A Sensible Life

Author: Joe Anderson

  • The Death of Federalism

    The Death of Federalism

    Federalism is now officially dead. Chief Justice Roberts declared today in his majority opinion in the PPACA ruling that the national government (I refuse from now on to call it the federal government) has the right to force individuals to purchase health insurance and to penalize them with a fine if they fail to comply. This supposed right of the national government somehow derives from its “taxing power”. Well, if the national government can now coerce me into purchasing something against my will and impose a penalty for my non-compliance in the form of a fine (now called a tax) then no limit now constrains the power of the national government.

    In reality, I am probably late to the party in declaring the death of my beloved federalism. Power has been shifting from states, communities and families to Washington for the last 100 years. This shift occurs in fits and starts but always follows an inexorable path forward (or backward). Once powers move to this central authority they never move back. In this progression, however, today’s decision by the Supreme Court, marks such a profound shift that it is not overstating the case to say that we have reached the culmination, the death of federalism, the death of the idea that individual freedom and state sovereignty are more important than the national state, the death in short of any semblance of subsidiarity.

    If you think I state my case too strongly read the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy in his dissenting opinion to today’s Supreme Court ruling, “The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the federal government is one of limited powers,” Kennedy said. “But the court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.”

    Can federalism be resuscitated?

    All things are possible. I cling to the hope that we can return to the founding principles of our country and turn the tide. Unfortunately, we face a very strong tide. In order to return to a sensible approach to governance in this country we must (a) overcome the historical trend of this country toward centralization of power and (b) overcome the lack of formation of great swaths of our citizenry concerning principles of political philosophy especially as they pertain to the limitations of government and the rights and responsibility of individuals.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that government has no role in our lives. What I am saying is that government has forgotten that it derives its power from the people. And many of our fellow citizens have forgotten this as well. It will require a massive concerted effort from the people in order to wrest the power away from the national government that it has accumulated to itself. I hope We the People stand willing to engage in this effort.

  • The Lake Isle of Innisfree

    The Lake Isle of Innisfree

    In this “Metre” section of A Sensible Life we will explore the literary arts and will in particular savor the sweet words of those who understand the earth and creation and who speak beautifully of our relationship with the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

    I came across this poem today as my wife and I were reading poetry with one of our daughters. I cannot add much to the beauty expressed in this piece. All I can say is that much of the purpose of A Sensible Life and much of the purpose of my life is contained here:  participation in creation, blessed peace, simplicity (thrift), quiet contentedness…

    The Lake Isle of Innisfree

     

    by William Butler Yeats

     

    I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,

    And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:

    Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,

    And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

     

    And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,

    Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;

    There midnight’s all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,

    And evening full of the linnet’s wings.

     

    I will arise and go now, for always night and day

    I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;

    While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements gray,

    I hear it in the deep heart’s core.

     

    I will not seek to live alone on the Lake Isle of Innisfree, for that is not my call. But I will seek that peace in my soul and that joy of a life surrounded by beauty; beauty received as pure gratuitous gift, beauty enhanced by those around me, beauty cultured by the work of my own hands…

  • Thrift vs. the Green Movement

    Thrift vs. the Green Movement

    The modern Green Movement represents a profound departure from man’s ancient obligation to practice Thrift. In fact, one might almost say that the two ideas are diametrically opposed. This may seem odd given that Thrift with its impetus towards moderation in using the resources gifted to man in creation as well as by its focus on stewardship and guardianship of these same resources shares many common goals or objectives with the Green Movement.

    The root of the distinction between Thrift and the Green Movement lies just there, at the root and source of these ideals. That is, the distinction flows from beliefs about the nature of things (and people). Thrift finds its roots in its understanding of man, who man is, what his relationship is with nature and, therefore, what his responsibilities are toward nature. The Green Movement, on the other hand, finds its roots in a denial of man, a denial of man’s relationship with nature and a denial of man’s role as guardian. One might almost say that the Green Movement is the Anti-Thrift.

    Are my ideas too strongly stated? Let’s look at a couple examples.

    How about the way we should treat animals? Thrift (and its associated virtues) would tell us we should treat animals well because they are gifts to us from a Creator who expects us to care for them. Thrift would also tell us that animals have use to us as human beings (whether it be as companions, beasts of burden or sources of food and clothing) and that by being good guardians of these creatures we will, in addition to doing the right thing, be enhancing their usefulness to us and ensuring they will continue to live and prosper and continue to fulfill our needs (physical, aesthetic, spiritual) and those of our children. The Green Movement, on the other hand, would tell us that our obligation toward animals derives from the animals’ equal status with us as co-inhabitants of nature. Therefore we have no rights where they are concerned and our obligations to them are limited to a sort of non-interference. This view of our relationship with animals is not only illogical but it results in a very impoverished understanding of our relationship to nature, an impoverished understanding of our obligations to nature. Rather than the robust and positive view proposed by Thrift, the Green Movement proposes a neutral or even negative view of our obligation. Rather than cultivating, beautifying and enriching, our role is simply to do as little damage as possible.

    Let’s look at the related example of the care of our forests, and the animals in them. Thrift would tell us to enjoy our forests, use the abundant resources to be found in them, live in them, ensure the endurance and prosperity of at least large sections of them and maintain (or increase) their beauty and health. Thrift would tell us to care for the streams and rivers within our forests both because of their beauty and goodness and for their value as a source of water and fish. What of the Green Movement? Well, the predecessors of the Green Movement (those who practiced conservation) have stopped all logging in our forests and have spent years doing their best to put out all forest fires within their eaves. And now these same folks and their big government allies are moving to limit all human access to the forests. Rather than following the path of Thrift that would have led to a rational planned use of our forests, including thinning the forests and using the lumber gained from the thinning for legitimate human needs, we now have overly dense forests (many times more dense than they were 100 years ago) that are subject to devastating fires that simply destroy the timber. Additionally, of course, they kill countless animals and wreak havoc on the forest streams. This is what happens when we practice conservation rather than Thrift.

    I will not go on. I will simply conclude by saying that in A Sensible Life we will propose ideas aimed at living Thrift – sensibly, rationally and with an eye toward goodness and beauty.

    And because we cannot end without a word from Chesterton, here is one from What’s Wrong with the World, “If a man could undertake to make use of all things in his dustbin he would be a broader genius than Shakespeare.” I’m sure he meant no disrespect to Shakespeare…

  • Political Labels (Defining our Terms)

    Political Labels (Defining our Terms)

    I recently heard on the Mike Gallagher show an interview with Jonah Goldberg of the National Review. I usually agree with much of what Mr. Goldberg has to say. In this particular interview (June 5), however, I took strong exception to one of his points. Mr. Goldberg made the statement that it is only liberals who indicate a desire to stop using labels to identify political positions. They do this, he said, because they are opposed to taking a principled stand on any issue.

    I think Mr. Goldberg is only about half correct. While it is true that much of the political discourse in this country avoids (intentionally or unintentionally) any principled stand on a particular issue, it is not true that only individuals of one political persuasion tire of the use of labels in our conversations in the public square.

    Mr. Goldberg may also be correct in his assessment of certain individuals’ tendency to hide behind labels in their desire to avoid substantive debate. I think it more likely, however, that many of us in our interactions in the public square use labels out of laziness. We find it easier in the brevity of our communications to use a word or two to describe ourselves or our opponents than to truly describe our own position or their position.

    The reality is that we frequently don’t know what the “one-worders” mean! Really, what is a liberal? What is a conservative? Let’s define our positions! What are we interested in? What is our hope for our economy? Our country? Our culture? Perhaps we’ll find that our positions are not that far apart. Certainly we will find that there are issues about which we strongly disagree but at least then we can have a conversation about the merits of the various positions on those particular issues.

    Chesterton said in What’s Wrong with the World that , “I suppose most conservatives are conserving the traditions of the last revolt.” Chesterton would not have defined himself as a conservative and had some not so complimentary things to say about those who did so this quote should be understood in that context. What I believe he rightly points out here, though, is the truth that conservatism itself is subject to a definition that rests on a shifting foundation. What is it that conservatism purports to conserve? Let the conservative define his position, define what it is he wants to conserve. Let the liberal define his liberality. As I see it, the problem with the liberal “movement” is that it is not liberal.

    I’ll save my definition of terms for another day. Until then, I resolve to speak in full sentences. If I use a label for someone or some ideology, I will make sure folks know what I mean by it…