I respect his Ph.D. and Larry P. Arnn’s post-graduate work at the London School of Economics and Oxford University as well as his experience being President of Hillsdale College. At the same time I would respectfully query a number of his opinions in “The Unity and Beauty of the Declaration and the Constitution.” The interview by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution was recently published in Imprimis(Dec. 2011.).*
Some important issues should be mentioned.
First, I was drawn to this article out of my ongoing desire to understand what true conservatives are and how they would mold our country in the future. The current primary race lacks depth on that score. Second, let me be clear that I have no desire to trash the work of our Founding Fathers. If not infallible, these documents are certainly precious. However, the Founding Fathers did have in mind the amendment of the Constitution, carefully and cautiously over time. Sooner or later, one has to deal with culture changed by Darwin, quantum physics, and the salience of relative over absolute thinking. I mean that what good is learning if we do not apply it. And none of this makes the existence of God impossible. In fact I read somewhere that the “God particle” does not preclude something akin to deism.
Arnn says that never forgetting the formidable risks and challenges of the American Revolution, we should not oversimplify the 18th Century in contrast to our own issues in the 21st. Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers knew nothing of the industrial revolution, two mechanized world wars and proliferation of nuclear arsenals. Arnn speaks of the health care bureaucracy that will inundate the dollar value of society itself. The Founders also knew nothing of the great potential of medical research and the practice of medicine. He speaks of rule-making bureaucracy that threatens to destroy freedom and liberty as though the costs and complexities of health care do not threaten to bankrupt the middle class.
The solution to our constitutional challenges for Arnn seem to be a return to prudence and principle in the neo-classical style of the Enlightenment which will triumph over tyrannical rules imposed by big government. He cites a 500-page volume of rules regulating education. Then he recommends the example of Hillsdale College based on an honor system and a few good principles. Would that every young American could have such an elite education! There is no mention of the huge challenges successfully met and being met still by land-grant institutions. huge bureaucracies, that advance the Jeffersonian ideal — all of it with huge tax subsidies.
While it was an interview of very specific questions, there seems to me to be some major constitutional issues that never came up. For one I mention the possibility that the professional lobbies holding our Congress in thrall comes down to a constitutional question. Have we not effectively a fourth, ad hoc branch of government, totally unanticipated by the Founding Fathers. The Norquist pledge especially is an extra-governmental power capable of abrogating the oath of office taken by constitutionally elected representatives of The People. If representatives want to vote no, they should vote no, but an oath to always close one’s mind is anti-intellectual, illogical and irresponsible. Representatives are accountable to themselves, voters at home and the Constitution. Oaths to God and country are one thing. An oath to a lobbyist is quite another. And we’re not talking about the Boy Scout Oath here.
I mention also, corporations that have the legal personhood of one, but that employ hundreds. I presume that political opinion comes from the Board of Directors and the stockholders. Fine. Companies may say that the individual opinions of employees come out in the wash of election day. However, the real issue is whether or not the unlimited billions of political donations now permitted by the Supreme Court gives the “people” of corporations unfair advantage — due solely to the power to buy and sell elected officials. Money talks. Corporate money talks louder than John Doe’s money. Corporations have much more vital, immediate leverage on politicians than any single voter. The further question is whether or not corporate lobbying, especially related to multi-nationals, impacts our constitutional democracy. Does the Constitution need to answer this matter? Does the Constitution need to strengthen the oath of office?
Finally, tyranny does not necessarily come from complexity and size. Our private health care system does not work in the free market due to its inelastic, limitless demand. Costs are totally out of control. More and more it falls into the hands of a few monopolistic corporations. These corporations are more than willing to make money on the Advantage plans for Medicare, so fears of socialism cease at the point of profit. I cannot see any other solution than the public option, if there is to be competition in the “free” market.
Further, in 1789 American citizens were totally fatalistic about longevity, especially healthy longevity. One lived a long life or she didn’t. He led a healthy life or a sickly one and fate played its hand. Millions fell dead in a furrow behind a plow. Not so today. Proper and early treatment can stave off fate for years. This blessing has become part of our “constitutional” makeup. Is it not clearly part of the pursuit of happiness — a mainstay of the common interest? (Why? Because these days longevity is possible.) If the answer is yes, then the matter is as constitutional as the right to education. Access to good health care should be no more wealth-based, than general education. It just didn’t happen to be an issue in 1789. It couldn’t possibly have been an issue. The promise of longevity for all was impossible.
By all means, let us have principles and prudence in all that we do. In the end leadership demands that we get our priorities right in a modern world in the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with equal justice for all.
Steadfast and cautious,
David Milliken
*Please note that the following applies to my link to Imprimis.
“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST.
ISSN 0277-8432
Imprimis trademark registered in U.S.
Patent and Trade Office #1563325.
A GOOD MAN WITH A GUN: SHANE
When I think of gun culture in America, I spin off to the Wild West and that makes me think of the book(1949) and movie called “Shane”(1953). Book and film merge in my mind. Shane can only look like Alan Ladd. Shane is the laconic, reluctant gunfighter, a man with shadows living in the shadows of silence. In the book he doesn’t even tote a gun until after the real danger has arrived. One feels this kind, dangerous man wants to retreat from some earlier, deep melancholy of his own. He’s trapped in his past. ”A man is what he is,” Shane says to Joey(the little boy played by Brandon DeWilde), ” and there’s no breaking the mold. I tried that and I’ve lost.” *
And in the uncivilized West, Wyoming Territory in particular, self and home defense were absolute necessities. The Joe Starrett (Van Heflin) family, homesteaders, live out on the plains, a hundred miles from a sheriff. And while the Indian threat doesn’t seem to be serious in this story, a farmer still needs firearms for hunting, varmint control and self-preservation in an essentially lawless land. The looming threat here is Ryker and his hired cowboys. Ryker is acattleman who wants to rid the range of sod busters so he can create his cattle empire. Sooner or later fear will becomes palpablel in the person of the gunfighter, Jack Wilson. No one could play stark evil better than Jack Palance.
In the book the first suggestion of guns appears when Joey Starrett starts to help Shane stow his gear. Shane quickly relieves the boy of his saddle roll in which Shane’s grand, single action Colt is wrapped. And later when Joey is playing with an old broken down Colt, Shane says, “Listen, Joey, a gun is just a tool. No better and no worse than any other tool, a shovel — or an axe or a saddle or a stove or anything. Think of it always that way. A man is as good and as bad as the man who carries it.” Of course, Shane has become an awesome model for Joey.
Shane the reluctant, anti-hero boasts only once when he wants to dissuade Joe Starrett from taking on the gunfighter Wilson. Shane’s gun is a fact of life and an icon of Shane’s very being — but nothing to be worshiped. In the end after Shane triumphs he refers to the gun he has just used as a “good tool.” Here is the epitome of a good man with a gun. He is not a paranoid or a romantic avenger. Good Shane’s gun is a good tool — like the axes he and Joe Starrett use to passionately remove an old tree stump and like the stove Marian Starret(Jean Arthur) uses to bake her apple pie — especially after the failure of her first effort. In some ways the stove is a very effective weapon against rampant testosterone in the Starrett home. We all have good tools.
Having viewed the film many times, I’ve finally read the book. Until recently I did not know the film was based on Jack Shaefer’s novel. Anyone who enjoys the film, should read the novel. Neither is better than the other. They are different and both are superb, simple, classical works. If I needed a good man with a gun, it would be Shane. I would want him to come back and ride by my side. Violence in “Shane” amounts to verbal bullying, fist fighting and one final gun duel. Good wins. Bad loses. Bullying gets its comeuppance. And yet, Shane, expert gunfighter himself, projects a grim outlook on violence. The justness of his cause cannot be denied. Rancher and gunfighter deserved their fates.
But this is art and a far cry from some stupid, raging domestic shooting in a kitchen between feuding spouses. It has nothing to do with a gun left carelessly within reach of a child. I can’t imagine Shane using his gun under the influence of anything but his skill, principle and will. Shane’s gun is not an indispensable extension of his ego. In fact Shane would forsake gun fighting if he could. A gun in “Shane” has noble use. At the same time there’s reality in the despicable meanness, ambition and greed that threatens a prairie village. Only a gun can clean it up.
* I refer to the book and use quotations from it.