worth making because human beings are worth it.

As I read the essays in this book, I was struck by the depth of what we have lost in the last century as our society has stopped valuing human beings and has instead gone through the dehumanizing processes of industrialization, globalization, and mechanization. Years ago, many Americans generally recognized that human beings were created in the image of God, and that therefore they were creatures created to work with dignity, purpose, and meaning. But today, America has no sense of value for human beings. If a company today can replace a human being with a machine, it almost certainly will.

Berry shows us that as our society continues heading this direction, we are losing something. Years ago, Americans were close to their families, to their local communities, and to the land itself. They found fulfillment as they worked meaningful jobs that had direct benefits to their communities, and they passed on their values to their children. And because their work directly impacted the local community, people worked with a sense of purpose and pride. Also, people stayed in their local communities their entire lives, so they had a high stake in caring for their families, their neighbors, and their communities.

But times have changed. In our global industrial economy today, most people see no connection between their work and their local community. They see their families more as a financial burden than anything else. And because people no longer have the opportunity to work at home, families don’t spend much time together. And unlike Americans years ago, most Americans today don’t care about their next-door neighbors. The highest value now is "personal peace and affluence." In other words, leave me alone.

Berry shows that what we have lost as a result of these changes is affection. Drawing from his personal experience, Berry shows us that people once had affection for the land because they had a multi-generational connection to it, and they ate the food they had grown on it. They also had more affection for their families, because the older generation knew that their own children would farm the land one day, or take the shop. Families worked together, enjoying the work but also the fellowship. (Berry has great stories from his own experience to tell on this subject.) Berry also shows us that as parents spent time working with and teaching the children, life was enriched for both children and adults. Today this is almost unheard of.

And obviously, people years ago also had much more of a sense of connection to their local community. People generally lived in the same area for their whole lives, so they cared about the community. Neighbors worshipped together, worked together, and visited each other on porches or at the fences in the evenings because they cared for each other. And because Amazon, UPS, and Walmart didn’t exist, people bought everything locally, so they took much more pride in their work as they labored in local shops and fields.

This sense of community was prominent even in schools and colleges, which were focused on training young people not to leave the community, but to become responsible citizens who could stay in the community, pass on its values, and keep it strong. The thought of leaving and “making it big” in the city was seen as disloyal.

But sadly, in the first half of the twentieth century, modernism and greed took over, and personal relationships and community became subordinate to the almighty dollar. American economic policies emphasized quantitative values—consolidation, efficiency, and the bottom line—and the dignity of human beings and human work had little value to corporate executives, who saw people as "resources" to be discarded when more profit demanded it. In short, quantitative values became more important to businesses, schools, and government institutions than the qualitative values of community, family, faith, and meaningful work, which cannot be measured scientifically or financially.

As a result of changes in federal economic policies, small farms were seen as inefficient and undesirable. This caused most small farms, where families once had meaningful work that supported the local community, to fail and eventually disappear. In their place appeared massive farms that were run like factories. People who once found meaningful work were replaced by machines, so they took their families and moved to cities, losing their connections to places and local communities that they had known for generations.

American educational institutions also changed. No longer was the goal to foster responsible citizens who would keep the local community strong. Now the mission of schools and universities was to build corporate workers. The new educational concept of success was for a young person to leave the local community, make lots of money, and move up the corporate ladder. Instead of training young people to become responsible, mature members of the community who would pass on its values to the next generation of families, schools began to focus on math, science, and technological skills, while at the same time failing to present any sort of moral framework for them.

These changes are still impacting us today. Now the goal in our educational institutions is to give people “job skills.” Schools don’t consider what people are for, and considering the direction of our society is seen as a waste of time. They are too busy improving test scores.

And there are further results of these changes. Americans today no longer find meaning in their workweek. The products they make are not for their local community, but for people who live thousands of miles away, whom they have no connection to whatsoever. Because of this loss of community and the consequential loss of joy in work and at home, Americans today live their lives waiting for the evening, or for the weekend, or for retirement, or for death.

The worst casualty of this change in society is the family. Children were once a treasure, a blessing from God, and an asset to the home. Now they are a hindrance and a nuisance, and parents are happy when they send the kids to daycare or to school for the day.

In short, as we have moved toward industrialization, globalization, and mechanization--all at the expense of loving our fellow human beings as ourselves--we have lost our affection for our families, our land, and our local communities.

What are people for? It is a question worth asking.



View all my reviews