Tuesday, September 3, 2019

The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic

Book:  The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic
Basic Information : Synopsis : Expectations : Thoughts : Evaluation : Book Group : New Words : Book References : Good Quotes : Table of Contents : References

Basic Information:
 Author: Peter Wehner

Edition: ePub on Overdrive from the San Francisco Public Library
Publisher: HarperOne 
ISBN: 0062820796 (ISBN13: 9780062820792)
Start Date: August 16, 2019
Read Date: September 3, 2019
288 pages
Genre:  Essay
Language Warning:  None
Rated Overall: 4  out of 5


Synopsis (Caution: Spoiler Alert-Jump to Thoughts):
This book lays out how politics have devolved from the concept of a means to improve society to more of the equivalent of political football-may I win while tearing my opponents apart. He talks about politics as a noble calling and defines various thoughts on politics. But then follows it up with a chapter of analysis which tries to figure out how we got into the current situation. Then works thought how do people of faith, particularly Christians, work within the political system. He then explores why words being said matter, how they motivate or can be twisted. Then he talks about the need for moderation, civility and compromise to make government run.



Expectations:
  • Recommendation: PBS interview with Peter Wehner
  • When: June 25, 2019
  • Date Became Aware of Book: June 25, 2019
  • How come do I want to read this book: The man is a conservative Republican, an evangelical Christian, a member of the Trinity Forum and thinks that Christians are wrong in supporting Trump. This is swimming counter to the way the majority of Christians think today.
  • What do I think I will get out of it? An understanding of why I think Trump is the antithesis of what a Christian leader should be and why Christians should not be supporting him.

Thoughts:

Chapter 1: A Noble Calling
Wehner is a political animal, but he never was interested in running for office. What drew him to politics was ideas and personalities, the human drama, the ability to shape events and outcomes, the sense that there was something important and meaningful at stake. I will say that with Trump, he has increased the sense of drama. But I do not think that is the drama Wehner is talking about here. Trump seems to have drama for drama and his own sake. Wehner notes that most people who are in politics chose to go into politics for the high reasons. Which raises the question about what happens when someone enters politics? Why does it seem like the high ideas get trampled on?

But the people who enter into politics are ambitious. They want to succeed. It seems like the environment is more about success than about the ideas. Wehner says that only a change in attitude among the broader public [note not among the politicians, but the public] could bring about such a revival. Citizens who demand more will yield politicians who offer more. At what level do we demand more of them?


Chapter 2: How We Ended Up in This Mess

Wehner warns that Trump is the type of person whom the US system of government was designed to avoid-a demagogic leader. He also is a threat to the existing Republican Party and the conservative movement. Clinton could defeat it in an election, but not redefine it like Trump has.

Many voters voted against Clinton in 2016 than for Trump. To them, it did not matter that Trump had tremendous drawbacks, only he was not a politician like Clinton. Why does that matter? Yes, the person matters. A person at the top who is unscrupulous can take away 200 years of our way of life.

For Trump to be elected, Americans had to have a low view of politics. This did not suddenly happen, but was a continual downhill trend. He and Arthur Brooks says that what we have today is a contempt of those who do not think the way we do. Differences in politics now have become character flaws.

So how did we get to the situation which we are in today, Wehner gives four reasons:
  • Massive demographic/cultural shifts
  • Income stagnation over a long period of time
  • Polarization of political parties
  • Lack of trust in politicians
There is a perceived threat to one’s group’s identity. Not so much to a particular group, but more how you identify yourself-white, male, middle class. He gives statistics about how this change has occurred. In schools, white is now the minority. The general population now is about 40% non-white, up from 20% in the 1980’s. But also religion where Christianity is no longer the prevalent religious thought. Then there is the human sexuallity and what is acceptable today versus 30 years ago. He points out that those who are more comfortable with diversity tend to be more Democratic.

Our economics do not favor economic mobility. So the future well-being of a child is dependent on what our economic standing is. So it is important for our off-spring to have the economic advantages of being at least middle class or above. With stagnation, we are not as able to do this.

The political parties are becoming more homogeneous. There is less diversity in the parties than there used to be and more of a divide of thinking between the parties. This is making our debates more explosive and less productive.

Wehner points out our politics should be governed by our principles and ideas and what is good for our nation. But it should also provide real answers to our current and future problems.

Jonathan Haidt is referenced to support the idea of the confirmation bias.

We listen to what agrees with our own bias. Ideological purification leads to political polarization.

But the divide is not the worst it has ever been in the United States. Think of the Civil War. He points out that the election between John Adams and Thomas Jeffereson in 1800 may have been the nastiest in US history. But then he cites several other races as well. So things could get worse.

The task of the book is to rediscover, refine, and recalibrate-reenvision and rethink how we understand politics. Not today’s norm, but what we want it to be so we can accomplish and maintain the American ideals.

Wehner’s analysis is that the current form of politics is not equal to the issues we face in today’s world. Then how would politics look if we are to face the issues of today’s world?

To be a citizen means to be a participant in civic life, not just a spectator. It means taking the time to be informed and voting in local, state and national elections. It means seeing the problems America faces for what they are, apportioning in a fair-minded way responsibility for what has gone wrong, and taking ownership of our nation.


Chapter 3: What Politics is


He defines politics :
  • Greeks: the affairs of the city
  • Today: the activities associated with governing
  • Denoting the kind of government we will have.
Aristotle treated ethics and politics together. Politics was an extension of ethics. He felt that the state’s job includes encouraging goodness and moral improvement. He wanted states to enable and encourage noble actions. Ernest Barker says to rightly understand Aristotle’s view of the state, we need to think of it more as church-the state leading to a moral theology.

Wehner points out that today when liberal’s and conservatives debate how much individual vs collective/group freedoms should be accounted for, they are debated points Aristotle worked through. Some of the major areas include:
  • Politics is a moral exercise structuring our public life to encourage virtue and moral excellence.
  • The good life requires community. The state when it is operating correctly is to help people acquire virtue and moral excellence.
  • Rulers are to be held accountable to the law, not above the law.
  • It is politics which negotiates the tension between individuals the the group.
Wehner goes on and talks about John Locke who was an empiricist, religious, but not fanatical. He was emblematic of common sense. Used the Castle in the Air metaphor to describe what he was not doing, rather building a foundation to base politics on. Locke understood that left without restraint, a society would come to ruin through the defects in human nature. So he built his system to preserve life, liberty and property-property being all the basics of life, not just material possessions. Where Aristotle and Locke split was the matter of shaping people’s lives. Locke thought that was not politics’ place. He talked about separation between the secular administration of justice and religious. Liberalism as defined by Locke can be summed up by:
  • Humans are free and equal to each other, not derived by the state
  • Government is by consent of the governed
  • Good government protects each person’s rights. Also government’s powers should be limited.
  • The state should not shape people’s souls.
  • There is no set boundaries on limits of government-there is that tension.
    • It is here that much of our conflict today centers on.
You can see where the First Amendment came directly from this thinking. In one way, this seems very appropriate that one should not be punished because you adhere to a different set of beliefs. But what do you base the secular laws on? When do not covet your neighbor’s wife is religious, how do you keep sexual morals in society?

Abrham Lincoln is the third in influencers on how we think about politics. Wehner notes that George W Bush was noted for being less than intelligent. But he was a voracious reader. Lincoln’s take was that the United States Constitution was a procedural charter where the philosophical and moral character of the people was expressed through the Declaration of Independence. A summary of Lincoln’s ideas:
  • The US Constitution are built on the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
  • The heart of the Declaration of Independence is We hold these truths to be self-evident…
  • Rights are not decided by the majority
    • Then how?
  • You treat enemies with the same dignity and forbearance as the ideas you are fighting for.
Politics is a prerequisite for human thriving. Each generation has to decide on the direction of America’s future.


Chapter 4: Politics and Faith
Phillip Yancy helped to make sure this chapter was coherent.

Wehner has a different take on Ralph Reed’s role in conservative Christian politics. Wehner says that Reed’s vision was to fashion a political Christian away from judgemental politics. But today Reed sides with Trump. So I am not sure what to make of this.

Do politics and faith mix? Does politics corrupt faith? Can Christians impart its values on society? In practice it has gone both ways.

Christopher Hitchens is referenced through the questions posed:
  • How does one create a system of justice and makes it case against a precieved social evil, such as slavery?
  • Three propositions:
    • The universe is created by chance
    • It will end in nothing
    • There is no external source of authority to resort to
It is one thing to say God does not exist and disregard all religions. It is another thing that says that religion has nothing to say about how politics is to be organized.

The God of Judaism and Christianity requires us to care for justice and politics is a realm where that plays out. If Christians care about justice, then, they need to be involved with politics. In these two sentences Wehner puts forth the case why people of God need to be involved in how the political systems get played out. The question in my mind is what does that look like? Do Christians look at one or two issues and say they override everything else? Or do they look at society as a whole and work through the issues that way? I suspect it depends on the severity of the issues.

The Torah is neither world-accepting neither world-rejecting. It is world-redeeming. Rav Aharon Lichtensein in The Commentator, article called A Consideration of Synthesis from a Torah Point of View. This is a statement worth meditating on.

If a religious person is to stand for justice, is that the same thing as being a law-abiding citizen? Martin Luther King wrote about laws which are unjust or create injustices. How do you stand up for them as a religious person? He talks about this extensively in the Letters from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963 King wrote as a Christian who needed justice to happen to Christians who felt that long term it would be better to work through the system. This shows the mixed track record Christians have had dealing with social issues and justice.

Wehner gets to the current situation with President Trump. He wonders has the situation with President Trump gotten worse because people of faith have gotten involved. The danger Christianity faces is that it becomes a vehicle for resentments of middle-class white America… that church may become a voice for the resentments of the strong in the country when in fact it should focus on helping the weak.

Wehner takes the term “team” and describes how there are positives to being part of a team. But there is also a blindness which occurs. You tend to ignore weaknesses in your team while being all against another team. James Forsyth, a pastor of Wehner’s church, says that political homogeneity in the evangelical world is unhelpful to America.

Wehner has four points which a Christian should strive for:
  1. All things begin with Jesus-what did he teach and do.
  2. Our politics should be based upon a common vision of justice and the common good
  3. Our attitude should be based upon trust and love rather than anger or revenge; reconciliation rather than separation
  4. All people are our neighbors-see the Good Samaritan


  1. Begin with Jesus
Wehner says that Christians need to be part of the process, just different than the partisanship we have experienced in the last several decades. The role is more detached and prophetic, reflecting the dual citizenship we have as Christians-that of the United States and that of heaven. Or as Paul says, being an ambassador of Christ. We should not be pawns of the parties, but servants of God. Political power games are not Christianity forte-we tend to lose our Christness when we become involved in these games. He quotes Martin Luther King, Jr: The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.

2. Articulate a Coherent Vision
Christians theory on political and social engagement has been too shallow. Needs to be more comprehensive and informed. Catholics have this when you look at their encyclipals

3. Model a Deep Attitudinal Shift, Biased Toward Unity
Adopt the spirit of Christ, moving away from anger and revenge, towards reconciliation and understanding. Fear is in society, we as Christians know that perfect love drives out fear. Ken Stern wonders why a group noted for helping others does not have a similar political agenda.


4. Become Loving Neighbors
Model Christ.

REDEMPTION AND RECONCILIATION
Christ seemed to be attracted to those who the elite thought was worthless.

The problem with saying that these are desperate times therefore require desperate measures, is:
  1. Usually the fear is not justified by facts
  2. Responding with fear and anger betrays our own teaching
  3. Fear opens us up to manipulation
  4. Being a political or cultural minority does not equate to evil

Chapter 5: Why Words Matter
Kenndy showed the modern world that words could convey power and beauty. It is what influenced Wehner to enter into his profession. He wanted to be able to be an advisor to the president who could use words in the service of the nation. When 9/11 happened, Wehner was part of George Bush’s speechwriting team, a place and time when words were important. They expressing collective grief and sorrow, in channeling the public’s fear and rage, in creating national unity and tamping down bigotry…

THE POWER OF WORDS
Democracy requires that we honor the culture of words. Words serve several purposes. In politics, they can be aspirational. Motivation to take action.

Confused answers … represent a confusion of thought, …

Wehner looks at is being divisive bad. The answer is not-look at the great figures of American history, many of them divided the nation because they were leading the nation into higher ground. It is a leader who enjoys being divisive which is dangerous.

KILLING TRUTH
There are varying degrees among politicians, actually all people, about telling the truth. Most people shade the truth, a few are consistent liars. But the dangerous class of people are those who are trying to destroy what truth is. When a person purposely sets out to destroy truth, they free their followers to create their own sense of reality, one which the rest of us cannot set foot in, if we want to keep our own perspective on truth. There is an idea of trying to murder the truth. Without truth, a free society cannot operate.

Wehner’s own experience is that he was told as a speechwriter, If the president says itl it needs to be correct. This is in contrast to if the president says it, that is what happened. Note: It seems like the current President has a twist on this, that if he says it, it is correct.Also it seems like all other Presidents appealed to the truth of their cause. It seems like the current one trys to destroy true facts to bend to his ego and mission.

THE POST-TRUTH MOMENT
The question is asked: how our political culture allowed him to win the Republican nomination and the presidency? Wehner’s answer is that a partial answer is polarization and partisanship have reached toxic levels.

Truth is viewed as instrumental, a means to an end. This is rather than something which stands on its own. Rather something to be manipulated to achieve my goal. Research has shown that it feels good to stand against adversity, even if we are wrong. Also we want to belong to a tribe. It is difficult to go against our tribe to stand against things which are contrary to our tribe’s beliefs.

When we do not have first hand experience or expertise in an area, we will rely on people who are experts in an area.We also have a tendency to hold experts who are in sync with our world-view as a higher authority than those who are not. [Also I have a tendency to look for hidden motivations for those who disagree with me-not saying this is good.] We want conformation of views more than facts which show otherwise. This leads to people thinking that facts are subjective and malleable, rather than in terms of true and concrete.

James Poniewozik says that the goal of President Trump is bring about a state where there is no truth, so you should just follow your gut and your tribe. This is decidedly unChristian. I am wondering how evangelical leaders can stomach that. Or Garry Kasparov says that The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking to annihilate truth.

If you believe conservatives and liberals in two universes, one of which is a pack of lies while in the other reality reigns supreme, then compromise is impossible. This leads to a break down of what can be accomplished. Wehner says that what is left is to compel people and to exercise raw power and intimidation. The opposition is to be silenced, not learned from. There is no shared facts.

Wehner points out that less conservatives are working in traditional newsrooms. While reports can still report all the news and the facts, some of the tone may be affected, questions asked may be a bit leaning in a direction. This leads to conservatives feeling like they are not getting news/facts which are straight.

Even though this book was written way before the July 25th telephone call between the presidents of the Ukraine and the United States, Wehner recommended at site called StopFake.org as a model of identifying fake news. This site is oriented towards the Ukraine.

The author recommends identifying lies and speaking out on Facebook and/or Twitters (or your favorite social media). Tag your representatives, asking for specific actions. Reject party loyalties when truth is compromised. Do not support those candidates which are chronically dishonest.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. George Orwell, A Collection of Essays


Chapter 6: In Praise of Moderation, Compromise and Civility

NAVIGATING OUR WAY THROUGH OUR DIFFERENCE
We always have had differences in opinion. The trick is not to let matters escalate. Even if they do escalate, how can we defuse the issues. How do we do this as a nation? Restore the democratic virtues that are necessary for a self-governing nation to have. Which begs the question, what are these?

MEN ARE NOT ANGELS
Three views of humans:
  • Humans are flawed, but perfectable
  • Flawed and permanently so, so build systems and society in light of this.
  • Humans are flawed, but are capable of virtuous acts and self-government.
The US government was designed for accommodation. We currently have alienation.

REBALANCING OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
Analysis: Our current political institutions are not working well. (Sort of an understatement). The presidency really only represents one side of the political spectrum. But Congress you have a pretty good chance that someone in there holds a view close to yours. What is needed is that a rebalancing between the Presidency and Congressional powers. Things like breaking up the budget into smaller pieces would help. Also limiting on donations would help empower views not normally represent. (Wouldn’t this allow more fringe groups a voice? Would that be a good thing? Is that what we are facing now?)

Conflicting points of view in Congress is not failure. Its essential purpose is to debate and accommodate. It should be an area of contained conflict.
Aurelian Craiutu argues that the success of representative government… depends on moderation. This does not mean everybody comes in the same distance, but it does mean that steps are taken to account for what everybody needs. The American Revolution’s success was the result of understanding moderation, particularly in governance. Moderation accepts the complexity of life in this world and distrusts utopian visions and simple solutions.

Moderates are wary of absolutism, struggling against light against darkness arguments. Harry Clor says There are truths to be discovered, but truths complex and many-sided. But what would a moderate do when they have an evil such as Nazism? Would they try to find the side of truth and accept it as being acceptable? When does something come a light against darkness argument? When does the truth become single sided? How do you recognize it before it is on us not in the rear-view mirror?

THE DEMOCRATIC VIRTUE OF COMPROMISE
Wehner names several reasons why compromise is hard to do. He also says that polling indicates more opposition from Republicans than Democrats, even though I suspect Democrats are not innocents:
  • Hyperpolarization of current politics
  • Compromise is viewed as betrayal
  • Opponents will destroy America
  • Compromise is equivalent to treason
  • The continuous campaigning for the next election.
We have lost a mindset that we have a common goal, just different means of getting to it. (Goal: Betterment of America)

THE DEMOCRATIC VIRTUE OF CIVILITY
Martin Luther King, Jr showed that one can be angry at injustice but be civil towards one’s opponents. Civility makes it possible to have discourse. Discourse allows for for modifying of views and ideas, allowing for change. Good manners are what we owe others as fellow citizens and fellow human beings, …

DEVELOPING SECOND FRIENDS
The purpose of political discourse is to better figure out truth and reality (I would also add better policy) rather than to win an argument or beat down an opponent. He uses Owen Barfield and CS Lewis as an example. They were friends, but they felt each other did not see the world properly-the relationship between imagination and truth for instance. For a number of years, they engaged in “The Great War”. You have friends which mirror your thinking, but also friends who approach things differently. Both are valuable. Barfield said that In an argument, we always, both of us were arguing for the truth, not for victory.

OUR DISTORTED VISION OF REALITY
How do we view the world affects how we respond to situations. Andrew Davidson says that Axioms operate at this very direct level as well as in more discursive reasoning. Do we see issues all the same way? Such as abortion, same sex marriages, gun control, and a dozen other items? He cites Cornelius Van Till who noted that there is no such thing as a brute fact. We see facts through the fabric of our world-views. That is the trick of trying to look through someone else's eyes at an issue. Usually we do not see the whole picture on an issue.

HOW CITIZENS CAN HEAL THE BREACH
Democracy is not a machine which manufactures consent. How to succeed in governing with deep differences?
  • Support people who run for office who model what respectful, civil disagreements look like. And oppose those who don’t.
  • You most effective descent is with those whom you are already aligned with.
  • Engage in voluntary service
  • Citizenship education
SUPPORT CIVILITY PROJECTS
Achieve disagreement. Goal is not to change people’s views, but to listen to other people. By listening and understanding, you become a human being, friendship develops despite political differences, and the fancor goes down.

PM Forni’s nine rules of civility-used in Duluth:
  • Pay attention-be aware of the world around you
  • List-focus on what the person is saying so you may better understand
  • Be inclusive-welcome all groups of citizens, greater good of the community
  • Don’t gossip-Also do not listen/accept gossip
  • Show respect-Honor others and their opinions
  • Be agreeable-for for places to agree
  • Apologize-be sincere
  • Give constructive criticism. Stick to issues and don’t make attacks personal
  • Take responsibility-No blame game.
Civility is local as it needs to be personal. Changing national policy is usually too big for most of us. But we can affect local policy.


Chapter 7: The Case for hope

THE DESPAIR TEMPTATION
There is a thread that President Trump is making politics fun again (words of Sebastian Gorka). Wehner’s thought is that politics has become more of an entertainment show.

What is the promise which politicians give us for our vote? Wehner says that it is a well run, clean government. Have our politicians delivered on this? It seems like each time a program is implemented, there are studies which show how wonderful a program will be. It is brought into place through the legislative process. And when implemented, there is hardly ever feedback on how successful it is. Also the next power change tends to abandon it and go on to their own program. So the whole process lacks continuity and feedback.

Populism is a push back by the people against those who are perceived to rule. There is a healthy form and an unhealthy one. Unhealthy is when there is grievance and resentment about what is happening in government. Peggy Wallace Kennedy says that … fear and hate are the two greatest motivators of voters that feel alienated from government.

Is the federal government too big? What would be cut? This is the left and right differ the most. Even Reagan found it hard to cut places which do not affect people. Reagan wanted more to make government work for the people rather than cut government. Probably the real question is, does it work for me? Does it engage the people.

The results of our government over our lifetime has been a mixed bag of success and failure. Do you look at government as a glass half empty or full?

LESSONS FROM THE TRENCHES
Politics is designed to solve problems. It would seem that if this is true, then we should also evaluate our politicians on how well they have solved problems, rather than engaged in partisan feuds.

We should be showing appreciation for our politicians who do a good job. The question we should ask ourselves is, In his [her] place, what would I do? Eisenhower told Kennedy There are no easy matters that will ever come to you as president. If they are easy, they will be settled at a lower level. Wehner goes on and quotes Lincoln to show that there are always both sides of the argument to consider when deciding on how a bill should be voted on, or even drafted. He also talks about how Jay Forrester, a computer engineer notes that almost all the time, the simple solution to a complex problem is the wrong one. Which points to Presidents come in expecting things to go one way. They rarely happen in that manner.

Along these lines, Presidents can shape opinion, not so much change opinions on an issue. If Presidents are smart about things, they will take advantage when opportunities occur to get their legislation adopted. A statesman who too far outruns the experience of his people will fail in achieving domestic consensus, however wise his policies-Henry Kissinger.

THE UNDERAPPRECIATED VIRTUE OF DISCERNMENT
Staffing for the White House requires not only intelligence, knowledgeable people, but also people who can work with others and who have good character and judgement.

Wehner lays out a case that problem-solving is the core of good politics. Theater and performance is part of it, but the main event is problem-solving. If issues become weapons in the war against your political opponents, then problem solving will not occur and politics have failed. This may be the most important concept in this book.

CHOOSING CITIZENSHIP OVER CYNICISM
Wehner notes he got smarter leaving government for a short time. Not because he actually got smarter, or could see issues more clearly, but because he was not part of the problem-solving process. He could criticize without having to worry about his own remedy being worked over with a fine-tooth comb. He notes that making decisions in real-time is harder than reviewing and seeing the failures of a decision. Decisions look stupid now that may have looked reasonable at the time. A reminder to keep this in mind when criticizing politician decision making. Would I have done anything different if I had been making the decisions at the time?

What do we expect out of our politicians? Competence, good judgement and integrity; basic knowledge…, mastery of a few; ability to learn from mistakes; and show a degree of commitment to the public interest …. A spirit of sympathy, conciliation and magnanimity. Wehner points out that balancing out various anomalies and principles is not a simple task-it is a requirement for a public official to do.

What should a citizen do:
  • Be patient with those who are trying to do the public good
  • Demand that to get our vote, they will be able to do the above.
  • Inderstand what our legislatures will do once in office.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

See Robert F Kennedy’s Day of Affirmation speech, June 6, 1966 in Cape Town

Wehner closes the book with what he has shown: words are powerful, and differences have always been there and will be present in our county. We need to work through these things.


Evaluation:
I wonder if what drew me to this book was the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Peter Wehner and I may not agree about too much politically. But we do agree that something needs to be done about the current political climate.

While there is a lot of Trump does not uphold my values in this book, when you read Wehner, there is more too it than just an anti-Trump message. In establishing what Trump is not, Wehner also talks about what our political system should be. In doing so, he highlights some good points no matter what your political leanings are.

Some points he makes are:
  • Citizens who demand more will yield politicians who offer more.
  • Contempt has replaced respect for a political opponent, which leads to lack of compromise. Only a winner takes all is satisfactory in our current environment. This is not good long term for our nation.
  • Our politics should be governed by our principles and ideas and what is good for our nation
  • To be a citizen means to be a participant in civic life, not just a spectator.
  • Christian current involvement has not helped to make good governance. Wehner indicates we should be looking at Jesus as a model of behavior.Particularly championing those who the elites think are worthless.
  • Hold truth in high regard. Identify lies and acknowledge them as lies.
  • He feels the balance between Congress and the President is out of balance. There is a need to rebalance these institutions.
  • Our debates should be for betterment and truth, not victory
  • Have friends who have different views than yours. Listen, don’t debate. Figure out how what both of you think can lead to a betterment of our nation.
  • If issues become weapons in the war against your political opponents, then problem solving will not occur and politics have failed.
  
Notes from a book group:

Many of these questions are either from or adapted from LitLovers.
  • Why the title of Death of Politics? Is this over the top as a title? Is politics really
  • Every book has a world view. Were you able to identify this book’s world view? What was it? How did it affect the story?
  • In what context was religion talked about in this book?
  • Was the book overtly religious?
  • Why do you think the author wrote this book?
  • What would you ask the author if you had a chance?
  • What “take aways” did you have from this book?
  • What central ideas does the author present?
    • Are they personal, sociological, global, political, economic, spiritual, medical, or scientific
    • What evidence does the author use to support the book's ideas?
      • Is the evidence convincing...definitive or...speculative?
      • Does the author depend on personal opinion, observation, and assessment? Or is the evidence factual—based on science, statistics, historical documents, or quotations from (credible) experts?
    • What implications for you, our nation or the world do these ideas have?
    • Are these ideas controversial?
      • To whom and why?
  • Are there solutions which the author presents?
    • Do they seem workable? Practicable?
    • How would you implement them?
  • Describe the culture talked about in the book.
    • How is the culture described in this book different than where we live?
    • What economic or political situations are described?
    • Does the author examine economics and politics, family traditions, the arts, religious beliefs, language or food?
  • How did this book affect your view of the world?
    • Of how God is viewed?
    • What questions did you ask yourself after reading this book?
  • Talk about specific passages that struck you as significant—or interesting, profound, amusing, illuminating, disturbing, sad...?
    • What was memorable?

New Words:
  • Miasma (chp 7): a highly unpleasant or unhealthy smell or vapor.
Book References:
  • Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan
  • Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving Through Deep Difference by John Inazu
  • Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy by William Galston
  • Mudslingers by Kerwin Swint
  • Politics by Aristotle
  • Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
  • Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke
  • Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government by John Locke.
  • A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke
  • Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power by Richard Carwardine
  • Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
  • Commentaries on the Law by William Blackstone
  • Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Eward Gibbon
  • Gang of Five by Nina Easton
  • God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
  • Republican Like Me: How I Left the Liberal Bubble and Learned to Love the Right by Ken Stern
  • What’s So Amazing About Grace? By Philip Yancey
  • Common Sense by Thomas Paine
  • Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
  • Mightier Than the Sword by David S. Reynolds
  • The Art of the Deal by Donald Trump and Tony Schwartz
  • Fear by Bob Woodward
  • Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Acts That Will Save Us by Jack and Sara Gorman
  • The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt
  • Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
  • Federalist Papers by James Madison
  • Faces of Moderation: Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes by Aurelian Craiutu
  • On Moderation by Harry Clor
  • Profiles in Courage by John F. Kennedy
  • The Allegory of Love by CS Lewis
  • Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell
  • Gratitude: What We Owe to Our Country by William F. Buckley, Jr
  • Choosing Civility by P.M. Forni
  • Index of Leading Cultural Indicators by William F. Buckley, Jr
  • Why Government Fails So Often by Peter Schuck
  • Wallace by Marshall Frady
  • A World Restored by Henry Kissinger
  • Things That Matter by Charles Krauthammer

Good Quotes:
    • First Line: This is a book that pushes back against what people have come to think about politics.
    • Last Line: Ours is a remarkable republic, if we can keep it.
    • Politics is an imperfect profession in an imperfect world. (Chp 2)
    • We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. George Orwell in Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays
      • According to Goodreads the whole quote is: “Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac. In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind. War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it. Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. (On the manipulation of language for political ends.) We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.”
    • Popular sovereignty was a valid democratic practice, but not if it is contradicted by fundamental law. Basic human rights could not be voted up or down by a majority. Charles Strozier, quoted by Mario Cuomo and Harold Holzer in Lincoln on Democracy
    • When al that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains. CS Lewis, The Abolition of Man, pg 65
    • We believe we have worth because we are created in God’s image. But even more basic is the declaration that we have value simply because God values us. Steve Hayner. Chpt 4
    • The Torah is neither world-accepting neither world-rejecting. It is world-redeeming. Rav Aharon Lichtensein in The Commentator, article called A Consideration of Synthesis from a Torah Point of View. This is a statement worth meditating on.
    • It is hard for those who live near a Police Station, to believe in the triumph of violence. TS Eliot in Choruses from ‘The Rock’
    • The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. Martin Luther King, Jr, A Knock at Midnight Sermon delivered on June 5, 1963
    • Democracy requires that we honor the culture of words. Chpt 5
    • Without truth, a free society cannot operate. Chp 5
    • Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, quoted in Timothy J. Penny, [1], National Review September 4, 2003.
    • In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. George Orwell, A Collection of Essays
    • If men were angels, no government would be necessary. James Madison, Federalist Papers, No 51
    • Compromise does not mean cowardice. Indeed it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views of their constituents. John F Kennedy in Profiles in Courage, pg 5
    • Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen
    • Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents. Ronald Reagan, chp 7 of The Death of Politics
    • Democracy is not a machine which manufactures consent. Chp 6
    • Materialistic democracy beckons every man to make himself a king; republican citizenship incites every man to be a knight. Will F. Buckley, Jr. Gratitude: What We Owe to Our Country
    • … fear and hate are the two greatest motivators of voters that feel alienated from government. Peggy Wallace Kennedy, daughter of George Wallace, in Wallace by Marshall Frady
    • The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded. Abraham Lincoln, remarks in the House, June 20, 1848.—The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
    • With a high degree of confidence we can say that the intuitive solution to the problems of complex social systems will be wrong most of the time. Jay Forrester, Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems, Technology Review, Vol. 73, No. 3, Jan. 1971, pp. 52-68.
    • Politics is the moat, the walls, beyond which lie the barbarians. Fail to keep them at bay, and everything burns. Charles Krathammer, Things That Matter, pg 3
    • Great happiness long enjoyed casts its own shadow. Winston Churchill
      Table of Contents:
      • Chapter 1: A Noble Calling
      • Chapter 2: How We Ended Up in This Mess
      • Chapter 3: What Politics is
      • Chapter 4: Politics and Faith
      • Chapter 5: Why Words Matter
      • Chapter 6: In Praise of Moderation, Compromise and Civility
      • Chapter 7: The Case for hope

      References:


          Posted by at No comments:
          Labels: ,
          Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)