The American Spectator

Reader Mail

School's Out

8.6.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 6)

WITNESS
Re: Quin Hillyer's The West Should Heed Solzhenitsyn:

I wonder if any of your other readers was struck by the juxtaposition of the Hillyer piece on Solzhenitsyn and his passing, and Jeffrey Lord's piece on Matthews and his purported "rising" as was I? In Roman times, the Senate was a place where greatness was an everyday occurrence, not an occasional phenomenon. Cicero, Cato, even the mischievous Cataline on a good day were wont to utter something that would transcend the ages. America's Senate sheltered and produced greatness once upon a time. By my lights as recently as Jesse Helms' tenure (make of that what you will). But today's articles make a comparative point and mockery of the term: greatness.

I was touched by Hillyer's bit on Mr. Solzhenitsyn. His combination of insight, fervor, and keen religious emphasis was literally heartwarming and reaffirming. A former prisoner takes his rightful place in a pantheon of the giants of ordered liberty. On the other side of the coin we have Lord's subject: a "sputtering" huckster who would presume to possess the qualities to sit in a chamber formerly inhabited by the likes of Daniel Webster. This is breathtaking in its illustration of how far this Republic has plummeted in terms of what passes for manly heft. On the other hand, look who he'd beg to replace. Pipe in the clowns.
-- J.C. Eaton
Chetek, Wisconsin

Solzhenitsyn was literally a voice in the wilderness. His attacks on Socialism are ignored at our own peril, but equally so his critique of capitalism. Ayn Rand's Objectivism does not directly call for, or even allow for, a higher morality than self-interest; she was a major proponent of capitalism but a denier of higher morality (i.e. theology or spirituality). By purely following her ideals, one is led to a spiritual desert, but Rand's writings are not without influence of believers of a higher order. Howard Roark, the protagonist of The Fountainhead, finds his happiness through brilliantly executing his craft. (That Rand had Roark work in such concrete matters reflects on her craft as a writer more than a philosopher.) Roark's approach to egotism, finding the thing at which one can excel, can be traced directly to Aristotle's prescription for "the good life." (Aristotle arrived at the belief in God [i.e., The Prime Mover] through purely rational and logical means.) Rand's belief that capitalism is the only system that allows for the fulfillment of this pursuit of life is a sound one, but she ignores that Adam Smith, the very father of capitalism wrote extensively on higher matters, works, such as The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Where a strict materialist, Rand, differs from Solzhenitsyn is that he understands capitalism's role in the pursuit of happiness, but also sees that a life that is completely dominated by material matters is one that can be numbing, if not fatal, to the life of the soul.

Ronald Reagan's words of support and Senator Graham's invitation to speak at U.S. Senate extended to Solzhenitsyn demonstrated that sometimes ideals must (in the sense of categorical imperative) trump Realpolitik. To acquiesce to "the evil empire," as Ford and Kissinger did, rewards the very evil against which men must take a stand. One can argue that the decision was purely political, but a wise use of power takes into consideration more than just the retention of power itself. (Sir Thomas Moore could have easily been one of the most powerful men in Henry VIII's England, but he chose to serve the truth over the monarchy. A poor choice if one believes only in the material world, but a sagacious one if one believes in a reward everlasting, as Moore did.)

The use of power is why I am a Libertarian instead of a Republican; the GOP/Conservatives seek to legislate morality, just as the Democrats do. That I find myself in agreement with the morality espoused (if not always followed) by the Republican Party more often than I do the Democrats' morality of false freedom is irrelevant; the party still seeks to enforce their morality on an unwilling people. Morality cannot be forced. The Bible is replete with good shepherd taking care of their herds, but they do usurp the right to make choices. God gave man the ability to choose; for a shepherd to use force to deny this right of choice is ungodly. The good shepherd, as God himself does, can only guide the flock. Solzhenitsyn correctly states, "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space." Mr. Hillyer echoes this sentiment and the all the natural entailments that follow from Solzhenitsyn's full quote. What is left open to question, does Mr. Hillyer believe that man is inherently good? The Republicans' legislative history reflects what many religionists believe: man is born from sin and it is his nature to sin. Contrariwise, traditional Jewish belief states, and on this I am in full agreement, man is inherently good. To paraphrase Erich Fromm, a plant naturally grows towards sunlight unless obstructed. People often make choices on short-term gain and overlook the long-term cost, but making stupidity illegal is not in the realm of the possible; who would close the gate on the last prisoner? The GOP is overreaching and ineffective when it legislates against "destructive and irresponsible freedom." The people must find (create?) their paths to transcendence; the path cannot be legislated; surely that is the blind leading the blind. The government that leaves its alone is the one that will allow the people to find its right footing.

The parting wisdom of the Russian sage is that materialism is dead end, be it Rand's pure Objectivism or Marx's dialectical materialism; human beings are spiritual beings. No form of materialism can explain conciseness. That human beings are sentient beings is beyond scientific understanding. If human beings pursue only that which is material, they invite their own deaths. That Americans have become a nation of whiners is clearly true; we have lost our way because our eyes are too often on the wrong prize. We were once a city on the hill, but our lights have dimmed. Yet we are not beyond redemption. If we, as Solzhenitsyn advised, shift our focus from the dead (i.e., material world) to the living, we can truly enjoy the gifts of this world (and hopefully the world to come). Yes, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, up is the only way to go. Or if I may borrow the words of Baruch Spinoza, "A free man thinks of death least of all things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life."

For your message of hope, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, I thank you.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Sadly, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the overwhelming number of publicly schooled, younger Americans' answer to the question, "What do you think of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?" would be, "Aleksandr who?"

And I'd double-down on the first bet that none them have a clue what those who spout phrases like "social justice" and "income re-distribution" are really up to.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

SADDLE UP
Re: Bruce Herschensohn's The McCain Candidacy:

Let me tell you how the Republican Party was "saddled" with John McCain when more Republicans voted for him than for anyone else running in the Republican primaries and caucuses: John McCain got a fast start in the eastern liberal states that allowed crossover voting by Democrats and independents. By the time he got to the more conservative parts of the United States, he was on a roll with the help of Mike Huckabee to siphon off the evangelical vote from the real conservatives. Fred, Mitt and Duncan never had a chance. John McCain is the candidate of the liberal wing of the Republican party and the RNC who decided it was "his turn." He is not the candidate of the conservative center of the United States.

I am thrilled that you are happy with the candidate, but coming from liberal California I doubt you remember what a strong conservative candidate sounds like. As for myself, I don't want to vote for the lesser of two bad candidates. I want to vote for a strong conservative who is in favor of stopping illegal immigration with no amnesty provisions; in favor of drilling in the ANWR; and who does not enthusiastically and blindly support all Global Warming initiatives put on his desk.

Let's wait and see who his VP is; want to take my bet it will be that great conservative, Joe Lieberman?
-- Judy Beumler
Kentucky

Bruce Herschensohn's article on John McCain, commander-in-chief, was interesting, but still does not address McCain's failings in the eyes of most Conservatives. He states that citizens believe Presidents establish foreign and domestic policies, but that in reality Congress is the body that decides them. This is only partially correct. Either the Congress or the President can kill a program; one through lack of funding and the other through the veto. In fact, he mentions an instance where the President was unable to utilize his war powers because of an opposing Congress. President Ford was mentioned by Mr. Herschensohn. Strangely absent from his list of Presidents who failed to sway Congress to fund foreign military programs was Ronald Reagan. Here was a President who had the solid support of not only Conservatives but 70% of the electorate. And he had to fund the Contras extralegally. The same can be said for domestic policies. It is virtually impossible for the Congress to impose an unpopular domestic policy upon the nation without the acquiescence of the President. To use the author's own example, the Congress was not opposed to President Bush's immigration amnesty plan, except to say that they thought it was far too conservative for their tastes. What stopped the passage of that legislation were the American people and specifically Conservatives, not the personal opinions of either the President or Congress.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Trade, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Television, Business, Religion, Environment, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, NATO, Socialism, Immigration, Energy, Unions