There Oughta Be A Law...Not!

Chuck Schumer Ranting

For the past few days, since the start of the new congressional session, our federal legislators of both parties have been racking up the live-shots on TV news. I suppose they just can't help themselves. It probably has something to do with the politically oriented personality, a psyche that seeks and often demands constant attention. (This character trait is why nation-wide term-limits will always be an unattainable goal.) In their defense, though, I'll agree that the media, especially the 24-hour news-focused television media, have provided one of the more effective means of getting a politician's message and face in front of the people. And as agents of the status quo, they can't be expected to try something new.

Donald Trump Cheering

Our president-elect, however, is anything but a friend of the existing order. Thanks to years of media exposure, his face and his voice are almost universally recognized. He need not  introduce himself to the nation; it knows him already. Through his business experience and his unorthodox campaign it would seem he has come to realize several important things: (1) the people don't want another talking head for a president; (2) the media tend to filter what he says through their own political and ideological biases; and (3) keep the message simple, concise and clear. And so, instead of seeking out the TV cameras to communicate, he's chosen to go directly to the people with tweets of 140 characters. Not only do the people like it, but it's also proven to be extremely effective in producing the results he seeks. 

As one might expect, the mainstream media is apoplectic about Mr. Trump's use of Twitter because he's been able to bypass them as he communicates to the nation, thereby threatening their continued relevance. The opposition politicians -- most Democrats and a few Republicans -- join the media in their disdain of his tactics. They rant and rave from the House and Senate floors in hour-long diatribes that nobody listens to. It's all quite remarkable.

One thing I've noticed is the number of these legislators who, in praise of themselves, focus almost entirely on the number of laws they've enacted and of all the new legislation they're just aching to pass. Fortunately, a few of them take an opposing view and are more concerned with the laws they'd like to overturn. The repeal of so-called Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) is at the top of most Republicans' lists, and I certainly have no problem with that. Any law that places the healthcare of the individual in the hands of incompetent government bureaucrats must be repealed. And for most citizens it's proven to be anything but affordable. It is also far too complex and like our tax structure is incomprehensible, not only to the average citizen, but even to the supposed experts. It has to go.

I have come to appreciate Mr. Trump's simple approach to things political. Our founding fathers were of a similar mind when it came to the enactment of laws. Laws, they believed, should be clear and simple so they can be easily understood by the citizen. One cannot obey a law that cannot be understood. And there shouldn't be too many of them. Laws are necessary to prevent societal anarchy, but a constant increase in laws means a constant decrease in freedom. Too many laws also lead to the growth of government and the creation of agencies needed to interpret and enforce the laws. This too impinges on our freedom. And our laws should not contradict one another, but should reflect a continuity of purpose and result, one that supports the moral foundation of the republic. 

We have strayed far from this understanding of the law. At all levels of government our laws are too many, too complex, and too arbitrary.  Even more disturbing, the executive branch has circumvented the legislature by issuing a constant stream of executive orders which it enforces as if they were laws. And the judicial branch has evolved to function as a kind of super-legislature that can enact its own laws without any effective oversight.

Can we overcome these near-fatal faults and regain our freedom as citizens of this great republic? I'm not particularly optimistic, largely because of the sharp divisions that exist among the citizenry. Racial and ethnic divides, once thought to be lessening, have in recent years intensified. The people we elect to represent us show a remarkable disdain for the good of the people and focus instead on that which will aid their reelection. And as religion is increasingly forced from the public square, the nation seems to have lost its moral compass.  We murder the innocent and inconvenient and label the good as evil and the evil as good. 

Can all this be changed? Yes, it certainly can, but not by man's doing. It will take the movement of God, the Lord of History, to save us from ourselves. All we can do is stay faithful, never be fearful, and trust in God's mercy.

Pray for our nation and for those we have elected.

One Thing After Another

Today, for the first time in a several weeks, I stepped away from all the things that seem to monopolize my time, and just sat down to read and relax. I thought about turning on the television to catch up on the world news, but then decided against it. Indeed, reading has always relaxed me, while watching television seems to have the opposite effect. For example, early each day, after my morning walk around our neighborhood, I sit down with the newspaper and my first cup of coffee. Interestingly, reading the paper, even on those days when it's filled with bad news, rarely upsets me. Oh, I'll occasionally shake my head at the general stupidity of humanity, but that's about it. Watching the news on TV, however, often generates an entirely different and far more lively response.

I don't believe the human psyche was designed to accept the constant barrage of information of the sort originating from the all-news cable channels. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and whatever other news networks are out there, all fire a steady stream of bullet-like news items -- some newsworthy, most not -- at their targets, and that's you and me. Like the body of a soldier being hit repeatedly by withering machine-gun fire, our minds are unable to absorb the shock of all this information. Like those bullets, every story seems to carry equal weight. None is perceived to be more important than another, for each gets an allotted 10 or 20 or 30 seconds of air time: a man is executed in Florida; another is convicted of fraud in Texas; the president decides homosexual marriage is fine and dandy; the Iranians crank up another bunch of nuclear centrifuges; Egyptians Christians are murdered outside the doors of their church; newly elected Greeks fail to form a coalition government; a socialist government takes the reins in France; the Hollywood "elites" cough up millions for the president's reelection; the new, improved maniac in charge of North Korea threatens to destroy us; a 40-pound house cat dies; and on and on... Not only does all of this come at us rapid-fire, but there's never a ceasefire. It doesn't stop. The same stories are aired repeatedly for a day or two while new or revised stories are added to the mix. What's the average citizen to make of it all?

And so I pick up a book instead, or a magazine, or a newspaper, or even my iPad. In each instance I can at least partially control the source of the news and its depth of coverage. And because I can fully control the rate at which I receive this information, I can actually take some time to think about it and weigh its meaning. And these days I can even do a little fact-checking on my own.

David Bentley Hart

The first thing I read today was the June/July issue of First Things, which arrived in yesterday's mail. And the first thing I turned to in First Things was David Bentley Hart's monthly essay, "The Back Page." This month Dr. Hart addressed the subject of human death in his essay, "Death the Stranger." He wrote of death not as something natural but as something unnatural, as something that breaks unannounced into our humanity and interrupts "a story that might otherwise have continued to unfold." He makes a point of separating human death from the surrounding natural cycle of birth and death, a separation founded on our unique rationality, on the fact that unlike other creatures we are able to reflect on such matters as life and death. In his words, "Our consciousness of death constitutes an absolute alienation from the rest of the natural world." It's really quite a wonderful and profound essay. I recommend it, and suspect it will be available online in a few days; otherwise, subscribe to First Things. It's a great journal.

Thomas Howard

While reading Dr. Hart's essay, I couldn't help but recall an article published in last month's issue of First Things. Entitled "Two Deaths", it was written by Thomas Howard, a man whom I met on a few occasions and whose books and other writings I have enjoyed immensely over the years. A far more personal essay than Dr. Hart's, it addresses the execution of a friend, a death-row pen pal with whom Dr. Howard had regularly corresponded for 10 years. He then juxtaposed this one man's death with the recent death of another, Archduke Otto, the heir to the long-gone Hapsburg throne. It too is a beautiful essay, one of those brief pieces that leads your mind to think of many other things.

In preparation for my upcoming trip to Ireland, I've also been reading Joseph Pearce's fascinating biography of Oscar Wilde, The Unmasking of Oscar Wilde. In fact, I just finished it this afternoon. If you haven't read it, do so. It certainly changed my view of this complex man. And this morning Diane and I took a little break and drove the golf cart to our local library where I checked out Volume Three of W. B. Yeats' Collected Works, which includes his autobiographical writings. I have to be able to hold my own in the only nation in the world where everyone considers himself a literary critic. Even I, however, have my limits and I refuse to read James Joyce again. After making my way through Ulysses some years ago, I decided it should have come with a warning: "Drink before reading." It certainly appears that Joyce did just that as he sat down to write it.

Pax et bonum...