A History Lesson

Sources

The Library of America (LOA) is commemorating the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War  (1861 – 1865) in four volumes, plus one.

The Civil War: The First Year Told By Those Who Lived It was published in 2011. Companion volumes, covering the second and third year of the war, were published in 2012 and 2013. The final year of the war will be covered in a volume planned for next year. Each book contains letters, diaries, speeches, articles and other documents that give a firsthand account of “our greatest national drama…our Iliad.” This publication is comparable to Ken Burns’ PBS series, The Civil War, surpassing Mr. Burns in primary sources, but lacking the beguiling voice and visage of Shelby Foote.

In addition, the LOA published American Antislavery Writings: Colonial Beginnings to Emancipation in 2012. This anthology presents theological, moral and economic arguments that were made against slavery by obscure colonial Quakers, Founding Fathers, slaves, clergy, novelists and philosophers.

What will not be found in the above anthologies is any writing by the Reverend Dr. Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther (October 25, 1811 – May 7, 1887), the founding president of what now is known as The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.

Dr. Walther’s writings will not be found in the Library of America’s Civil War series because as an immigrant from the Kingdom of Saxony, he wrote exclusively in German and for the most part addressed only the adherents of his obscure Lutheran sect. Dr. Walther’s name does not appear in the LOA antislavery volume either. Dr. Walther thought “the Abolitionist-Republican party” was the instigator of the Civil War. As he understood it, states had a right to secession under the United States Constitution. Most importantly, Dr. Walther saw nothing in Scripture that forbade slavery.

The late Dr. August R. Suelflow documents Dr. Walther’s position on nineteenth-century American slavery in his essay, “Walther the American.” The essay is in C. F. W. Walther: The American Luther; Essays in Commemoration of the 100^th Anniversary of Carl Walther’s Death.

Dr. Suelflow was the series editor for Selected Writings of C. F. W. Walther. That series is comprised of six slender volumes of Dr. Walther’s letters, treatises, essays and sermons, translated, edited and in many cases, condensed, for the edification of the faithful. Selected Writings may be viewed as The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod’s “official edition” of Walther’s work. At 126 years after his death, no critical, scholarly edition of Dr. Walther’s writings exists.

In 1978, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) published The Word of His Grace: Occasional and Festival Sermons. This book presents translated and edited sermons that Dr. Walther had previously published in German. One of these sermons the editors indicate was preached “On The Annual Day Of Humiliation And Prayer” during the Civil War. No date is given, but Dr. Walther states therein that “…nearly two years of war …” had transpired.

The above are the chief, but not exclusive, sources for the following discussion of Dr. Walther’s ostensibly Christian response to the greatest political and moral issue of his day.

 Dr. Walther’s Stand

C. F. W. Walther was part of an immigrant Lutheran sect from the Kingdom of Saxony. They arrived at the port of New Orleans on 5 January 1839. These Saxons together with other recent German immigrants formed Die Deutsche Evangelisch-Lutherische Synode von Missouri, Ohio und anderen Staaten, on 26 April 1847 in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Walther was the first president. He would serve in that office from 1847 to 1850 and again from 1864 to 1878. In addition, Dr. Walther would serve as head pastor of four St. Louis congregations, professor and president of the Synod’s seminary, and editor of two German language journals. For many years, he would serve these several offices simultaneously.

Dr. Walther opposed the Unionists and the policies of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, on theological, Constitutional and political grounds.

“Walther maintained two positions which, to him, appeared completely Scriptural. First, on the basis of Romans 13:1-7, he upheld the principle that the Christian owes obedience to the state. On the other hand, however, he felt that Scripture nowhere says that slavery in itself is a sin” (Suelflow, p. 24).

With regard to slavery, Dr. Suelflow quotes from a late 1869 letter of Walther: “What God permits the Christians in the New Testament to do and does not command them to put aside, but rather to control, cannot be sinful in itself. That is what God does with regard to slavery…. Insofar as this was ordered by law in America, American slavery was not sinful” (Suelflow, p. 25). Note this is after the end of the Civil War in 1865. (Unfortunately, the full letter and most of what Dr. Walther wrote concerning the Civil War and slavery are missing from the official Selected Writings of C. F. W. Walther edited by Dr. Suelflow.)

Dr. Walther’s idea of “obedience to the state” is closely bound up with his understanding of the state. Dr. Suelflow cites one of Walther’s letters: “I am a Missourian and therefore will never be moved to separate my fortune from that of my state unless I am forced.” Dr. Walther, as a recent immigrant from the Kingdom of Saxony, had no understanding of the Union formed by the U. S. Constitution.

“Walther’s European homeland consisted of disunited states, churches, and kingdoms such as the Kingdom of Saxony, the Kingdom of Prussia and many others” (Suelflow, p. 25). There would be no united Germany until 18 January 1871. For this reason Dr. Walther’s Scriptural understanding of his loyalty as a citizen ended at the borders of the state of Missouri.

Scripture and the Constitution contended with politics in the mind of Dr. Walther.

Not all nineteenth-century German immigrants were pious Lutherans… or even devout Roman Catholics. There were the “48ers,” socialist and communist revolutionaries. There were in fact “godless communists” who settled in German enclaves in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and St. Louis, Missouri. These radicals became the Red Republicans, opposed to slavery and a whole lot more. Among these Reds was Heinrich Boernstein, the St. Louis publisher of the Anzeiger des Westens. Dr. Walther often complained of Herr Boernstein’s influence on his flock.

“Very slowly our congregation members themselves began to read the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri and thus to compare this state of affairs and to form their own convictions. Up to now most of them have only been influenced by the Boernstein politics” (Suelflow, p. 22).

Dr. Walther and the Reds

Dr. Walther’s observance of the presence of “atheistic communism” in the Republican Party cannot be gainsaid. Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) looked upon the American Civil War as an expression of the struggle of the working class against Capitalist Southern landowners. On 17 October 1862, Marx’s “On Events in North America” appeared in the Viennese newspaper Die Presse. Marx wrote, “The figure Lincoln is sui generis in the annals of history. No initiative, no idealistic eloquence, no buskin, no historic drapery. He always presents the most important act in the most insignificant form possible.” Marx called the Emancipation Proclamation “… the most significant document in American history since the founding of the Union…” (The Lincoln Anthology, LOA, p. 49).

Upon Abraham Lincoln’s reelection in 1865, the International Workingmen’s Association sent congratulations. “If resistance to the slave power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your reelection is ‘Death to slavery’” (The Annals of America, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., vol. 9, p. 543). The officers of the First International, including Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, signed this declaration of support.

In addition to Karl Marx and the Red Republicans that surrounded Dr. Walther in St. Louis, mention should be made of Carl Schurz (1829 – 1906). Mr. Schurz was a “48” revolutionary who fled Europe for the United States in 1852 to settle first in Wisconsin. There he campaigned for the Republican Party and was an early supporter of Abraham Lincoln. He served as minister to Spain in 1861. In 1862, he joined the Union Army and commanded divisions at Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg and Chattanooga. In 1864, Major General Carl Schurz resigned his commission to campaign among the German-Americans for Mr. Lincoln’s reelection. After the war, Schurz served as a Republican Senator from Missouri from 1869 to 1875 (The Lincoln Anthology, LOA, p. 330. John C. Waugh, Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency, p. 311).

Let this suffice to demonstrate that the first Republican president, the cause of the Union and abolitionism were all promoted by socialists, communists and even Karl Marx himself. It is understandable that the pious Dr. Walther had little in common with these radicals. Unfortunately, he did not see beyond these “atheistic” participants in the public square to understand that slavery was wrong. Dr. Walther failed to understand that the defense of the Union was the defense of the rule of law under the Constitution.

Dr. Walther and the Constitution of the United States of America

We have already noted that Dr. Walther was an immigrant from the Kingdom of Saxony, well before the establishment of the Second German Reich. Some might think it would be presumptuous to expect that he would know the history of the United States from the Revolution to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (1781) and the subsequent adoption of the United States Constitution (1789).

However, Dr. Walther made his own presumptions. “[W]e cannot see why the state does not have the right of secession according to the United States Constitution and according to their own constitution; and partly we have declared that if a state secedes from the Union, naturally the individual citizens will not revolt but will either immigrate or will subject themselves to the seceding state government, according to the Bible passage: ‘Be obedient to the power that has authority over you’”(Suelflow, pp. 23, 24).

Dr. Walther here presumes to know the Constitution and proceeds to sanctify his understanding with a passage of Scripture. Later he would preach and teach against the Union. Since he used the Office of the Holy Ministry to promote his political views, he had an obligation to know the Constitution and arguments for the Union. In this, he failed.

First, he failed to understand that the South had no just cause to secede. Abraham Lincoln won the presidential election on 6 November 1860. Immediately secession began in South Carolina. Before Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration on 4 March 1861, Federal forts were seized throughout the South and the Confederate States of America formed, with Jefferson Davis elected president and Alexander Stevens vice president.

“Mr. Lincoln has been constitutionally elected and, much as I deprecate his success, no alternative is left me but to yield to the Constitution,” wrote Sam Houston, the hero of Texas independence (The Civil War: The First Year, LOA, p. 39). The secessionists were not fighting against any unconstitutional law. No move had been made to free slaves. No Federal force had come against them. Mr. Lincoln had done nothing to incur their wrath. The secessionists were rebelling against a constitutionally legal election. When Sam Houston refused to pledge allegiance to the Confederate States of America, he was removed from office on 16 March 1861. On 12 April 1861 the rebels fired on Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and the Civil War began.

Even without a thorough knowledge of the Constitution, Dr. Walther should have understood that the South had no just cause to instigate rebellion.

Secondly, Dr. Walther failed to understand that under the Constitution no single state had the right to secede without the consent of the whole. After the Revolution, the original thirteen colonies existed as independent states. Those colonies voluntarily joined under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (1781). Later, it became necessary to “form a more perfect Union” with the Constitution of the United States. The colonies that voluntarily joined in “perpetual” union under the 1718 Articles strengthened that perpetual union with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

This is not merely an “Abolitionist-Republican” argument against secession. This argument was published by the Democratic, and consistently anti-Lincoln, New York Daily News on 16 November 1860 (The Civil War: The First Year, LOA, p. 34). If Dr. Walther had studied the Constitution as he claimed, he should have known this argument.

Thirdly, while the original thirteen states had surrendered whatever right of secession they might have had with the ratification of the Constitution, the states that followed never had such a right. The territories for those states had been purchased by the treasury of the whole nation. Dr. Walther was a loyal citizen of Missouri. He failed to understand that the state of Missouri was brought into the Union as a consequence of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. He owed allegiance to both the state and the Federal government. The case of the secession of Texas was exceedingly reprehensible as it was purchased by “both blood and treasure” of the Federal government in the Mexican-American War and peace treaty that followed (Ulysses S. Grant: Memoirs and Selected Letters, LOA, p. 146).

Dr. Walther claimed to have studied both the U. S. Constitution and the constitution of Missouri. He clearly understood neither. His ignorance is excusable. His animus toward the Red Republicans is understandable. It is reprehensible, however, that his animosity toward political opponents and ignorance of American polity shaped his preaching of Scripture. On the greatest moral and political problem of his day, Dr. Walther was thoroughly wrong.

Dr. Walther, Slavery and Scripture

It has already been noted that Dr. Walther, finding no prohibition in Scripture, declared that slavery “cannot be sinful in itself.” Sadly, Dr. Walther was not the only Christian to hold this view.

James Henry Thornwall of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in The Confederate States of America held much the same view. “Slavery is no new thing,” he wrote for the General Assembly. “It has not only existed for ages in the world, but it has existed, under every dispensation of the covenant of grace, in the Church of God.” Mr. Thornwall, in the same address, stated, “As long as [the African race] in its comparative degradation, coexists, side by side with the white, bondage is its normal condition” ( Annals of America, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., vol. 9, p. 301).

Vice president of the CSA Alexander Stephens preached much the same sermon.

“Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so the negro. Subordination is his place. He by nature, or by the curse of Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system” (The Civil War: The First Year, LOA, p. 228).

The South’s “peculiar institution” of slavery did not exist “in itself” as Dr. Walther termed it. It was not some benign category for scholastic discussion. Slavery in the United States of America was racist.

Dr. Walther appears to have been ignorant of racism and the other attendant evils of slavery.

In the undated sermon preached “On The Annual Day Of Humiliation And Prayer” during the Civil War, Dr. Walther states that God uses war to chasten and punish nations. Those nations that are chastised and do not repent are punished. Then he accuses his congregation of not receiving the war as chastisement. “Have we not rather applauded those who in this war saw nothing but the birth-pangs of a new age of complete freedom and equality? Instead of fashioning our views of this war according to the infallible Word of God, have we not rather derived them from ungodly, atheistic newspapers?” He then warns them of God's punishment (The Word of His Grace, ELS, pp. 149, 150).

On a later National Day of Humiliation and Prayer, 4 August 1864, late in the war, Dr. Walther preached, “Isn’t it known within our city and throughout the land that there are unscrupulous people who actually do not want peace? Who want to continue the war? Some want to continue the war in order to further their party politics” (Suelflow, p. 27).

We must be clear. In the first sermon Dr. Walther attacks those who look for “a new age of complete freedom and equality.” While he is obviously attacking Abolitionist-Republicans, there is no evidence that he subscribes to the racism of Mr. Thornwall and Mr. Stephens. In the second sermon, it is clear that Dr. Walther did subscribe to the propaganda directed against President Lincoln by his opponents in the 1864 election. President Lincoln was constantly accused of aspiring to tyranny. In sum, while no evidence has been presented here that shows Dr. Walther to be a racist, he was willing to be associated with their noxious, Scripture-perverting doctrines rather than have any connection with Red Republicans.

What Does This Mean?

Disciples of the Reverend Dr. Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther often present him as “The American Luther.” In fact, he was nothing more than a German pietist who aspired to Lutheran Orthodoxy and failed.

Martin Luther was a Biblical theologian who rejected the Scholasticism of his day and influenced the development of Western Civilization in the process. He was the last man of the Middle Ages and the first man of the Modern Age. Whatever one finally thinks about Martin Luther, he cannot be ignored when attempting to understand our time.

Walther was a Saxon who aped the Scholasticism of the second-generation Lutherans and had little influence beyond nineteenth-century German-American immigrants. This is the reason much of Walther’s writing remains untranslated. The cost-cutting effect of advancing technology may bring more of his work into publication. However, this will only prove that Dr. Walther is less than what his disciples think him to be. One can ignore Dr. Walther and still achieve a comprehensive understanding of the history of the United States of America.

What Dr. Walther presents us with is failure. He failed to preach an uncompromised Word of the Lord concerning the most important moral problem of his day. He failed to bring a Christian witness to the public square. His failure is a caution to faithful Christians today… who will listen.

A Road to Serfdom

“I grew up on Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a Washington, D.C., gathering seven years ago honoring Rand. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12 August 2012

Today Mr. Ryan wants to distance himself from Ayn Rand. In an interview with the über-conservative National Review Online, he said it was an “urban legend” that Ayn Rand was a special obsession of his.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Ryan, his affection for Ayn Rand’s philosophy is well documented. It has been declared in conservative publications promoting Mr. Ryan’s fitness for office. In a 2005 speech to the Atlas Society Mr. Ryan stated that Ms. Rand’s Atlas Shrugged was required reading for all his office interns and staff. In 2009 Mr. Ryan produced campaign videos in which he emphatically praises the morality of Atlas Shrugged. Videos are still available on YouTube of both events. Randism undergirds his budget proposals. Mr. Ryan’s brother Tobin has stated, “Paul can still quote every verse out of Ayn Rand.”

There are no verse numbers in Ms. Rand’s writings. It is not surprising, however, that cult members refer to them as if they are sacred scripture.

Mr. Ryan was motivated to denounce Randism by recent criticism of his budget proposals by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others who see nothing compatible between the doctrines of Ms. Rand and Jesus Christ. (See blog archive for October 23, 2010, “The Threat.” It begins, “The election of President Barack Obama aroused a truly un-American, anti-democratic, virulently un-Christian ideology in our country.”) Mr. Ryan’s recent elevation to national prominence makes his denials all the more urgent. Conservative publications, in a fit of collective willful amnesia, are busy burnishing Mr. Ryan’s claims to Catholicism. As understandable as these attempts at subterfuge are, we should not be fooled. He is a Randian. The only question is, what is Atlas Shrugged?

The Plume quality paperback Centennial Edition of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is a monster of 1,168 pages of abused English. Ms. Rand’s characters are not believable. They act illogically and speak unnaturally. The situations depicted are inconceivable outside the pages of a very bad book. Nevertheless, this is Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, the full statement of her worldview, her diagnosis of what is wrong with the world and prescription for the cure. In what follows it may appear that too much is attributed to characters of what is merely a work of fiction. Ms. Rand intended Atlas Shrugged to be more than a mere work of fiction. The cult that follows her – which includes Mr. Ryan and every Tea Party protester with a “Who is John Galt?” sign – have received Atlas Shrugged as fact, not fiction.

Atlas Shrugged is a dystopia that presents the United States as a collapsing republic surrounded by socialistic “People’s States.” Most commentaries focus on two types of characters Ms. Rand presents.

Foremost are the “men of the mind.” These are the individualists, the creators, the people who live by reason. They are presented to us in various states of egoism. The progress of the novel in part is to follow these individuals as they grow to appreciate the importance of selfishness. Their selfish pursuits create things and uphold the world. They are the Titans. Ms. Rand spares no superlative as she describes these “giants of productive energy” who are “equals” in pursuit of “higher and still higher achievements of their own” (p. 453). These supermen do not owe anyone anything. They are self-made, self-directed, and serve only themselves.

The second type of character is the looters. They are parasites who live off the achievements of the “men of the mind.” Included here are government officials. All government officials, from the bureaucrats to judges, are corrupt, foolish, and incompetent. Civic responsibility in Ms. Rand’s world is just an excuse the looters use to take from the creators. Included among the looters are aesthetes, intellectuals, writers, and family members. Family relationships are the worst. There is not one family relationship that is not dysfunctional. That includes mother-son and husband-wife. All the siblings are rivals.

Rand describes the looters as “…whining rotters who never rouse themselves to any effort, who do not possess the ability of a filing clerk, but demand the income of a company president, who drift from failure to failure and expect [the producers] to pay their bill” (p. 453). There is more but it does not get any more reasonable.

Between the “men of the mind” and the looters is another category of citizen that populates the America of Ayn Rand that is not noticed by the commentators. These citizens are far from being the equals of the “men of the mind.” However, they have a certain Randian “moral integrity.” They are the “serfs” (p. 11). Because of their intellectual deficiencies the “serfs” can “never invent” anything but they “do their best, work … live by their own effort, and … give a moment’s silent thanks to the [producer] who gave them more than they could give him” (p. 453).

This is the America of Ayn Rand and Randians like Mr. Paul Ryan. It is an America where the superlative “men of the mind” deserve all the honor, glory, and money they can lay their hands on. It is an America where only looters impose taxes or government regulations on producers. It is an America where most people should be content to be serfs.

This is a brief description of a long book. It is fair. It is accurate. The three types of characters are Ms. Rand’s, not mine. Every effort has been made to describe these three types of characters in the very terms that she either did use or would use. If the idea of an America where serfs live in worshipful gratitude to their moneyed overlords is offensive, blame Ms. Rand. It is her book that is faithfully described here. This is her worldview and that of those who follow her.

F. A. Hayek published The Road to Serfdom in 1944. In it Mr. Hayek warned that “… the collectivist idea of empowering government with increasing economic control would lead not to a utopia but to the horrors of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy” (from the dust jacket of The University of Chicago Press Definitive Edition). Mr. Hayek went on to win the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974 and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991. Despite his rumored admiration for Ayn Rand, I hold Mr. Hayek as a philosopher and economist to be respected.

Nevertheless, he was wrong in The Road to Serfdom. The New Deal and the progressive economic programs that followed, for all their faults, did not lead to fascism in America. Most importantly, he was wrong not to recognize that there is more than one road to serfdom. Government certainly is not the answer to all of society’s ills, and Mr. Hayek’s warning is helpful. However, the unbridled “Capitalism” of Ayn Rand leads us down another path to serfdom every bit as dire.

All commentators regard Mr. Paul Ryan as an intelligent man. He is an intelligent man despite the fact that he fails to recognize that Atlas Shrugged is poorly written rubbish. He is an intelligent man despite the fact that he failed to recognize that the morality of Atlas Shrugged is a complete contradiction of Christian morality. He is an intelligent man despite the fact that he thinks citizens will not recognize his ignorance and duplicity.

The Republican presidential ticket of Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan presents this nation with the temptation to trust that there are indeed moneyed overlords who will create jobs as long as they are not taxed or their enterprises regulated. It is a temptation to go down a road to serfdom.

The Best and The Worst

Not long after seeing the trailer for Atlas Shrugged, I came across the trailer for quite a different kind of film: Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Malick is the world’s greatest living filmmaker, and this project has been with him for years. … [ T ]his is my plea: Do not go to see Atlas Shrugged. Do not encourage those people. Go instead to The Tree of Life, which—whether it should prove a triumph or a failure—will be the work of a remarkable artist who really does have something to tell us about both nature and grace (two things about which Rand knew absolutely nothing). So make the wise cinematic choice here, for the good of your own soul, but also for the sake of a rapidly foundering civilization.

                             —“The Trouble with Ayn Rand,” David Bentley Hart, First Things, May 2011

Mr. Hart is a wise and witty man. His essay on Ayn Rand is smart, fair, and precise. I recommend it. The technologically savvy will find it on the First Things web site.

I am not a wise man. If I were merely a smart man, I would have followed Mr. Hart’s advice. Unfortunately, I am a fool. I did not heed Mr. Hart’s admonition. Now I am left with a fool’s bragging right to have seen the best and the worst film of 2011. The best is the best film in 70 years. The worst is Atlas Shrugged.

The Worst First

On September 14, 2009, in the post “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid,” I first took note of Ayn Rand’s poisonous philosophy in our public discourse. “The Threat,” on October 23, 2010, addresses the malady explicitly. Those who consult the archives of this blog may be tempted to accuse me of bias in reviewing Atlas Shrugged. This would be a mistake. A distinction must be made between bias – an unreasonable prejudice against something – and an informed judgment.

Ayn Rand was not a good writer. Her philosophy is acceptable only to those who know nothing of the discipline. That she has been ignored in academia has nothing to do with some kind of liberal bias, as her disciples might claim. She is ignored in philosophy departments because of her ignorance of the field, and her work contributes nothing to the great conversation of Western thought. Literature departments are more inclusive than her supporters will acknowledge. Even there, however, there must be limits. There is more delightful invention in the horror of H. P. Lovecraft than in the malicious fantasies of Ayn Rand.

There are only two remarkable things about The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. First, that Ayn Rand stayed at the typewriter so long. Second, that she found a publisher.

Ms. Rand’s disciples are quick to cite the extraordinary sales of her two most famous works as proof of their value. There is another explanation. From Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon to L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health to Ms. Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the United States has a long history of bad writing that wins a cult following.

Beyond the cult, it is strange that Ms. Rand has garnered the approval of Christians. This includes the Roman Catholic Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan and the Lutheran Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Despite the evidence of history, Ayn Rand argued that Capitalism is incompatible with Christianity. Her denunciation of Christianity, to the point of blasphemy, is undeniable. Her egoist morality is irreconcilable with even a passing acquaintance with the words of Our Lord. Nevertheless, otherwise thoughtful Christians find something appealing about Atlas Shrugged.

Curiosity got the better of me. I watched the film.

In his essay, Mr. Hart noted that the awfulness of the film The Fountainhead owed much to its faithfulness to Ms. Rand’s novel. The same is true of the film Atlas Shrugged. The dialogue is stilted. The characters are caricatures. The relationships between characters are unbelievable.

For example: Lillian Rearden, the wife of industrialist and inventor Henry Rearden, is so very repulsive that the sensible viewer must wonder why he has not divorced her – or just murdered her outright. Murder would not be objectionable because she is not a real character, a real person. She is just a foil to expose the admirable qualities of Henry Rearden. Even as a mere foil, however, she is intolerable.

The character Henry Rearden needs all the help he can get.

He arrives home late. His despicable wife is there enjoying cocktails with an assortment of Ayn Rand’s villains, moochers. The moochers are so very much moochers as to be implausible. The ensuing dialogue is cutting. Henry is ridiculed for this work ethic. He gives his wife an anniversary present. It is a bracelet made from Mr. Rearden’ s latest invention, Rearden Metal, steel lighter and stronger than anything that has been made before. Lillian and others ridicule the gift. It is not a conventional diamond bracelet. It is ugly. It is a symbol of Henry Rearden’s egoism.

This is where things get interesting. The bracelet is probably intended as a symbol of Henry Rearden’s egoism. Egoism is a virtue in the world of Ayn Rand. However, the bracelet is also ugly. It is not clear that the ugliness is intended. It is nevertheless. The one interesting thing about this film is the unintentional exposure of what is ugly and shallow in the thought of Ayn Rand.

The film’s production values are first rate. The acting succeeds despite the bad dialogue. However, the interior settings are garish and dark. Characters drink what appears to be red wine from glasses appropriate for whisky. When main characters are enjoying an evening meal, there is no dialogue. We see them eating, drinking, and conversing as the film score plays over it all. We have no idea what is enjoyable in the conversation. In the materialistic, egoist world of Ayn Rand life is dark, expensive, and dull.

Most importantly, in this depiction of the rebellion of the “people of the mind” against the Masses, there are no Masses. Hank Rearden looks out on what appears to be a fully automated factory floor. Machines lay railway. No workers are seen. Ms. Rand’s distain for ordinary people, people who are not exceptional by her lights, means that ordinary people simply do not exist. Steel is made, railroads are laid, but there is no sweat. There is no labor. There are only the geniuses at the top.

Atlas Shrugged Part I is a faithful depiction of the vile novel, acceptable only to true believers. In its faithfulness, however, it reveals all the flaws of the original. This film failed miserably at the box office. Nevertheless, Part II is reputably in production, unintentionally showing, once again, that Capitalism is not working in our country.

The Best

Seventy years ago, in 1941, Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane was released. It had detractors then and there are critics now. For most serious viewers, however, it is the greatest American film ever made.

Mr. Welles achieved acclaim by showing us that cinema is not theater filmed. The camera is the most important actor in the film. What the camera reveals and how the camera reveals is more important than the actor’s words, however well delivered.

We have had over a century of cinema. In that time, we have had many great directors, but few geniuses. The great, Mr. Kurosawa, Mr. Ford, Mr. Coppola, Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Bergman, and Mr. Kubrick – this list is too short and too parochial – have given us hours of cinematic achievement and added to the development of the art. Mr. Welles, with Citizen Kane, gathered up all that came before him and showed the way for the future of cinema.

Citizen Kane was a work of genius. Unfortunately, Mr. Welles could not repeat his first success. As good as successive films were – The Lady from Shanghai and Touch of Evil to name just two – he could never achieve again what he accomplished with his first film. Not that we lesser mortals have anything to complain about. Mr. Welles’ contribution to the art of film is not diminished by later failures except in the conception of the small-minded.

There will be objections to my distinction between the great and the genius. Some might name as genius what I call great. I will not protest too much. Perhaps we can simply agree that the cinematic genius is the one who understands what the camera can do that cannot be done on the stage. I hold Mr. Welles, with Citizen Kane, to be preeminent in that regard. Mr. Terrence Malick is more than his successor.

It is a wonderful age we live in when a pauper, like myself, upon reading Mr. Hart’s essay, can then find on DVD the complete work of a director. I watched, in succession, the achievement of Mr. Malick from the 1973 Badlands to the 2005 The New World before viewing his magnum opus.

It was my second or third viewing of Badlands. It is as fresh and brilliant as it was almost forty years ago. Days of Heaven (1978) is wonderfully beautiful. The Thin Red Line (1998) is the best war movie I have ever seen, surpassing even Clint Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima. The New World was disparaged on release. It is perhaps the weakest of Mr. Malick’s work to date. Nevertheless, its strengths outweigh its weaknesses. In the four films that Mr. Malick directed before The Tree of Life there was never a failure to show what has not been seen before.

A fine film cannot be all camera work. Alfred Hitchcock, in comparison to Mr. Malick, is a directors’ director. His camera many times exceeded the story. The Birds, for example, contains amazing technological innovations, but the story is a stale melodrama performed by second-rate actors. It is hard to watch this film today without rooting for the birds – “Quick! Peck them! Don’t let them say another line of that terrible script!”

Mr. Malick is a cinema aficionado’s director. His work has always been to show us something of the human condition. The verisimilitude of his weakest film, The New World, is astounding. With just four films he has established himself as the philosopher-poet of the camera. He has peers, but no rivals. The Tree of Life is the consummation of all that he has done to date.

I have watched The Tree of Life three times. I cannot tell you what “it is all about” with certainty. I cannot tell you what it is trying to teach us. I am not sure it is trying to teach us any one thing. I can only attempt an explanation. Any explanation falls far short of viewing the film itself. It must be viewed. It must be experienced. This is true of any great work of art. No one understands War and Peace from Cliff’s Notes. The Mona Lisa is not captured by describing it as lady with a slight smile.

The Tree of Life begins with a quote from Job. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation... while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” This is God speaking to Job. Job has been complaining of God’s way with men. Here God begins to examine Job. Who is he to question the Lord who gives the gift of life?

This is God’s only appearance in The Tree of Life. It is a mute quotation given in a white on black screen. Nevertheless, one senses God is there, just off screen.

This is a theodicy, an attempt to justify the ways of God with men. It is, therefore, much like the first great theodicy, Job. I would humbly suggest that this is what the theologically ignorant media have not understood. It is the key to understanding all that follows in the film.

What follows is nothing less than the violence of creation, the evolving of the earth, complete with dinosaurs, the death of a son, the struggles of a family in Texas, and finally the end of the earth in fire. If this seems a paltry statement of plot, it is. Visions do not have plots. Mr. Malick is the William Blake of cinema.

Most of all there is life. Most of all there are living human beings coping with life in all its splendor and loss. At one point comes the voiceover: “The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by.” This is the line I believe we are to take away from this film.

Perhaps I am reading too much into Mr. Malick’s film. It is a brave, audacious film, however, so perhaps I am justified in girding up my loins and declaring what I believe he is showing us. He is showing us that with all we know about the beginning of the universe and its end, despite the dinosaurs and regardless of the cataclysmic end of the earth, there is a God. He is a God of life and love. It would be going too far to claim The Tree of Life is Christian. I do not think that is what Mr. Malick was attempting. It is, nevertheless, unabashedly theistic.

This much is certain. No one before Mr. Malick has attempted to give us what The Tree of Life has given us. He is to cinema what James Joyce is to literature. Even as Ulysses is not to the liking of everyone who reads serious literature, The Tree of Life is not going to be appreciated by everyone who enjoys fine cinema. Frankly, I have attempted Ulysses more than once and have not enjoyed the experience. I can therefore understand the negative reaction to The Tree of Life. Nevertheless, I understand that Ulysses is a great literary achievement. I know that The Tree of Life is also a great achievement.

I suspect that it is the greatest film of our time. Perhaps it is even the greatest film of all time. At the very least, it is the best film of 2011.

Senator Ron Johnson and The American Jobs Act

Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson recently replied to President Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress. In email sent to Wisconsin voters, Senator Johnson called The American Jobs Act “the definition of insanity” because, to the Senator’s way of thinking, it merely repeats American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

Actually, Mr. Johnson could not bring himself to use the proper titles of either the ARRA or the President’s proposed legislation. The latter is simply the “latest government stimulus program.” Neither could Mr. Johnson address any of the specifics of the proposed legislation.

Mr. Johnson did begin with ad hominem.

“As I sat listening carefully to our President, it was painfully clear that his remarks were merely a campaign speech. His proposals were designed to assist in his reelection campaign, rather than a serious attempt to forge alliances, address our massive debt, strengthen our economy and create jobs.”

It has been difficult for Republicans to deal with a president who is arguably the best communicator to occupy the Oval Office since President Ronald Reagan. It is particularly grating as this president follows eight years of Mr. George W. Bush, who was the master of malapropisms. President Obama, however, repeatedly spoke to the concerns of both Republicans and opponents in his own party. He appealed for their support in terms of their own goals. Mr. Johnson’s claim that Mr. Obama’s address was only a campaign speech is inaccurate and unfair.

Certainly Mr. Obama’s speech cheered his supporters and annoyed his opponents. It is undeniable that Mr. Obama is running for a second term and the speech did not hurt that effort. That there was a political aspect to the speech is unsurprising to any mature observer of our government. Characterizing the detailed proposal the President set before the joint session of Congress as merely a campaign speech, however, only reveals the weakness of Mr. Johnson’s position.

That weakness is manifest as Mr. Johnson sputters on in his email.

“Even worse, the overall substance of his proposals were nothing more than a rehashing and repackaging of the same big government, ideological agenda that our President has already tried – driven our debt up another $4 Trillion - and have failed miserably. These ideas would simply double down on that failure.”

Mr. Johnson needs a grammarian. Verbs are supposed to agree with the subject of a sentence. “Substance” is singular and requires the singular “was” not “were.” He should have chosen “rehashing” or “repackaging.” Using both is redundant. The accusation that the President’s “ideological agenda” drove up the debt “another $4 Trillion” calls for another sentence and should not have been smashed into this one. (Trillion should not be capitalized.)

Mr. Johnson ignores the niceties of grammar and the specifics of the President’s speech because all he has is Tea Party boilerplate. Mr. Johnson rants about “big government” but says nothing about the President’s expressed goal of jolting the private sector back to life. He ignores the President’s proposals to help small business. He makes no mention of the President’s tax cuts for middle class consumers. He is oblivious of the need to help the long-term unemployed.

In sum, Mr. Johnson’s complaint does not touch upon anything the President actually said, but merely repeats the talking points of the House radical Republicans. By ignoring the proposed American Jobs Recovery Act, he fails to prove that it is merely a repackaging of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The most significant falsehood of Mr. Johnson’s missive is his assertion that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a failure.

“Since his inauguration, during admittedly tough economic conditions, President Obama has taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction. His failed $800 billion stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the explosion of his Administration's other job killing regulations have combined to put a stranglehold on our economy.”

Mr. Johnson’s only concession to the President is that he took office “during admittedly tough economic conditions.” This is a gross understatement. The President took office after decades of deregulation of the financial market initiated by Republican President Ronald Reagan and fostered by Randian Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Republican policies resulted in the 1980s Savings and Loan Crisis, the 2001 Internet Stock Bubble and finally, beginning in 2007, greatest financial meltdown since the Depression.

Mr. Johnson conveniently ignores the details so that he can continue to rail against government regulations. He specifies no regulations that kill jobs. It is he, not the President, who fails to learn from history.

(Note: Inside Job (2010), the Academy Award-winning documentary film about the late-2000s financial crisis directed by Charles H. Ferguson and narrated by Matt Damon is one-sided, and, I believe, unfair to President Obama. Its subject is complicated. Nevertheless, it is a good introduction to all the facts that Republicans would have us ignore.)

The Republicans have blocked the full implementation of the Dodd-Frank bill, so it is impossible to attribute anything good or ill to it. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – which Mr. Johnson calls “Obamacare”—will not be fully implemented until 2014. That leaves only the so-called “failed $800 billion stimulus,” ARRA, as a possible “stranglehold on our economy.”

Did the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 fail to increase employment? Mr. Johnson and his fellow Republicans have repeatedly said that it did. The economy is still in recession. Unemployment is still high. The ARRA did fail to meet with the administration’s projections. All of this, together with the fact that many citizens cannot distinguish GDP from GPS, makes the Republicans’ simple declarative statement, “The stimulus failed,” persuasive.

Repeat a falsehood long enough and you will convince the masses. This is particularly true with a subject as complicated as the economy.

On September 27, 2010, the independent FactCheck.org posted, “The economic stimulus package is a favorite target of Republican candidates and groups, but more than a few ads falsely claim it did not create or save any jobs. … The truth is that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise.” (FactCheck.org, “Did the Stimulus Created Jobs?”) 

The Richmond Times-Dispatch PolitiFact.com examined Republican Eric Cantor’s May 26^th, 2011, statement, “They (Democrats) passed a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill which failed to get people back to work.” The Virginia publication rated Mr. Cantor’s statement false after consulting experts from both the right and the left.

Both of these publications based their conclusions in part on the 2010 report of the Congressional Budget Office, which stated: “… CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the second quarter of calendar year 2010:

•    They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent,
•    Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
•    Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and
•    Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise …” ( http://www.cbo.gov )

If Senator Ron Johnson had been doing his job, he would have known about the CBO report.

What animates Mr. Johnson, however, is not concern for the unemployed or the challenges of a global economy in recession. Mr. Johnson, as I pointed out in October of 2009, is an advocate of the Atheistic Capitalism of Ayn Rand. He is a true believer in an ideology that holds that government involvement in the economy, in any way, at any time, is wrong. From health care, to stimulus, to regulation, the government can only kill jobs.

Mr. Johnson writes, “President Obama simply and sadly does not understand the basic economic truth that expansion and job creation must come from the private sector, not government.”

One hopes that President Obama understands that in difficult economic times, remedies must be sought from both the private and public sectors. Progressives hope he understands that the history of this country is in part the history of a mixed economy, with the government playing a positive role in protecting the country from the excesses of capitalism. Mr. Johnson and his ilk hanker for a pure capitalism that has never existed and is every bit as false as Marxist-Leninist millennialism.

It is the insupportable small government advocacy of Mr. Johnson and his Republican colleagues that will take us in the wrong direction, as the August unemployment figures indicate.

“On September 2nd the government reported no net jobs were created in August. To be precise, private firms created 17,000 jobs while governments trimmed payrolls by the same amount. Adjusting for striking mobile-phone company workers, underlying private job growth was actually more like 60,000, consistent with an economy still growing; but barely.” (The Economist, “A Choice of Medicines,” September 10, 2011.)

The Economist does not say so, but I suspect the “governments” that trimmed their payrolls are the state governments run by Republican governors, like Wisconsin’s Scott Walker. Among the jobs trimmed are those of school teachers. President Obama’s American Jobs Act calls for the hiring of teachers to train students to be competitive in an increasingly global job market. This is just one small detail that shows that President Obama is the one working for America’s future, not Mr. Johnson and his small-government colleagues.

President Obama’s American Jobs Act is not all that progressives wanted. It is more than they expected. It is not a magic bullet. It will not immediately reverse the global recession. Mr. Johnson may choose to ignore it. The Congress should pass it and press on to strengthen both the private and public sectors of the economy.

Is the Opposition Loyal? Part Two

Tonight we will not hear the President of the United States address a joint session of Congress regarding the dire economic condition of the nation. It was Mr. Obama’s intention to begin this new session of Congress by addressing the issues about which the whole country is concerned. As is well known, Speaker John Boehner has informed the President that the United States House of Representatives will be otherwise engaged.

“ ‘As the majority leader announced more than a month ago, the House will not be in session until Wednesday, Sept. 7, with votes at 6:30 that evening,’ the speaker wrote. ‘ With the significant amount of time, typically more than three hours, that is required to allow for a security sweep of the House chamber before receiving a president, it is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening, when we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your remarks.’ ” (“Obama Moves Jobs Speech After Skirmish With Boehner,” The New York Times, August 31, 2011)

Mr. Boehner’s unprecedented refusal to grant the President’s request has been reported, reviewed, and, from the very beginning, denounced as just another petty political squabble. Blame has been cast on both the Speaker and the President.

“ ‘If the objective of the White House and Speaker Boehner was to demonstrate to the American people that they have gotten the message from the markets and from voters that our economic straits are so dire that it is time to set petty politics aside, they have failed before they started,’ said David Rothkopf, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration. ‘This childish gamesmanship regarding timing reconfirms to the world that Washington is a sandbox full of petulant children who don’t play well together.' He called Wednesday’s antics 'late-summer silliness.’ ” (The New York Times, same article as above)

Despite the fact that Mr. Boehner is the first member of Congress to deny a president permission to speak to a joint session of Congress, it is the President who has received the most criticism. He is accused of playing politics.

“The real story, of course, was that the White House had high-handedly announced its preferred time for the speech, which just happened to conflict with a long-planned GOP presidential candidates’ debate at the Reagan library.” (The Weekly Standard, “The Scrapbook: Dissing Boehner,” September 12, 2011)

Even before Mr. Boehner took his stand against the President’s supposedly political proposal, talk radio condemned the idea. How could the President dare to upstage a Republican Party candidate debate? It is only reasonable to conclude that Mr. Boehner’s motive to deny the President’s proposal is to thwart Mr. Obama’s alleged political gambit and please the likes of Mr. Limbaugh. His stated reason is lame. The House has no business this evening that cannot be postponed.

Other aspects to this story have been reported, mostly from anonymous sources. Most of what has been reported is irrelevant. It remains that Mr. Boehner has done what has never been done before. In this, he has shown that, despite the fact that the Republican Party likes to wrap itself in the Constitution and boast its fidelity to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, it knows and cares little for either.

Let us grant the Republican contention that Mr. Obama scheduled his address to Congress to upstage Republican candidate debate. I do not know that this is so. It is, however, the best reason the Republicans have to deny the President’s request. So let it stand.

The activities of any political party should not interfere with the work of the elected government. A single debate, this early, is of negligible importance, particularly when compared to an official address by the sitting president.

The Republicans are far from selecting a candidate for the coming election. They have held one straw poll, in which Mrs. Bachman was selected. The Iowa straw poll historically has had little positive effect on selecting the eventual Republican candidate and even less on the results of the national election. Mrs. Bachmann’s victory was quickly eclipsed by Texas Governor Rick Perry’s mere announcement of his candidacy.

Even with Mr. Perry’s announcement, there is dissatisfaction among Republicans with the candidates vying for the ticket. Despite the fact time is growing short, there are calls for Representative Paul Ryan, Governor Chris Christie and even Mrs. Sarah Palin to enter the race.

The Republican contention that tonight’s debate should take precedence over a president's speech to Congress is nothing less than hubris.

The Constitution established three branches of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial. There is no mention of political parties. Political parties have no official standing in the work of government. In fact, the Founding Fathers disliked the idea of political parties and hoped that the nation could do without them.

The Republicans should know this if they knew the Constitution and its history as they claim. James Madison penned Federalist 10 as a warning against political parties, which he called “factions.” The Founding Fathers hope of politics without political parties did not survive their lifetime, and even Mr. Madison became a member of a political party. Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers would be appalled to see this day when a single party’s candidate debate interferes with the work of the elected government.

Perhaps some would question the wisdom of Mr. Obama using his office to upstage a single debate of the opposing party’s candidate debate. Let them. There is no reason that any sitting president should take into consideration the internal work of the opposing party in the rightful execution of his duties. More importantly, there is no reason the opposing party should expect such consideration.

The Constitution established three branches of government. Mr. Boehner won a majority of the votes of the 8^th congressional district of Ohio to become a member of the lower chamber of the legislative branch. The majority of that lower chamber elected Mr. Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. Boehner thus represents both the 8^th congressional district and one half of the bicameral legislature.

The President of the United States is elected by the whole nation, albeit indirectly through the Electoral College. Mr. Obama won the office of President of the United States by a clear majority of the popular vote and the Electoral College – without the assistance of a decision of the Supreme Court. He represents not a district, or even a state. He is President of the whole country and for the whole country.

To be sure, the president is not a dictator. There are constitutional limits to his authority. The Constitution provides checks and balances so that no single branch of government has power beyond what is necessary to exercise its duties to the country.

However, the Republicans have taken the legislature beyond anything the Founding Fathers imagined. Republican senators, by the mere threat of filibuster, have turn back presidential appointments. The single disqualifying mark of an appointee is that the appointment came from Mr. Obama.

“Speaking with National Journal magazine about Republican Party priorities for the 2008-2010 Congress, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained that ‘the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.’ ” (Wikipedia, Mitch McConnell)

Senator McConnell has expressed clearly that the single priority of the Republican Party is not the welfare of the country, but the augmentation of the power of the Republican Party. In keeping with this priority, the Republican Party perpetrated the unnecessary debt-ceiling crisis. In keeping with this priority, Mr. Boehner denied the President of the United States a joint session of Congress. In these and several other instances the Republican Party has demonstrated that it has no respect for the constitutionally established office of the executive as long as Mr. Obama occupies it – the vote of the people be damned.

This is not the governance the Founding Fathers envisioned. This is the factionalism that James Madison abhorred.

In September 2009, the President addressed a joint session of Congress. It was there that Representative Joe Wilson set the true precedent for Mr. Boehner’s action this month. Mr. Wilson broke with tradition and shouted at the President. On September 11, 2009, I asked the question, “Is the Opposition Loyal?” on this blog (see archive). This question stands.

[Works consulted for this essay: The Debate on the Constitution, Part One, Library of America, 1993; James Madison, Writings, Library of America, 1999; Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, Richard Beeman, Random House, 2009; The Oxford Companion to United States History, edited by Paul S. Boyer, Oxford University Press, 2001.]

They Are Back ...

For a while we did not hear from them. They did not call. They did not write. It is hard to say why. Perhaps they were embarrassed. Perhaps they felt threatened. It would be too much to think they were repentant. One thing is certain. It was nothing we had done. We went on with our lives the best we could after the 2007-2009 financial meltdown.

This year they returned. We strictly observe the rule that coincidence is not causation. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that their return coincides with the ascendency of the radical faction of the Republican party, particularly in the House of Representatives.

“This is Rachel with credit card services, calling in regard to your current credit card account. There is no need to worry. Your account seems to be in order. But you need to respond immediately to get the new reduced credit card rates…”

Rachel has a sister.

“This is Lisa. We have contacted you before. This is your last chance…”

Rachel and Lisa have another sister, who does not give her name.

“…In order to take advantage of this offer you must have $3,000 in credit card debt and at least one credit card in good standing.”

The above is an accurate representation from memory and not verbatim. One offer goes so far as to illogically reference “the current Federal stimulus package.”

One thing is certain about these three – they are all lying b…witches. The three weird sisters by subtle word choice would have us believe they represent the credit card that is in our pocket. Parse their sentences and it is evident they have no idea what credit card we have. Lisa has offered my last chance two, even three times in one week.

I have not returned their calls, so I cannot be completely certain of the extent of their scam. It would appear however, that their “regard” for my “current credit card account” is to switch it to another credit card. Since their offers begin with mendacity, it is highly doubtful that the switch will be to my advantage.

The wicked advances of the three weird sisters are small beer compared with the predatory lending practices of certain mortgage brokers that brought about the recent housing bubble. Nevertheless, our humble household has experienced the need for government oversight of the consumer financial market, maybe five times a week – sometimes twice in one day – by the three weird sisters.

Of course many, if not most, people are protected from the spells of the three weird sisters by good sense. Most people are not the prey of these anonymous overtures. The poor, the financially desperate, and those who are easily frightened are their intended victims.

Here come the radical Republicans. Mr. Eric Cantor has announced that the agenda for the next session of the House is to repeal so-called job-killing government regulations. Already the Republicans have significantly stalled the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and their efforts will continue. They have the backing of the completely unrepentant banking industry.

Let us concede that government regulations do kill jobs. Let us also recognize that the jobs of the three weird sisters deserve to be burned at the stake. And we have not even touched on the indefensible usury of payday lenders who charge as much as 524% APR.

Mr. Cantor and his colleagues need to be held accountable for siding with companies whose only purpose is to prey upon the poor and financially uninformed.

Failure among the Faithful

I'm just not cool with the government insisting that an excessively large and growing share of the output of the motivated and responsible achievers ought to be diverted to the unmotivated and irresponsible. -- A Christian’s posting to Facebook.

It does not matter who wrote the above. The sentiment is common, particularly and sadly among politically conservative Christians.

The argument is that any tax on corporations and persons of wealth to fund programs to help the poor, sick, and elderly is immoral. When the government uses its power of taxation for any other than military appropriations, it is an act of theft. The rich are rich because they are “motivated and responsible achievers.” The poor are poor because they are “unmotivated and irresponsible.”

This argument is straight out of Ayn Rand’s essay “Collectivized Ethics” from the book, The Virtue of Selfishness. “Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others,” Rand pontificates, “society – as an organized political system – has no rights in the matter at all.”

Rand offers no supporting evidence for her assertion. There is not any. The progress of Western civilization itself is the refutation of Rand’s thesis. More on that another time.

I have no reason to believe that the Christian who made the above post to Facebook has read Rand. However, as I posted on 23 October 2010, Randism has poisoned our political discourse (See “The Threat").

Take for example the untenable distinction of the rich as the “motivated and responsible achievers” from the poor who are “unmotivated and irresponsible.” There is no empirical evidence for this. In fact, it runs the other way. Most rich individuals in the United States acquired their wealth the old-fashioned way – they picked rich parents. The poor, conversely, are to be faulted for not choosing parents of ample means.

It is, however, of little concern that our Christian has imbibed a bit of Randism or does not know the social science that refutes his simplistic distinction between rich and poor.

What is disturbing is that the Faith has little or nothing to do with the political thought of too many conservative Christians. Instead of the compassion of Christ, we have the cruelty of Randism. Instead of concern for the weakest in our country, there is a perverse concern for the supposed imperiled rights of the most powerful.

I do not doubt that most conservative Christians believe this is a fallen world, corrupted by the sin of our first parents. Nevertheless, they also seem to think that, miraculously, justice has been preserved in the distribution of wealth in this country. They seem to think our Lord was issuing a command when He said, “The poor will always be with you.”