Coming out of the Evolutionist's Closet

I've come to believe that God used evolution and roughly 14 billion years to create the universe you and I experience today.

There.  I feel better.  Thanks, Uncle Sig.  And sorry again, Aunt Martha.  I'll be sure to keep my shoes off of your couch next time.

All kidding aside, I recognize that this topic will make some of my fellow believers uneasy.  My encouragement to you is this: let it.  I'm not out to make you uncomfortable, I just want you to put aside the comfort of your long-held beliefs in favor of letting your moral imagination wander a bit.  If you don't like the trip, I'll return you shortly.

The rest of this post basically traces thematically my journey from young-earth Creationist to my present view.  It's decidedly not a journey marked by deep scientific inquiry, though I've tried to understand that stuff as best I could.  It has involved a fair amount of theology, but don't expect to see a bunch of Hebrew and Greek words here;  I've never studied Hebrew and can only barely remember Greek.  Nor will you find a pithy quotes from Tillich and Bultmann.  What it really is, is the story of a regular guy trying to make sense of the natural world in a way that preserves his faith in Christ as redeemer.  And, it's really not an argument for my position as much as it is a description of how I've come to the views I have.

An Inclination to Trust Science (and Scientists)

I'm kind of a frustrated researcher by nature.  Well, not terribly frustrated - I'm interested in finance and economics and my job affords me plenty of opportunities to scratch & dig.  Still, there's a part of me that would get a kick out of academic research.  I read academic journals and papers in finance when I can, though sometimes the math gets overwhelming and I have to put them down.  I have a few theories I'd like to explore; I should probably go back and beef up my math skills, but for now my involvement in that field mainly includes helping the short people living in my house with addition, division, and pre-algebra.

Even if I did have my math an statistics squared away, though, I couldn't just start writing about my theories.  Odds are pretty good that several aspects of what I consider to be my unique thinking have already been developed by people before me.  One of the things that sticks out to me when I read a journal article is the way in which the authors first define who they are and where they're headed in the article, in terms of the work that's already been done in the field.  Only then do the authors start unpacking the findings of their analysis.

If a paper is judged to be good enough to be included in a prestigious journal, it's done so by an editorial panel of academics, who also are researching in the field.  This is what's known as the "peer review" process, and it helps to ensure that new ideas are vetted by the community of experts in that field.  What it really does is ensure competition for the best field-advancing theories of the academy.

Intellectual competition doesn't guarantee correct conclusions.  I'm sure natural scientists, like financial economists, have rusty paradigms that sometimes shift uneasily.  But, for the most part, competition among an informed group of scientists ensures that the best ideas rise to the top.  Not, perhaps, in the humanities: historians seem capable of constantly re-writing sagas to suit current fashion.  But unlike in historical research, the field of evolutionary biology holds the promise of commercial and public health rewards.  My doctor is uber-conservative about prescribing antibiotics because of a greater-than-Steve concern for mutating bacteria, for example. 

Yes, I get that mutations within species are different than mutations leading to new species.  But, to believe that researchers who are otherwise hemed in by the threat of making a career-ending dumb argument would also be complicit in a grand athiestic-materialist conspiracy seems, well, conspiratorial in itself.

If you've not yet read Francis Collins book, The Language of God, do so.  Collins is now director of the National Institutes of Health, but he won popular and academic acclaim as the leader of the Human Genome Project.  A former athiest, Collins earned a Ph.D. from Yale (physical chemistry) and and M.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Collins's intellectual-spiritual experience helped me gain additional comfort in harmonizing well-tested scientific claims with my undeniable experiences of the divine.  Also be sure to check out The Biologos Foundation (started by Collins) for resources to integrate a thoroughly scientific understanding of the natural world with an authentic faith in the living, redeeming God of the Bible. 


The Grand Canyon

I've been to the Grand Canyon four times.  It's an amazing place - hiking down from North Rim to the Colorado river, you go through 5 different life zones and 3 of the 4 desert ecosystems found in North America.  The north kaibab squirrel is a species unique to the north rim.  The grand canyon rattlesnake is also unique to the area.  I'm not much of a flora guy myself, but cactus flowers and agave plants always stop me in my tracks.

But it's the geology that gets me.  The upper canyon wall is comprised mainly of alternating layers of sandstone, limestone, and shale.  Each of those are sedimentary rocks, varying in density and the type of sediment: sandstone is self-explanatory, shale comes from mud, and limestone is mainly the calcium-carbonate shells of gajillions of little marine critters.  If you ever get a chance to look at limestone up close, do it.  My first childhood home was made of Bedford limestone.  I remember looking at the rough sides of the stone as a kid and being fascinated with all of the tiny fossilized shells.  It didn't hit me then that what I was looking at was actually the sediment of an ancient inland seabed.  I just thought the fossils were really cool.
 
Sand, silt or mud, and limestone will each form in very different conditions.  You might find sand at the edge of a sea, mud at the bottom of a different, murkier body of water, and calcium carbonate shells at the bottom of a sea.  When I see those types of rock alternating in the Grand Canyon, I'm impressed first with how dramatically the conditions in that location would have had to change over the years to produce those types of strata. 

Now it's possible that seeing many long cycles in the earth's upper crust is the wrong way to look at it.  But as a friend of mine said of God's creative activity in the earth: "Well, it's either really old or he made it look that way."  Why would God make something look like it took billions of years to form when it didn't?  Sure, it's possible that we're wrong to see those processes in the rock strata, but on what basis should we conclude that? 

Biblical Interpretation

I grew up in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS).  That tradition is more theologically conservative than the larger Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), including in the area of Biblical interpretation.  Christians vary widely in their views of Biblical authority.  Some groups hold that the Bible is the collected stories of many ancient and wise people, who each experienced the Divine in their own ways.  LCMS Lutherans (and many other Evangelical groups) hold a different view: they believe that the words of the Bible were communicated spiritually to the authors and are therefore not simply religiously similar accounts but are actually the words of God.

Let me just interject at this point to clarify where I stand: I believe the Bible to be God's word, not merely a collection of stories or fables.  I do not support the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, though my objection to that position is on exegetical grounds; it's not because I see a lot of mistakes in the text.  Through inerrancy, the Church has painted itself in a corner that's neither asked of us in, nor supported by, the text.  Exegesis is a fancy word for methods of textual interpretation - more on that in a minute.

What I began to learn as I aged was that in my religious tradition, frequently a belief in inspiration was confused with a "plain sense" method of interpreting the Bible.  But, really, they're quite different.  I can say, for instance, that I believe God inspired the writing of Genesis without also believing that God created the world in six 24 hour days, and many conservative Christians would agree with me.  But the larger interpretive question, the place where the exegetical rubber meets the road, is this: how do we know that we aren't brining 21st century western views to an ancient near eastern text throughout the whole of Genesis?  At some point when you have time, read the first 11 Chapters of Genesis and then read some of the stories about Abraham in the chapters that follow immediately thereafter.  Yes, the accounts of Abraham's life involve a lot of miracles, which may seem inaccessible to your modern experience, but they're also more precise with respect to relationships, geographic locations, chronology, and so forth.  It strikes me that the emigration of Abram marked a change in the literary genre.  In Genesis 12 we move from something like theologically-oriented pre-history to ancient history.  When this first started to occur to me, I din't have that kind of clean distinction.  Frankly, Genesis 1 - 11 just felt different to me than what followed.

In John Walton's Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, I learned one reason why it felt different.  The central purpose of the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 was not to communicate principals of the natural sciences nor to layout specific historical timelines, but to distinguish the Hebrew God from the numerous gods in other ancient near eastern cultures.  The Hebrew God was above the creation, not a petty territorial deity obsessed with humans' actions.  God was personal in a transcendent sort of way, not an anthropomorphism.  God created order; he did not arise out of disorder.  By the way, I should warn bookworms: this one is chocked with good stuff, but its almost a text on comparative religions and can be pretty dry.

When we read the story where God forms Adam in the dust and breathes life into his nostrils, why should we think that the plain sense of the text is the correct way to understand it?  I've come to believe that this story, too, is a way of distinguishing God's interaction with his human creation from other near eastern views and it's central to a Christian interpretation of the created order: God's not made us to be his muses, his marionettes. He's called us out of the purely physical order by giving us his image, his spirit.  Significantly, we hold moral accountability because of this image in a way that other primates do not, and certainly for purposes totally unlike the ones Sumerian, Egyptian, or Canaanite deities were thought to have created people.

Of course, understanding Genesis as primarily having a distinguishing theological purpose doesn't itself suggest that modern humans descended from earlier primates.  It does, I think, open the door to potentialities of nature like evolution.


A More Thoroughly Worshipful Experience

Most of what you and I experience as physical reality isn't actually matter, but energy and laws.  This is mind-blowing stuff and for the price of a few bucks, you should hire Gerald Schroder to guide you.  In The Hidden Face of God, Schroder digs way down to the cellular and sub-atomic levels of reality to describe the universe in truly awesome ways.

One example Schroder offers is of the electron and nulceus of the average atom.  If you could blow the scale up to a point where the nucleus was roughly a sphere 4 inches in diameter, how far out would you imagine the electrons would be orbiting?  4 feet?  40 feet?  400 feet?  Nope: 4 miles.  Which means that most all of the physical reality you and I experience daily isn't really matter, but laws keeping that matter toghether.  It gets worse: those electrons aren't tied to the nucleus, but some how they stay in orbit despite the fact that they're zipping around and around at roughly 25% of the speed of light.  What keeps them from shooting off toward the moon or collapsing into the nucleus?  Well, we don't know for sure, other than probably their charge.  Weirder still: electrons aren't actually like little revolving planets, but are "probability waves" instead.  In other words, they may only exist as energy which we're able to observe after they've been in a particular location.  

If this makes your brain hurt, you're in good company - or at least you have me for company.  I don't pretend to have anything other than the most basic concept of quantum physics, but this much I know: the universe functions - stays the same and changes - according to laws.  Schroder refers to these laws as "wisdom."  I tend to see them as also God's immancence.  "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands?"  Um, yeah, and he's way closer than you thought when you first sang that song. 

As you move back out from subatomic particles to atoms, to molecules, to cells, to organisms, to ecosystems, to planets, to solar systems, galaxies, and the universe, and you start to picture what it must mean that the universe has - maybe - 100 million galaxies each comprised of 100 million stars, give or take, what reaction does that stir in you?  That I would have a mind and awareness in this one little corner of a vast and old universe, comprised of energy and as yet unfathomable laws, brings me to worship.  The vastness of space, the depth of time each force me to my knees.  Just being moved to worship doesn't mean that what I believe is true, but it is a curious response.

The Problem of Evil

I think the theory of evolution takes a strong step toward settling the religious problem of evil.  If you want help distinguishing between the philosophical problem of evil and the religious problem of evil, you should read John Feinberg's The Many Faces of Evil.  I'd just briefly point out that as I've begun to see my suffering and pain as parts the story of being called out from the purely material world and into a spiritual world where I bear God's image, I've taken great comfort in the depth of God's love and purposes.  Pain still hurts, but I see it now in a very different context. 
 
The Stakes

I'm concerned for the Church and our still pervasive denial of an old universe and evolution.  I guess there are many reasons why someone might be concerned by these views.  Let me conclude by offering a few that matter most to me. 

First is the fact that disengaging with the real science that's being practiced doesn't do any of us any good.  We'll become even more marginalized in society but worse yet, we'll become cut off from the wonders of God's creation.  God continues to unfold the most amazing story ever in front of our eyes.  I believe God is sharing with us this understanding of how he creates for our enjoyment.  Let's not miss this opportunity. 

Secondly, I'm concerned as a parent.  As the story of evolution and the ancient universe grow clearer, I fear that if I nurture in my kids a simplistic faith, based on what knowledge I received, not on what I think God is actually doing, I'll set them up for disaffection and unbelief.  Fundamentally, science (in my view) explains how God is doing those things he's doing.  I don't want my kids to have a faith which is closed to God's possibilities. 

Finally, if part of what it means to be human is that we reflect God's character through our minds, let's not put artificial, culturally conditioned boundaries on that opportunity.  You may conclude that my reasons for believing in evolution and a very old universe are wrong, but make sure that you're doing it based on understanding - gained through wrestling in your mind with the data as best you can process it - not because it's part of a system that was handed to you. 

Grieving (a Little)

I grieve for our country.  Not because President Obama was re-elected.  I’ve said before that even though I think he’s a lousy leader, he’s a decent man.  He’s my president, too, and I pray that he’s guided by wisdom in his second term.  

Nor do I grieve because my hope is founded on political philosophies, systems, or leaders.  

I’m not sad that Latinos, African-Americans, and un-married women were successful in their choice of leader for our country.  We live in a rare slice of history, one when ordinary citizens get to vote.  What a great deal that is!

I’m definitely not sad for Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan.  Those guys will be just fine.

I am also not worried that this one event marks an immanent crash of any sort.  Although, that “Fiscal Cliff” thing could get ugly.

I’m sad because we’re moving toward Rome, post-Constantine, and the series of dots that connect our present choices with that future is too difficult for many to trace.  We didn’t just choose a decent man to sit in a big white building on Tuesday or a Native American senator for Massachusetts; we chose an economic and political trajectory.  That trajectory is called Statism.  It will result in our continuing decline in global commercial competitiveness.  It means importing lower standards of living.  It portends a diminished means of funding national security priorities, which protect our liberty as well as our economic interests.  

My sense is that a lot of voters simply can’t play those scenarios out.  So, we voted for a decent man with a kind smile whom we believe is most likely to understand our problems and provide government solutions to them (the President nailed that metric by something like 85-15 over Mr. Romney, by the way).  Is it legitimate to vote on that basis?  I suppose so.  But, the implications of a civic and intellectual life predicated on self-pity can’t be good for our future prosperity.  

****

On the first night of my economics class, I try to encourage the students by saying that if they have any apprehension about spending the next few weeks in “the dismal science,” they should take heart: my class is really not about numbers and math as much as it is about cause and effect.  Watching students learn to master shifting supply and demand curves in response to external factors is very rewarding personally – it’s a reasoning tool they’ll use the rest of their lives.  There’s nothing like seeing the lights come on for them!    

But in class, shifting the demand curve for Doritos in response to a shortage in Ruffles is pretty simple.  The results of choice and external factors, intertwining through the far larger theaters of U.S. economic and political policy are way, way tougher to divine.  That’s especially true when faced with a flock of smart economists whose analysis is really advocacy in drag.   

   

I guess I grieve mostly as a teacher at heart, as someone who really wants to help people connect the dots.  If you don’t want to pursue the same society I do, OK, but I still want you to understand the implications of your choices.  

By the way, I think in some of these blog posts, my building sense of dismay bubbled up into impatience and it came across, at least as one friend recently said, as "vitriol."  That's not the emotion behind my barbs.  I'm sure I could've chosen my words more carefully, though, and I certainly didn't mean to offend.

November 6, 2012 was a stark reminder that blogging and teaching and contending and listening – while perhaps fine activities in and of themselves – sometimes don’t bear enough fruit to merit the energy and the passion.  And that’s sad.    

A Response to Rick Ungar's Article on Federal Spending

Two good friends, for whom I hold a deep intellectual respect, recently asked me whether I saw analytical flaws in Rick Ungar’s Forbes piece, entitled Who is the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?  Would You Believe It’s Barack Obama?  Here’s my response: 

I don’t think there’s really a “flaw” in Ungar’s analysis, except for the fact that the piece is not all that analytical—it’s really more of a political spider web than it is a relevant fiscal critique.  And, when you read through the comments, it’s pretty clear that Rick Ungar as Shelob was a very effective rhetorical device.  

The Republican party is not made stronger by meat heads who base their anti-Obama argument on federal outlays during his first term.  This is so for three main reasons, in my opinion.

One, when it comes to executive fiscal restraint, Republicans have almost no moral high ground left.  43 fought two wars without figuring out how to paying for either, and he instituted a massive new Medicare prescription drug benefit.  41 broke his campaign pledge on taxes.  40 did a lot to rein in the total cost of government, but even though his capitalist-based defense spending effectively beat the USSR’s moribund socialist-based war machine, it still meant a large increase in government spending.  Here, if we’re honest, we have to admit that Ungar makes a reasonable point.  I get that it’s hard to get elected to public office without promising goody bags to voters, and, frankly, I’m not voting for Mitt Romney tomorrow with a big heart-swell of libertarian optimism; I’m voting for him because of the two candidates, he’s by far the best shot we have at a financial tourniquet, and because he is a leader & problem solver.  

Two, the lion’s share of the president’s policies’ broader costs are either indirect or still coming.  The Affordable Care Act was sold as a means of saving money for the Federal government.  Even if it does, which seems increasingly improbable, it does so by cost-shifting: from the “Middle Class” to the rich; from old to young; from individuals to businesses; from insureds to insurers; from bureaucrats to innovators.  Plus, the number of doctors refusing Medicaid patients is growing.  Finally, what effect will the medical device excise tax have on innovation in one of our key areas of competitive advantage?  Those are all indirect costs of centralized management that add up to an absolutely huge economic cost, but which aren’t captured in Federal outlays during 2010-12.  But even ACA’s direct, probable Federal outlays (e.g., shoring up insufficiently funded state Medicaid budgets) won’t hit for at least another year yet.  The same holds for Dodd-Frank: do you realize that JP Morgan already has in excess of 400 full-time regulators at its NY office?  Plus, all of D-F’s rules haven’t been written yet.   

Three, President Obama’s fiscal "sins" (no, I do not really believe they are sins) are far worse than the sum total of the checks he cut during his first term.  Focusing on spending at the exclusion of the debt and annual budget deficits misses the larger fiduciary point.  It’s one thing for a family of 4 to spend $5,000 on a vacation when their income is $300k.  It’s something else entirely when their income is $100k.  The examples here are too many to count.  Maybe I can just say that current Federal outlays are at most a short chapter a 500 page book on President Obama’s economic mismanagement.  I’m happy to go into those details if you want, but I’m assuming you either already know them or otherwise don’t really care for me to, and in either case, I don’t have the time right now to enumerate them.  I’ve already tackled several of them in other blog posts, though.       

Rick Ungar is to Forbes what Al Hunt used to be to the WSJ: the token liberal.  His function for the Left isn’t really to analyze, it’s to advocate while giving the appearance of seriousness.  He poses no threats to GOP philosophy, but his "analysis" can serve as a corrective for self-reflective conservatives who yearn not to win elections, but to see government done well.   

The Official English - Democratish Lexicon

I really let my guard down while enjoying a cup of coffee recently with my close friends James Carville and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  

Debbie – that sweetheart – gently prodded me, “Hey, Steve-o, why the long face?”  

I thought for a minute before confiding that I was discouraged, really discouraged.  “You guys are so good with words,” I explained.  “Why, oh why, are my guys never as good with rhetoric as you guys are?!”  

James smiled broadly (like the Grinch did when concocting his plan to steal Christmas from the Whos, but in a genuinely warm way), put his arm around me, and, in a voice I’d not heard him use before, said: “Stephen, old chap, because of your good name, I’ve decided to let you in on a little secret, a peak behind the kimono, so to speak.”  “You see, it’s not so much our rhetoric as how we define terms and words…” 

“De-define, w-w-words?” I interjected incredulously. 

“Naturally,” James continued.  “In fact, I’d be happy to give you a copy of the DNC’s Official English - Democratish Lexicon, as long as you don't share it with anyone objectionable.”  

Debbie, never one to marginalize the down-trodden, nonetheless became notably concerned: “Jimmy, dear, is that really a wise choice?  I mean, Steve’s a great guy, and I love our discussions about B1G football and everything, but he’s…well…he IS one of ‘them’, after all.”

“Now, Deborah,” James reassured, “Stephen’s not going to share this with those rascals.  Just relax and eat your scone.”

Of course, I simply couldn’t promise James – kind gentleman that he is – that I would honor his expectations.  But, friends, I hope you’ll understand the urgency of my request to keep this lexicon between us.  If it ever gets back to James & Debbie that I shared this with you, some of my deepest friendships might be in jeopardy. 

I share with you now, and with some apprehension, The Official Lexicon of the Democratic National Committee:

Big Oil: an industry that pays an average of 45% of its profits in taxes, which is about 55% too low.

Capital: something we don’t really understand, but which the banks should make more available to nail salons and un-creditworthy personal borrowers. 

Change: something we regularly confuse with progress, and base entirely on visceral reactions to unpleasant stimuli.

Clinton, William Jefferson: a serial philanderer who will always remain a champion for women’s rights.

Constitution, The U.S.: a terribly dated historical document which consistently gets in the way of our legislative ambitions. 

Corporations: groups of people who have acquired their wealth illegitimately, almost exclusively by robbing widows and orphans, and by exploiting their employees.

Crime: the necessary result of not implementing big enough social programs (See also “Social Safety Net”).

Defense: that part of the Federal budget which is always permissible to cut.

Economic Growth: the natural intermediate and long-term trajectory of market economies, but which we also fantasize wouldn't really happen without our meddling and, therefore, provides us a consistently excellent opportunity to distract voters with make-believe promises of "creating jobs."

Europe: a group of social democracies which rely on US defense spending to protect cradle-to-grave paternalism, and the primary antidote for our self-loathing.

Fair Share: any amount of money the majority is able to confiscate legislatively from wealthy people.

Forward!: careening, but said in a way that stokes our hope (See Also: “Hope”).

Gay Marriage: a political lever pulled by President Obama during the summer of 2012 to shore up our base, but which is – under no circumstances – to be understood as a ‘flip-flop.’

Government: a large, public kibbutz financed by a relatively small number of people who are neither welcomed by, nor interested in joining, our collective.

Guns: objects not covered by the Second Amendment.

Hope: wishful thinking.

Hurricane Katrina: a series of events in 2005 through which a sadistic President Bush was able to force African-Americans into the miserable conditions of the Superdome.  

Investment: a government expenditure made by people who don’t understand investing.

Iraq War: a military conflict lost by President Bush, but won by President Obama when he withdrew U.S. troops.

Islam: a theocratic political system which, because many of its adherents have brown skin, must be tolerated more so than Christians groups, whom we understand to be comprised almost exclusively of ignorant southern crackers.  

Israel: An annoying little country of 8 million people, which we imagine consistently oppresses the 200 million Arabs surrounding it, but to which we must also give lip-service support because her offspring are one of our key constituent groups.   

Labor: the people actually doing all the country's real work, in 40 or fewer hours per week.

Leading from Behind: Not leading, but couched in a way that seems like leading.

Liberal: socially permissive, economically totalitarian.

Liberty: freedom, as long as freedom actually means equality.

Lie: a means of deception used frequently by Republicans.  (Note: deception used to usher in our preferred societal order is not lying, but persuasion.)  

Macroeconomics: a collection of complex mathematical models which can be easily bent to support our political goals.

Market, The Free: an evil institution which can be made to behave through enacting new laws.

Middle Class: anyone for whom President Obama claims he will not raise taxes.

NPR: National Proletarian Radio – one of our news outlets which, along with the New York Times and the New Yorker, helps us convince ourselves that big words equate with clear thinking. 

 

Poverty: a measure of how much one person has compared to another person.  (Note: this term is never to be construed as having inadequate means of obtaining the basic necessities of life.)

Racism: the sole explanation for white people not voting for President Obama.

Red Tape: a terrible impediment to true recovery during a natural disaster, but absolutely crucial to true recovery during an economic disaster.

Revenue: taxes.

Rights: any of our desires, wishes, or preferences which, when we speak of them frequently enough, long enough will cause others to believe that they actually are rights.

Rock the Vote: a strategy to help largely uninformed and primarily left-leaning young adults exercise their right to select our nation's leaders.

Social Safety Net: the primary mechanism through which we acquire votes. 

Socialism: a term we hate, but which also aptly characterizes the implications of those economic policies we hold dear.

Stimulus: any government expense intended to raise aggregate demand sustainably, regardless of whether it accomplishes its intended goal.

Supreme Court: that bothersome third branch of the Federal government which should be, but isn't yet, subject to the legislature, and which is needlessly fascinated with the Constitution (See Also: "Constitution, U.S.").

Taxes: a means not of meeting public expenses, but of funding social programs (See: “Social Safety Net”) and placating our driving sense of guilt (See Also: “Europe”).

Tax-payers: primarily those individuals not bearing the burden of paying a meaningful amount of the total tax.

Undocumented Immigrant: someone who is living here illegally but is, nonetheless, not breaking any laws.

Unions: anachronistic mechanisms once useful for improving working conditions but which have long since been supplanted by numerous laws and bureaus like OSHA and the Department of Labor.  Such organizations also purport to be authentically patriotic while paradoxically espousing Marxist ideology.  Most importantly, they are a crucial means of securing votes for our party. 

Vice President: the ceremonial title given to a crazy old white guy whose presence, though terribly embarrassing, we hope (See Also: "Hope") will assuage the concerns of rational voters appalled by President Obama’s utter lack of executive leadership ability.

Voter ID Laws: a Republican strategy to prevent us from voting on behalf of the deceased, who clearly would be voting for our candidates if they were still able, and thus are at risk of becoming disenfranchised simply by their inability to access life with a reasonable effort. (Note: may also be used in concert with “Racism”).

Wall Street: a collection of deeply-hated financial institutions that do things we 1) truly don’t understand but nevertheless must 2) always regulate more thoroughly. 

War on Women: one of our most successful recent attack tactics, premised on the paranoid notion that defending a young human’s right to life is tantamount to misogyny.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: threats which we (along with the British, Russians, and French) genuinely believed were real, until we discovered they weren’t real, at which point we convinced ourselves that we had never believed that they were real, and that the Republicans had lied to us about their existence.

Questions for my Friends on the Left

There are now a mere 18 days left until this election is over and if you're like me, that probably thrills you.  I've written before on this blog that I see this point in our history as a seminal moment, as a fork in the road where we're being forced to choose which type of country we want to be when we grow up.  So, I do believe that engaging with the issues is critical--more now than perhaps at any other time since the Civil War.  But I'm also weary of the charade we call politics.  I really hate the deception and I absolutely loathe that so many of my fellow citizens are evidently content to be lied to by members of their own political team.  That last fact simply cannot bode well for the future health of our nation. 

I've become increasingly aware through this cycle that I don't look at the world the same way that my friends on the left do.  I keep searching for a general theory that will explain why someone tends one direction or the other.  More puzzling still are swing voters, but that's a topic for another day.

My inclination is not to write off my progressive friends as ________, but to have another go at understanding them.  How have they come to believe the things they do and what really makes them tick? 

That's the spirit in which I share these questions.  I'm sure they will seem loaded to some, but that's not my motivation.  Each of them are truly things I don't get.

So, with that said, here's a partial list of things I can't process about what it means to be a Democrat in 21st century America.  I'm choosing not to respond to posts this time, but I do promise to read each response with an open mind. 


The Economy

1. Who creates jobs?
2. Is there a point where you could safely conclude that federal fiscal stimulus doesn't work well and, if so, where is that point?
3. Is the emigration of American capital something to which we should respond with force or enticement?
4. Why are relative measures of poverty preferred to absolute measures?
5. Aren't promoting liberal immigration policies and out-sourcing jobs really two sides of the same coin?
6. What's the basis for your faith in central economic planning?
7. If the banking function were nationalized, what kind of impact would it have on capital formation? 
8. What role do large American defense expenditures--for our benefit and that of our allies--play in Western economic stability and growth?

Taxes

1. Whose money is it and why?
2. Is there a point where high marginal tax rates become a disincentive to produce?  If so, where is that point?
3. At what point has a high income-earner paid more than her fair share and below what point has a low income-earner not paid his fair share?
4. If it's reasonable to redistribute income, should we not likewise apportion capital losses?
5. Unionized public sector employees are paid with tax dollars; a portion of those tax dollars then goes to union dues; a portion of those dues goes to political expenditures; the overwhelming majority of those expenditures support Democrat candidates; and Democrat lawmakers overwhelmingly support labor initiatives.  How is this not a racket?

Rights

1. Should we distinguish between the right to pursue happiness and the attainment of happiness?
2. On what basis do you judge a pregnant mother's right to liberty to be superior to her unborn child's right to life?
3. When does a fetus become a person and who gets to assign value to that life?
4. To how much health care does each person have a right?
5. How do school choice measures (e.g., vouchers, charter schools) violate the 1st Amendment's Religion Clauses?
6. Is equality the necessary and sufficient condition for justice?
7. If positive liberty is the legitimate understanding of the term, isn't it essentially a subsidiary of equality?
8. If the intent of the Constitution's authors is not relevant, what's the point of continuing to have a constitution?  Why not just have a bunch of laws that we can change as our values also change?   

Values

1. Why is it acceptable - even fashionable - to condemn Christians and Christianity but not Muslims and Islam?
2. Is there a difference between race and culture and, if so, when and for whom is it appropriate to critique cultures?
3. Why is length of tenure a superior means of judging one's professional value to a group (school, corporation, labor union, government office, etc.) than output, competency, or market worth?
4. What is the source of Democrat resistance to competition and failure?
5. Why is democracy viewed as inherently good rather than as the least dangerous among a variety of coercive political systems?
6. How are we to infer from Jesus' teachings on the pitfalls of wealth and the importance of caring for the poor that we should carry out his will via secular government bureaus?
7. Is preemptive military action ever in our national security interests and, if so, when?
8. Why the fetish with big oil and big oil profits, but not with the big manufacturers of the vehicles which burn that oil?