Thinking Conservatively

I haven’t done the personal blogging thing in a while, and don’t have any plans to pick it back up. At the same time, we’re at an interesting inflection point in our nation’s political history and I think (fantasize?) that I might be able to add some helpful perspective on the Conservative mindset and where it’s headed given recent events, namely the presumed GOP nomination of Donald Trump.

Maybe it’s always been this way, but it’s become clear to me recently that people make political commitments in two really distinct ways. One group tends to operate intuitively, feeling an internal compulsion acutely, and then acts in support of the subjective truths that they experience viscerally. Support comes in the forms of explanations of strongly felt positions, and it certainly shows up as advocacy. The other group, tends to operate from first principles – about human nature, about the basis for right and wrong – and then tends to experience strong feelings depending on how those principles are being treated and applied. ESFP vs. INTJ, or right brain vs. left brain, are too simplistic but you could add them as other dimensions to think about the contrast I’m trying to describe.

This way of looking at human political interactions has been really enlightening for me. One, I’ve always struggled with the reality of brilliant people with whom I have deep political agreements. It’s not that I think I’m brilliant and wonder whether my opponents are actually stupid, but more like how really smart people could believe such different things about how we should govern ourselves. Another way this awareness has helped me is that I’m finding, in my interpersonal interactions, that the same intellectual – emotional patterns extend beyond politics proper to other core convictions like religion, social structure, economics, and so on. It’s truly helped me tailor my message and listening patterns to how I perceive someone else is viewing the world.

If you’re still with me, allow me to now pivot hard to my real point: the Conservative mindset – at its most intellectually buttressed – is an argument from first principles. It is not, properly, reactionary, or mean-spirited, or exclusive. Far from those common misperceptions, it’s actually intensely interested in seeing humanity – all of it – flourish. While it’s true that much of Conservative ethics have been allied with traditional Christian values, I would argue that that is incidental, not causal. Now, as Christian values are being jettisoned, so too are Conservative principles for government. Though I’m a Christian, I’m not troubled by the first, and deeply troubled by the second. I’m not troubled by the prospect of living as a Christian in a non-Christian society primarily because the entire New Testament presupposes this reality. To bemoan the downfall of the Church in America is like a paratrooper becoming suddenly alarmed that after having jumped he’s surrounded by the enemy. Not that non-Christians are my enemies – at all – but you get the idea.

I’m troubled by the decline of Conservative thought, though, because regardless of what you choose to think about religion, you absolutely have an interest in preserving the cornerstone first principal of Conservatism, which I believe is this:

• Human flourishing requires vigilance against coercion

That’s one reason why Conservatives are so horny (pardon the expression) about the Constitution: it enshrines the positive side of the non-coercion coin: liberty. And by the way, liberty can only really ever be understood in an individual sense.

Maximizing liberty and minimizing coercion, I assume, are things that very nearly all of us can get behind enthusiastically. But there are two corollaries from this principal that begin to point out the distinctive of Conservative thinking and explain Conservative political policies. Those are:

• The price for liberty is equality and vice versa
• All government, at every level, and with every structure, functions through coercion

·  

I don’t think I’ll get into proving those points here, but I’m open to follow up conversations. For now, I’ll assume that they’re self-evidently true. A whole host of Conservative policies follow from these points. Perhaps two of the biggest are:

• Equality before the law is the only variety of equality that is truly desirable
• The smaller, more localized government is, the better.       

And once you see those things, a bunch of other, more specific Conservative political ideals become clearer: Capitalism is just the economic result of liberty; markets need more information and less regulation to function well, and they nearly always function better than bureaucracy; with rare exception do you have “better” designs for another person’s life than they have for their own; government is not community, and so on.

Good intentions are the sole property of neither Liberals nor Conservatives, of course. But what we think of as “liberal” turns out to be in at least a dangerous if ignorant state of coexistence with coercion. How? Well, Liberals believe that government is a positive force in people’s lives. But, clearly the more laws we have, the more coercion we’ll be subjected to. Liberals believe that equality is desirable over inequality, especially in the case of wealth. But, certainly, any advancement of equality comes at the price of forced reduction in liberty. Liberals believe that social programs will make people’s lives better. But, by whose standard do they measure “better?” Their own? Liberals uphold democracy as inherently good. But they fail to recognize that a majority which enslaves is on no higher moral ground than the monarch who does the same.

I’ve griped plenty on Facebook about Clinton and Trump because of their massive character defects. But Sanders is a very different story. I think Sanders appeals to a lot of people for the same reason that Obama did: they behave like genuinely good people. But their views – indeed the views of the entire intellectually self-aware Progressive left – are decidedly not accommodative of liberty in any way, shape, or form. Paternalism? Yes. Equality? Yes. Statism? Yes. Collectivism? Yes. But not liberty. Unless of course you construe liberty as only positive liberty, which, if you think long enough about it, is really equality by a different name.

My hope in briefly explaining the Conservative mindset is not that you’d feel less annoyed by Conservatives but that you’d come to see that Conservatives – true Conservatives and their increasingly similar cousins, Libertarians – are the last bastion of liberty in the United States. 2016 seems beyond reach. But, I think that if the Conservative mindset is understood better, and especially if the link between collectivist thinking and coercion is more firmly established, we stand a chance at preserving for future generations the true American virtue: liberty. 

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

"Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood": so goes the motto of France.  It’s nice.  Not as nice as their toast, kissing, or onion soup, but it’s nice.  “In God We Trust” is the United States' motto.  It’s nicer, but it's bound to go away soon because it’s no longer true.  North Korea’s motto is “Gangseong Daeguk,” which translates as “Prosperous and Great Country.”  That’s really nice – especially for a maniacal dictatorial fantasy. Austria’s motto is “Austriae est imperare orbi universo” which is Latin for “It is Austria’s Destiny to Rule the World.”  That’s not very nice. 

Back to France: brotherhood is sort of the Kumbaya wrapper around the other two ideals in the motto - picture Edith Piaf meets Woody Guthrie. Brotherhood is nice, too.  But what strikes me as odd about this motto is the equal billing of liberty and equality.  It’s odd because they’re really exclusive of one another.  The only way to promote equality is through diminishing liberty.  If your goal is to “level the playing field,” you have to figure out ways to limit someone's perceived advantages (money, race, sex, education, etc.) in order to bring someone else up to the social standard you have for them.  Never mind that they might or might not have the same standard for themselves that you do.  The point is one person’s liberty is the price for another’s gaining in equality.

    

Obviously I’m kind of a liberty nut myself.  I’d like to see everybody free to pursue their own ideals, which is why I’m drawn again and again to the Tenth Amendment.  However, I should point out that I don’t think there’s really anything wrong with pursuing equality: you just need to know what you’re trading if that’s your goal.  It’s not my goal, but if you want to go live in a giant kibbutz, knock yourself out.  In your eagerness, please don’t go forcing people to be part of your collective; just let the quality of life therein stand as the proof statement that your system is really better, and they'll come.  Because if you don’t let people opt in and your design doesn’t work, then all you’ve done is trade their liberty for your failed ambition.  That’s kind of a gnarly price to demand of someone else, eh?

(By the way, Canada’s motto is “Ad mari usque ad mare,” or “From Sea to Sea." That's nice.)

Distinguishing formally between the ideals of liberty and equality may help us navigate the current political divide in our own country.  What would help even more is a public discourse about justice – that seems to me to be the near universal ideal behind the subordinate values of liberty and equality.  One thing I don’t think is helpful when people try to distinguish between positive and negative liberty.  Positive liberty is just another way of saying equality, really.  And if what you actually desire is equality, why not just…well, you get the idea.

Since we don’t trust in God anymore, the U.S. is going to need a new motto.  I kind of like the idea of borrowing from the Pledge of Allegiance for the next U.S. motto: “Liberty and Justice for All.”  While that would be categorically more coherent than the French motto, it may also be kind of fanciful – like North Korea’s motto – and not descriptive of how things are in practice.  If our new motto's purpose is to reflect reality, maybe we could go with “Uh, I’m OK with Whatever.” 

Or how about simply “Meh”?  That'd be nice.

Article II, Section 3, Clause 5

“…he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

I met a good friend of mine for coffee one recent morning; he’s also in “the business.”  One of the things we discussed was the role we play in clients' lives, including how much of what we earn is attributable to simply keeping them from making destructive financial decisions.  The general rule I follow is that it’s my job to talk down the roaring bull and keep people invested in the depths of the bear.  Investors are mercurial, but they can succeed fabulously if they first develop, and then follow, a strategic financial road map.  Financial hyperventilation is something I fight for both fiduciary and personal reasons.

Similarly, I’m leery of conspiracy theories – partly as a result of occupational hazard and partly because they strike me as distastefully goofy.   While it’s true that since I favor limiting the federal government’s role in our social institutions I’m generally less annoyed by Fox / Drudge than MSNBC / Huffington, I definitely see that political inflammation is a bilateral malady.

There is one conspiracy theory that may be worth watching, and that has to do with President Obama’s strategy to use executive orders in place of law-making. The balance of power in our federal government may actually be shifting – I don’t know, but am starting to wonder – which should concern everyone.  Although, I think the reasons it’s shifting are not conspiratorial, but practical.    

  

Jump back first to 2008.  The main feature of then candidate Obama’s wide popularity was his commitment (and perceived ability) to change the tone in Washington.  Four years prior, during his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he drew raucous applause for his line that “There isn’t a Liberal States of America, or a Conservative States of America, but a United States of America!” The collective hope for that change in '08 was powerful, and amplified by the building financial crisis.

What ensued after the 2009 inauguration was something else.  Yes, the Republicans in the Senate and House were resistant to his grand plans – was that really a surprise?  The country had also handed both houses of Congress to Democrats, though, who simply acted on what they were given the opportunity to do.  Republicans were in the minority, and implementing the President’s ambitions didn’t require them.  Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus bill – all Progressive ideals – became law easily. 

The conciliatory tone of the Obama campaign gave way to hostility toward opponents, including, among other things, his practice of publicly castigating specific private enterprises.  It began to seem that the hoped-for tone change in Washington was to come about by way of defeating certain mores and ideals, rather than conciliation and compromise.  Republican objections became obstructions to his plans, not legitimate views demanding his ear. 

But, these things change – they always have, anyway – and the Republicans took back the House in 2010.  How? It wasn’t racism.  If the Tea Party reversal of the House was really a racist phenomenon, then why weren’t they more empowered in 2008 than 2010?  Like cigarette smoking, the cultural trend is (gratefully) running away strongly from racism.  How about gerrymandering?  Nah: that phenomenon is offset by the leftward cultural demographic pull.   2010 can only be seen as a rebuke to the President and House and Senate Democrats.  The country had yearned for the President and Democrats to change the tone in Washington, but instead they gorged themselves at the table of statist ideals. 

About this leftward cultural headwind for the Right. I don’t think the Republican Party has at all come to terms with it yet.  Republicans are fascinated with President Obama’s use of social media to get out the vote, and they keep looking for African-American or Latino leaders who can appeal primarily on the basis of race.  But social media is a tool to be used at the margin.  And do Republicans really imagine that Sen. Rubio is better qualified as an executive than Sen. Obama was?    Or are they just hoping that because he’s of Cuban descent, he can distract the right groups into voting with them?  Republicans have to address the cultural change in order to even remain at the table.  That involves articulating, in a consistently edifying manner, why we should shift power from Washington DC to Jefferson City, Talhassee, Sacramento, Albany, etc.  It also involves nominating honest-to-goodness political leaders who understand how to move the country that direction. 

 

***

Our federal government balances power through several means: a Constitution, an upper and lower house of the legislative branch, a separate executive branch – the major distinction between our “small r” republican democracy and a parliamentary system – and an independent judiciary.  Our Founding Fathers recognized that making laws and implementing them were two distinct functions better handled by two different governmental branches.  They also understood that the whims of the voting populace needed to be checked by a hard-to-change anchor: the Constitution.  And, if either the President or Congress should run afoul of this supreme law of the land, they saw it as the judiciary’s job to correct them. 

Even as my cynicism grows, I’m still deeply moved by how this system is engineered to preserve individual liberty.  I thank God that I’m able to enjoy life in this short slice of human history.  

     

A former Constitutional law professor, President Obama knows this stuff like the back of his hand.  Here’s a video from a 2011 town hall meeting on Univision.  Expanding amnesty for immigrants who are here illegally (is that the PC way to say it now?) isn’t a 2014 idea.  Three years ago, the President articulated the importance of the balance of power and his understanding of his constitutional limitations.  Now balancing power is out of vogue, at least on Pennsylvania Avenue.  What’s in are “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” and “So sue me,” and a willingness to “act alone” through executive order to solve the nation’s big problems. 

Why is the balance of power out of vogue?  The answer depends on whom you ask.  Ask certain Democrats and they may tell you that it’s because Republicans are out of step, angry white men who are obstructing the President’s plans out of personal hatred for him, and that Mr. Obama has to act in this way to get "things" done.  Ask some Republicans and you might find a fear that he’s secretly a Muslim imam, waiting to install Sharia. 

I don’t buy either of those lines.  I think what we’re witnessing is a conflagration of skill-set, ideology, and a genuine sense of civic responsibility.  

***

I’ve written before about the President’s skill set – you can read about it here if you want.  The bottom line is this: the Presidency is an executive leadership role.  Mr. Obama neither had, before coming to office, the experience of learning how to lead, nor has he displayed the passion to do so.  He speaks; he campaigns; he criticizes. But he doesn’t lead.

 

I also have come to see that he genuinely doesn’t like Republicans.  He doesn’t see a point in dealing with them because he understands their views as threatening to his grand societal ambitions.  And he really doesn’t like politicking with them.  Again, I have to say that I share that distaste for political maneuvering with the President. 

The problem is, our Constitution supposes that the President (whichever party he or she belongs to) would be not an ideologue, but an executive administrator operating within a political system.  Because President Obama is neither a leader nor does he like the practice of political compromise, he’s stuck in a rut within our system.  Think Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill.  Think Bill Clinton and Trent Lott.  Those guys were functional because they were leaders and could work within the system. 

But, I also think President Obama sincerely believes it's his job to solve national problems.  I often don’t see the same problems that he does, nor do I agree with his solutions to the problems on which we agree, nor do I even agree that an executive administrator is essentially and rightly a solver of national "problems."  And more often than not, what he sees as a U.S. problem, I see as a state problem.  All that said, I’m still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his intent to do good for us. 

Here's the rub: what’s a guy to do who feels the responsibility to solve problems but has neither the skill-set nor disposition to do so within the system?  Well, in Mr. Obama’s case, he’s doing what he can to work around the system.  How?  By selectively implementing and executing laws already passed (e.g., the changes to the Affordable Care Act mandates and implementation timing).  By withholding his Justice Department’s responsibility to investigate and prosecute wrong (Lois Lerner and the IRS).  By inventing the bizarre concept of “economic patriotism” and tasking Secretary Lew with finding non-legislative ways to thwart tax inversions instead of working with Congress to fix a horribly broken corporate tax code.  And by, if his own statements about immigration reform are a foreshadowing, issuing executive orders instead of working with Congress on legal immigration reform. 

Acting alone is the only club in this guy's bag, and that’s the one he's using.    

***

Gratefully, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the problems with the acting alone thing.  Depending on your view of the main issues of the cases, the high court has handed the Obama administration between thirteen and twenty 9-0 decisions countering his use, or intended use, of executive power.  Like the famous axiom that news headlines are never about planes landing safely, our attention is nearly always focused more on the socially controversial 5-4 decisions.  In reality, the Supremes see some matters almost identically. 

The real distinction between Rep. Boehner’s lawsuit and Sarah Palin’s inane invocation of impeachment is that Boehner has a real argument about the Constitutional limits of executive power.  Might a lawsuit yield political gain for Republicans?  It’s as likely to be perceived as obstructionist as anything, so it probably will not actually benefit them.  Do I therefore believe that Boehner has no ulterior motive?  Of course he does.  But, there exists a big difference here.  Whereas impeaching the President for unlawful executive orders is, in the best case, Constitutionally questionable, and a guaranteed political noose, the Boehner suit has a real Constitutional question at its core: can a President appropriately change and implement laws as he or she sees fit?  I believe that he cannot.  That's an enormously important question needs to be settled, no matter the political fallout.  

Constitutional challenges are a big enough deal in and of themselves.  What makes this one truly huge is that it goes to the heart of our republican democracy.  But in some overall sense, even our Constitution is subject to demographic changes and political whims.  Let’s all hope the system works now to preserve itself.  If it doesn't, the prospects for our country's future are truly dismaying.

Media Bias

The Fox News slogan “Fair & Balanced” has long been mocked, and rightfully so in my mind.  Fox’s rise as a conservative outlet among a lefty main stream media did provide a type of counterweight to the whole system.  What’s worthy of mocking is the implication that news from any one outlet is ever “Balanced.”  And the whole “Fair” thing is too slippery to make any sense of.

    

I’ve confessed to full-blown cynicism about national politics, but I’m not completely cynical about the national news – yet.  I guess that’s mainly because a news story, however biased, includes claims, arguments, and facts that can be checked, whereas our national politicians, or at least the ones who get quoted, seem to be posturing constantly on philosophical points and slinging mud at their opponents.  A do-nothing Congress, in my view, is often not a bad thing, but I wish they'd at least have the decency to stop blabbering while they avoid legislating. 

I am cynical about a press that views itself as the vanguard of truth – the “Fourth Estate” thing seems a bit too eagerly appropriated.  News is not simply the regurgitation of data, but story telling.  In a sense, news reporting is ultra-short term history.  And historians, whether dealing with yesterday’s events or the Iron Age, always have a direction they want to steer you. Sales people are fine, but you always know their goal is to get you to buy, or buy into, their wares. 

The value of our much cherished free press doesn’t rest in journalists’ stories as dispensed through their outlets, but in the freedom to publicly disseminate ideas.  Press consumers still bear the responsibility to make sense of the stories that spin out of historical data.  Make no mistake about it, though: there is no pure, unbiased story in the news. There can’t be – there’s data, and there’s somebody's interpretation of that data.

 

Now, there exists a spectrum of biased news purveyors, to be sure.  And I do think that as Americans’ average ability to wisely digest news recedes, that trend feeds a negative trend in journalism bias.  But even in the real high-brow outlets – the ones where big words and clear ideas coexist – there remain strong biases.  I noticed this in two opinion pieces in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal recently, both of which deal with the Halbig v. Burwell appeal.  One of these articles is philosophically biased, and the other politically biased, but biased they both are.  Reading them side by side may give you a good refresher on the importance of balancing your own news diet yourself.  

“Editorial pages!” you say, “Of course, they’re biased!  That’s nothing new.”  Sure, the unsigned editorials are always the shrillest pages in a newspaper.  But to my understanding, and very much unlike the investment banking and brokerage divisions of a large bank, there exist no “Chinese walls” in journalism.  What’s shouted on the editorial page is said softly in the regional bureaus. 

And, frankly, I don’t even want to see Chinese walls installed in the media.  I doubt it would have an impact on the product's bias.  But even if it did, I still wouldn't want the wall.  That's because I understand that distilling truth is my responsibility, not the media’s, and that when you boil it all down, every story is really a sales pitch.  Sometimes, the passion behind a sales pitch is more enlightening than the message itself.  

Democracy Ain’t All That

The meanings of words change.  I find this aspect of culture frustrating.  If you want a new word, why not just invent it?  Why change the meaning of a perfectly good word?  Or, better yet, some person has probably already invented a word for the idea you’re trying to express, so why not just do a little digging in the dictionary or thesaurus and find out what it is?  Dictionaries ought to be the arbiter in this.  But, given enough time, dictionaries eventually bow to slang and pop culture, adding to or changing their definitions.  Eventually Urban Dictionary bullies Noah Webster into giving up his lunch money.

Take the word “democracy” for instance.  I used to think that democracy was plainly a form of self-governance in which political power was distributed evenly among the eligible voting citizens of a country.  It still is that.  But it’s becoming something more.  Dictionary.com offers a fourth definition: “political or societal equality; democratic spirit.”  Adding the phrase “or societal” redirects the meaning, away from strictly self-governance, and toward another horizon. 

Social democracy is a common term in Europe, but less so here.  Social Democrats are just Socialists who’ve grown uncomfortable with the failure of each of the world’s prior socialist governments and so bristle at the association.  It’s a fair question to ask whether they should have instead, reasonably, grown uncomfortable with the idea of socialism itself, but that’s another thread.  “Progressives” are what we call American Socialists – er, Social Democrats; sorry.  They also like to distinguish their designs for your life from those found in Marxism, preferring gradual change to the latter's sudden and violent class warfare.

Used in this way, democracy becomes synonymous with equality.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with the word equality, mind you.  It’s perfectly precise on its own.  But it’s not punchy enough. Well, maybe it's not just that it lacks “punch.” Maybe it’s that equality is a little too susceptible to retort.  If Progressives speak openly about equality when referring to any status other than those pertaining to civil rights, they might be confused for Socialists – which they are, really, but don’t want to own.  One way around this is to make everything a civil right but here, too, is another idea for a different day.  

That’s where democracy comes in.  Democracy is right up there with mom, apple pie, and baseball.  Our Founding Fathers gave us democracy; democracy is in our blood, man!  Who could possibly talk down about democracy?  Actually, our founders gave us a republican democracy, with a constitution, and three branches of government meant to keep each other in check.  Once again, though: different issue, another time.

As the meaning of democracy morphs, it’s worth noting that it’s not an unguided slang or pop cultural force changing it.  It’s being changed deliberately, like a rook being moved in a giant political chess match.  If the Progressives' goal is a gradual societal pivot toward socialism, revamping a term like democracy to mean equality is a pretty effective device.  Democracy is super punchy, and totally revered. 

Unbelievably, we’re about to enter another election season.  Yuck.  I predict you’ll hear the word democracy bandied about with far greater frequency this Fall.  When you do, ask yourself whether the word is being re-defined for the purpose of political rhetoric – whether the speaker really means “equality,” instead.  Then ask yourself whether that particular application of equality is an ideal you also value.

Meanwhile, I expect to be enjoying football season by then.  And by “football,” I mean football.   

Grand Canyon Rim to Rim FAQ

Thanks for considering the Voice of Wilderness Grand Canyon Rim to Rim trip!  

If you have not yet done so, please visit the Voice of Wilderness site for registration information.

The purpose of this post is to give you additional information beyond the website and brochure.  If you’re seriously considering registering for the trip but have additional questions, I hope they’ll be answered below.  

Overview

The Grand Canyon is definitely grand at the rims.  When you're down in the canyon itself, though, you won't believe how amazing the place is.  Voice of Wilderness founder Chet Russell went with me on the scouting trip in 2010 - his comment was that the place was so different and so magnificent, it was as though we were hiking someplace "out of this world."

The geology is absolutely amazing, the flora and fauna intriguing, and the colors stunning.  The climate is very arid (see below in Health & Safety), but you won't believe how much life and how much water you'll see in the canyon.  And like many places with no light pollution and seemingly perpetual high atmospheric pressure, you simply can't believe how bright the stars are at night.  I saw two satellites crossing the sky one night.

Hiking from rim to rim is also a noteworthy accomplishment.  The trip itself is just about 25 miles, which we'll cover in 3 1/2 days.  On the first day, we'll cover 5 trail miles and drop about 3,000 feet in elevation - a nice first day to get your legs ready.  Hiking out to the North Rim on the last day, we'll cover more trail miles and more vertical feet, but you'll have your "hiking legs" and lighter packs by then!

We'll also visit some historical sites, including the fabled Phantom Ranch, and will enjoy the view of the river from Plateau Point.  There are some other surprises, but if I told you about them, well, you know!

Dates

The 2014 trip is scheduled to begin at about 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, September 14, 2013.  We will meet at the food court in the Yavapai Lodge on the South Rim.  We expect to complete the trip at around Noon on Friday, September 19.  These dates have now been confirmed. Please feel free to make travel arrangements accordingly (see "Travel" section below).  

Fitness 

Due to the climate and the significant changes in elevation, we recommend this trip only for well-conditioned individuals.  I recommend that your pre-trip training include – at a minimum – the goal of being able to jog 5 miles without stopping.  You will also benefit from cardio work on stair machines or cycling.  It's hard to replicate the muscle strain of hiking up and down, but I certainly recommend you include lunges and well as squats in your training.  Backpacking is a sport of the legs – your hip belt, not your shoulder straps, should bear the weight of the pack, so it’s important to take care of and prepare your legs.  

Cost 

The cost of $725 includes the following:

• Backcountry permit and reservation fees
• Programming costs (insurance, equipment, etc.)
• Meals at South Rim and North Rim restaurants 
• 1 Night at a South Rim Lodge (double / tripple occupancy) 
• Meals and supplies during the trip 
• Campground fees (North Rim) 
• Grand-Canyon Shuttle ticket to North Rim

The cost does not include transportation to and from the Grand Canyon, nor does it include the park entry fee ($25). 

Travel

As mentioned in the “Dates” section, please do not make travel arrangements until you receive confirmation on the dates of the trip.  

The closest airport is Flagstaff (FLG), which is 90 minutes south of the park.  Phoenix (PHX) is about 4 1/2 hours away and Las Vegas (LAS) is roughly 5 ½ hours.  The drive from Phoenix through Sedona and Flagstaff is very pretty, passing through several desert environments.  

Arizona Shuttle offers one way trips between Flagstaff and the South Rim.  Please see the website for schedules and fees.   

The back country travel office at the South Rim has a long-term parking lot which participants may utilize at no charge between Sunday and Friday.  

Itinerary

Below is an approximate itinerary for the trip.  Times will change slightly from trip to trip.  For example, in order to increase our odds of getting our preferred dates and campsites, we may change directions (South to North) or spend two nights in one campground.  You'll note that we start insanely early each morning and don't do any backpacking during the afternoon. We will do some hiking & exploring in the afternoon, but the kind of exertion that comes with backpacking is dangerous in the heat of the day. 

Sunday

• 5:30 p.m. – Meet at the cafeteria of the Yavapai Lodge for dinner & orientation
• 7:00 p.m. – Drive to campsite in Mather Campground to pass out gear

Monday

• 5:30 a.m.– Wake up call, pack gear, and move cars to back country parking lot
• 6:00 a.m. – Breakfast – Maswik Cafeteria  
• 7:00 a.m. – Begin hike at Bright Angel trail head
• 10:30 a.m. – Arrive at Indian Garden Campground
• 11:30 a.m. – Lunch 
• 5:00 p.m. – Dinner
• Dusk - Devotion

Tuesday

• 4:00 a.m. – Wake up call, pack gear, breakfast
• 5:00 a.m. – Bright Angel Trail to Bright Angel Campground
• 10:30 a.m. – Arrive at Bright Angel Campground
• 11:30 a.m. - Lunch
• 5:00 p.m. – Dinner
• Dusk – Devotion 

Wednesday

• 4:00 a.m. – Wake up call, pack gear, breakfast
• 5:00 a.m. – Bright Angel Trail to Cottonwood Campground
• 9:30 a.m. – Detour to Ribbon Falls
• 11:30 a.m. – Cottonwood Campground / lunch
• 5:00 p.m. – Dinner
• Dusk – Devotion

Thursday

• 3:30 a.m. – Wake up call, pack gear, breakfast
• 4:30 a.m. – Bright Angel Trail to Cottonwood Campground
• 11:30 a.m. – North Rim campground: lunch & showers
• 5:00 p.m. – Dinner at Grand Canyon Lodge
• Dusk – Devotion

Friday

• 6:00 a.m. – Wake up call, pack gear, breakfast
• 7:00 a.m. – Board Trans-Canyon Shuttle for South Rim
• 11:30 a.m. – Arrive back at South Rim: collect gear, end of  trip

Safety & Health

There are one primary and several secondary safety concerns:

Primary concern: dehydration / heat exhaustion.  The Grand Canyon is very dry.  You may have heard the hiking adage that once you’re thirsty, you’re already dehydrated.  That is never truer than when you’re in the desert.  You may not notice much sweat, but that’s simply because the stuff evaporates rapidly once it leaves the pores in your skin.  In the desert we gauge hydration levels by paying attention to urine – what color it is and how often are you are going.  The guides on your trip will be asking you about these details discretely, and while it’s a little weird at first, you have to understand that this is information they need to know in order to keep you healthy.   

Having said that, you should also know that there is ample drinking water available on our trip.  In addition to the potable water sources along the trail, we will carry water filtration systems.  As well, you’ll be asked to drink 1 liter of electrolyte enhanced water prior to beginning the day’s hike.  You simply can’t cut corners when it comes to staying hydrated. 

The secondary concerns are:

• Critters: the Grand Canyon is home to rattlesnakes and scorpions.  We will practice caution when in situations where we might encounter these guys.
• Fatigue: you can expect your muscles, tendons, and joints to be tired, especially on the first and second days.  Time in the creek and Advil / Tylenol usually do the trick.  
• Falls: portions of the trail will be along steep drop offs, however the trail is always 4+ feet wide, and more often than you’ll probably expect, along level ground.  If you’re concerned that you might have altophobia, we recommend that you lightly touch the rock wall as you hike.  We strictly enforce the safety practice of staying 3+ feet back from the edge of cliffs, no matter how safe they appear.
• Minor injuries: cuts, blisters, chaffing, etc.  Clip your toenails before the trip – you’ll thank me for that tip.  Blisters are a small thing at home, but can become a big problem when hiking.  As soon as you notice a hot spot starting, tell one of the guides.  The way to handle chaffing is to keep the area dry.  Powder and products like Bodyglide do work, but going "commando" works the best.  Seriously. 
• Sunburn: sunscreen is a must, as is a hat.  We recommend a hat with a wide brim and sunglasses.

The National Park Service requires that all guides meet minimum medical training, which they define as having a Wilderness First Responder (WFR) designation or higher.  For more information on the WFR, please see the Wilderness Medical Associates site.

Gear List

Voice of Wilderness will provide you with tents, backpacks, and all group gear (cook sets, first aid, water filters, maps, guide books).  

Equipment

• Light weight sleeping bag or blanket – 45 degrees
• Any combination of water bottles / Camelback bladders that have a min. total volume of 4L.
• 2 lashing straps for securing sleeping bag to pack
• Sleeping pad
• Metal cup / bowl & spoon
• Headlamp / small flashlight
• Whistle

Clothing

• Hat or cap (crushable) with wide brim
• Sunglasses
• Stocking cap - optional for sleeping on the North Rim
• Rain poncho - likely won't need, but light and good in case
• 1 long sleeve cotton shirt
• 2 short sleeve cotton shirts
• Hiking in the desert is different from hiking in areas with more humidity. In the canyon, we don't want wicking, we want to keep moisture next to our bodies for as long as we can.
• 2 pair of hiking shorts
• I like the pants that zip off at the knees for flexibility
• 2-3 pair of underwear
• 2 pair of socks
• I use smart wool socks, and don't need liners. Otherwise, you can wear one pair of polypro liners and an outer pair of wool socks.
• Light sandels / water socks - suitable for creek crossings. No flip flops
• Hiking boots / shoes
• Can be light weight, but should give solid ankle support and have a sturdy shank for heavy loads.
• If you buy new boots, begin wearing them every day for 20 – 30 minutes, two weeks before the trip, to break them in.  You want these fully broken in during the trip. On one trip, a young woman took her new shoes out of the box, put them on, and started hiking down the Grand Canyon. She developed multiple blisters, one of which was the size of a half dollar.

Toiletries

• Toothbrush
• Toothpaste
• Toilet paper (1/3 of a roll in a zip lock bag)
• Hand sanitizer / bio degradable liquid soap
• Sanitary supplies
• Light weight hand towel

Medical

• Moleskin
• ACE bandage / vet wrap
• Lip balm
• Sunscreen
• I will also have a team medical bag
• Personal medicine

Educational

• Notebook
• Pencil / pen
• Pocket sized Bible

Optional

• Pocket knife
• Mirror (small, metal)
• Camera
• Portable phone charger
• Trekking poles
• Small amount of cash - North Rim showers & gift store

Weather

During August night time temperatures on the North Rim can dip into the upper 40s, while daytime temperatures down by the Colorado river will easily exceed 100 degrees.  I’m usually warm enough at night on the North Rim with a light / zippered fleece sleeping blanket and a stocking cap.  If you choose to bring a sleeping bag, it should be light weight and does not need to insulate below 40 degrees. The Colorado Plateau region experiences "monsoons" during July and August. Most of the rain will evaporate before it reaches the floor of the inner canyon, but a light poncho on the South and North Rims is advisable. 

Miscellaneous

If you’re slightly nervous about the hike and take these cautions seriously – you’ll have a great trip.  If you are the type that laughs at danger, you may well get yourself hurt.  Be humble, follow directions, and enjoy a truly one-of-a-kind experience.    

We are limited to 5 total participants this year.  If you’re serious about going, I would encourage you to go ahead and register.  You can cancel with a full refund up to 45 days prior to the trip. 

 

Here’s a link to the Grand Canyon back country brochure.

Historically most of the participants on this trip have been men.  However, women are very definitely welcome to come, too.  We do ask that any couples coming on the trip be married.

How I am Still a Christian

The Good Friday post concluded with the hope I find blossoming on the cross.  But why am I a Christian now?  Why don’t I search for hope and joy by other means?

One easy answer is I was raised in a Christian family and back in the day, the country was more overtly a Christian nation.  Until I was 21, these familial and cultural forces were the dominant reasons for my belief.  I did question parts of my beliefs from time to time, though never seriously.  Then, during the Spring semester of my senior year in college, as I sat in Doug Geivett’s apologetics class, I realized that the stuff I professed to believe wasn’t anything I had experienced – especially joy.  God seemed more like a distant concept than a Heavenly parent.  For the most part, I didn’t buy the historical arguments for God’s existence, either, though I wanted to be able to believe them. 

Here began crisis of faith #1: was there a God at all and could I know that he had any interest in me? 

My questioning grew into a mild depression: I felt spiritually despondent, confused by the lack of experience of God in my life.  I confided in my parents that I had this confusion, and they suggested that I come home for the weekend so we could talk – they’re both excellent listeners and very empathetic – and that seemed like a pretty good idea.  They introduced me to the practice of spiritual warfare praying, or the act of confronting evil and destructive forces with the authority of Christ.  I was open but fairly skeptical, until they told me that they’d essentially done this sort of thing on my behalf when I was 15, a point to which I could point as a major demarcation in my attitude and behavior.  So, I followed their lead.  What followed involved no sparks, nothing creepy, and it was really short – about 10 minutes or so.   I spent Saturday night at home and drove back to school on Sunday.   

Within the week, I was hopeful again and noticed a sudden and very positive attitude change.  I felt joyful.  I was dumbfounded.  How could this be?  Was it a purely psychosomatic reaction, or was something else going on, some kind of spiritual experience for which I was unprepared and of which I was ignorant?  Of course, I can’t prove in any physical or deductive way that it was spiritual – the spiritual is a dimension inaccessible to objective investigation in our primary, four-dimensional world.  But, subjectively, I knew that something real had happened, clearly for my betterment, and it happened in the name of Jesus Christ.    

Crisis of faith #2 was multi-phased, with troughs in the Summer of ’94, the Winter of ’96, and finally the Summer of ’99.  

After graduating from college, I spent some time with A Christian Ministry in the National Parks, essentially as a chaplain in first Everglades and then Grand Teton National Parks.  After this, I spent 10 months recruiting for the ministry.  The time was spiritually formative for me, and I experienced God’s presence, answers to prayer, and sudden and unexpected provision.  At the time I felt a clear sense that I should go to seminary, which I ultimately did in the Fall of ’95.  Before, during, and after that stretch, I began to be plagued by questions again.  I had been studying the philosophy of religion and systematic theology and grew especially concerned with the exclusive claims of Christ.  Following Jesus, it seemed, was a good thing, but was it really right, more so than the other major World religions? 

Then one night in February of 1996, as I drove along Half Day Road in Deerfield, IL, I cried out: “God, I can’t figure this stuff out!”   What happened this time also caught me off guard: I heard directly and immediately from God.  It wasn’t an audible voice, but a distinct and clear impression of words; God said: “You don’t have to, just be faithful.”  Once again, I cannot prove that my mind didn’t create those words.  What I can say is that I have an undeniable personal experience that these words came from beyond me. 

Now I had a break – I simply had to try to continue living in faith, I didn’t have to sort it all out.  I also knew that I couldn’t remain in seminary as long as I wasn’t sure about Jesus’ role in relation to God.  Through the next 3 ½ years, I lived in faith, sort of.  In reality, I was functioning as a deist: God was there, I couldn’t deny the reality of my prior experiences, but I was twice shy about trusting God to live fully in faith.  During this stretch, my girlfriend became my wife, maybe against her better judgment.  I’ll always be grateful to her friend Dawn for encouraging her to stick with me. 

But Lisa knew that I couldn’t continue dwelling at the fork in the road forever, that eventually I needed to resolve the doubts I had.  In August of 1999, she bottom-lined me: “Steve, you have to sort this out.  Whatever you conclude, I won’t leave you.”  I knew she was right, but until I had that relational freedom from her, I didn’t feel strengthened to wrestle with the questions again.  I’d been living in fear – not in faith – that I might get the “wrong” answer.  Now, I could pursue my doubts honestly.

I sought out an elder in the church we were attending for a conversation about my doubts.  He was an unusual guy: he was not a minister, but his adult Sunday school class attracted about 80-100 people per week.  He’d earned a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Michigan and had taught himself Greek so he could read the New Testament in its original written form.  I figured that if there were answers to my questions, Phil would have them.  

So, I called to make an appointment to see Phil, and then began writing out my questions.  When the evening came to meet with him, I was prepared and skeptical that he could handle what I was about to dish out.  When we sat down, Phil listened as I broadly described the questions I had for him.  His response was interesting: “That’s great, we’ll get to those, but first tell me who is Jesus Christ to you?”  I could hardly believe my ears as I listened to my own response: he was a great teacher, a moral leader, a wonderful example – how many times had I earlier in life smirked proudly at those responses?!  In the discussion that followed, Phil pointed me back to the reality that I was avoiding: God was not an abstraction, about which we could argue, limit, and define.  God was a person – immaterial, for sure – but very definitely a person.  And the proposal was this: was I willing to trust that God wanted the best for me, that Jesus would lead me, and that the Holy Spirit would grow me (taken together, this is what Christians mean by a personal relationship with God)?  Phil said, pointing to a chair in his living room, “A relationship with God is like your relationship with this chair: you can acknowledge its existence, but unless you risk by sitting in it, there won’t be any chance you’ll experience the support and rest it’s capable of providing.”

I was 29 when my doubts began to ebb: I prayed to have the faith – not a gossamer hope, but living out my beliefs in spite of my questions – that month, and have been growing since. 

I’ve been fortunate to have spiritual experiences like those above that keep me anchored in my faith in Christ.  They’re sign posts and like Jesus' miracles, they’ve served to point me back in the right direction.  Most of the questions I hoped Phil would answer that night 15 years ago are still with me, but they’ve long since quit vexing me.  I’m buttressed by these spiritual experiences, motivated by relationship, and fueled by spiritual growth.   

Doubt isn’t a thing to fear and it’s unreasonable to imagine that doubts will stop for the thoughtful Christ follower. The life of faith in Christ works – it grows – not by obtaining answers to questions but through continuing to sit in the chair even though the questions remain.  My growing faith in Christ is belief in action, leading to a changed character.

But what about Easter?  What exactly do I see in this day that moves me so much?  Why is the story of the crucifixion and the empty tomb so powerful for me?  Why, as I acknowledged in the prior post, even though I have questions about how Jesus' death pays for my sin do I continue to believe it? 

Beauty.

And, in my mind, there’s simply nothing more beautiful than self-sacrifice.  When a person values another to such an extent that he gives his life for them – a response thoroughly inexplicable by Darwinian impulses – I know goodness exists.  God knows the beauty in self-sacrifice, too, and I think one way to look at Jesus’ death and resurrection and draw out joy and hope is to focus on the beauty of God’s self-sacrifice via Jesus’ death.  And then there’s the empty tomb: a mystery, to be sure, but in my view, evidence that the story of Easter doesn’t stop with the beauty of God’s self-sacrifice, but extends to include hope and joy in God’s power and majesty. 

If you’re reading this on Easter, you can know that I’ll be reveling in God’s majesty, in the beauty of Jesus’ sacrifice, and in the joy of living a life that’s being transformed, one that’s being turned slowly from selfishness to God-focused. You can know that I don't have answers to all the mysteries but still enjoy their reality. I hope that’s your experience today, too.