Reader Comments

Editor: Thank you for your thoughtful “Ultimate Power” paper.  Americans do have a problem with an overreaching Supreme Court that has taken its title too seriously.  Yes, migration of power to the Court is a domestic and international problem for us, as you write. However, there is little evidence, Joseph Ratzinger’s religiosity notwithstanding, of a causal connection between Christianity’s triune and our tripartite government.  Nor do your comments provide such connection.  A more reasonable causal connection is that the founders designed our structure pragmatically, taking care their design eschewed the failings accompanying the deplorable governance of mystical Christianity and monarchical Europe. 

Colonial pragmatism was evidenced from the 1600s struggle for survival to the heroic leap into the unknown of the 1780s, from Continental Congress to the Constitution’s design and ratification, despite confronting the displeased superpower of the day. The Founders’ pragmatism -- subsuming rationality, unity, and diversity -- was motivated by conditions on the ground (as the media like to say), forcing on them the operating system most likely to be effective to design, as you write, a “national government and a separate diverse system of multiple state governments as a reasonable solution for national unity.” 

Your paper’s second causal connection to “a strong Unitarian movement” fails for the same reason.  It is unclear what influence a Christian internecine dispute had on “Ultimate (government) Power.”  The reach is too great without more evidence. A counterargument is as persuasive: religious fundamentalism is as potentially destructive as secular fundamentalism.  Consistent with the 1st Amendment, neither should predominate.  However, your second major development related to relativism is critically important, but – with due respect – the argument is confused.  Your secular relativism and my moral relativism, by definition are “relative” – everything is relative – no right or wrong, no better or worse, no choice matters, no judgment applies because we cannot not judge, we humans are innately incapable of knowing the right answer. 

Secular relativism is not “a progressive belief that there must be a single best "rational" solution discoverable by top government experts for all social problems.” Rather, the problem is the insidious belief there is no solution or any solution is as good as any other – everything is relative.  There is no standard by which to judge.  Whatever feels good should be the rule of behavior, i.e., no principle.  Relativism’s viciousness is exemplified by leftist interest in any appealing program at the moment, regardless of outcome – especially if the program is expensive, vainglorious, and emotion laden – so they feel good about themselves, and then quickly off to the next feel-good program as alleged beneficiaries crash and burn with a War on Poverty.  Doing the right thing is important, not doing the thing right. 

A final thought.  I confess I am more sanguine about our Western (American) Civilization’s durability than you appear to be.  We contend with 150 years of subsidence.  We cannot reverse our waywardness overnight. However, we can reclaim our Western Civilization legacy one correction at a time, perhaps with ACU in the lead.  As you write, “It is not simply a matter of restricting or reforming courts or new members, although these are part of the solution, but of restoring the very way Americans view reality.”  These court corrections are necessary but not sufficient. 

Tell me, who are these Americans whose view of reality should be restored?  Conservatives are especially susceptible to a contagious disease spread by contact with a liberal or moderate Republican carrier – a political Typhoid Mary.  Those infected spread the disease further causing an exponential carrier increase.  Infected politicians can be readily identified. They are afflicted by the skeletal deformity known as linguini spine. Yours truly, J. H. Carbone, Ph.D. [Editor replies: Thanks but what was the Founders’ “pragmatism” based upon if not a certain view of humanity that was not neutral? The “facts on the ground” were a Christian view of responsible freedom expressed for the Founders by John Locke, among others. Surely, “failings” is very much in the eye of the beholder. What looked like a failing to the Founders looked very different to the French revolutionaries, no?]

Editor: Given that 94% of Americans disagree with the eminent domain ruling, why is there not:  1) a stronger hue and cry, 2) an effort to correct their mistake, and 3) a plan of action to push all legislators, all municipalities in the right direction?

I hear way too much fatalism in the many conservative commentators.  Getting an "originalist" judge is necessary, but it is not sufficient for correcting the court's huge mistake. This issue is so serious, we need to plan for an extensive response that will, to use a slang term, get in the face of the municipalities and developers who would contemplate this abuse of eminent domain. It is literally a grass roots problem and requires a grass roots response. Sincerely, Cort Wrotnowski, Greenwich, CT

Editor: I think that the propaganda effort by the White House on the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court will backfire. Roberts and the Bush Administration need to establish that he is in fact a conservative. Then plenty of support will be forthcoming. The White House lacks credibility with conservatives after 5 years of budget bloating, deficit spending, strategic incompetence in war, and devaluing and debasing the American "brand name" around the world. Brian Lynch

Dear Editor: Should conservatives hold their nose and support President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court even if the nominee is not a good choice in their view?

In Presidential elections, conservatives are treated like the hired help by most Republican Presidential candidates, on the theory that "conservatives have nowhere else to go" and would not want to see a Democrat like Al Gore elected instead of a Republican President. And why? Mainly because Conservatives fear a President Al Gore appointing the next Supreme Court Justice.

However, if Bush's nominee fails in the Senate, what will happen? Bush will simply nominate someone else. The seat cannot remain vacant. And the failure of Bush's nominee will not result in a Democrat or liberal sitting on the Supreme Court instead. All that will happen is that Bush will have to try, try again with a second nominee, and a third, and a fourth, until someone is confirmed. So, why should conservative groups spend our money on a candidate they don't really believe in? If conservatives simply stay home and sit on their hands, the liberals will tear any Bush nominee to pieces in the public arena. Alberto Gonzalez, for example, will be attacked for his writings on the use of torture and the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in the war on terror. The liberals will attack Gonzalez, and if conservatives sit on their hands, Gonzalez will go down in flames.

This is not a situation where conservatives must choose between the lesser of two evils. The evil would be fighting for someone we don't believe in, and using our donors' contributions for someone they don't believe in. Jonathon Moseley, Executive Director, Legal Affairs Council

Editor: Just a note on David Keene’s article on Islamic extremism. The moderate Muslim rule in Spain was brought to an end not by Christians but by conservative Muslims from Morocco. Tim Sullivan

Editor: Thank you for the well-written piece that doesn't attack Islam or all of its followers.  That seems to be a rare feat in our conservative world.  I appreciate it, even though, or because, I am a Christian. Tara, a Virginia conservative

Editor: Where all the moderate Muslim voices? In the U.S. there are many Nazi, communist and racist groups.  Would you therefore say because there are some Nazi, communist and racist groups and voices that this a growing movement in the U.S.? I would wager there are more Nazi, communist and racist groups and voices in this country than there are moderate Muslim voices.  It is only because the liberal and biased media highlights some moderate Muslim voices that are insignificant that you draw the comfort that there are moderate Muslim voices.  If the Media would highlight every day all the Nazi, communist and racist groups you might also get the impression that this is a racist country. By making it sound that there are significant moderate Muslim voices without pointing out who they are and the true fact they are an insignificant number and that they do not represent the Muslim world which is viciously anti American you are misleading the American public. So if there are 100 million Muslims calling for the destruction of the U.S. and 1000 Muslims who are not you consider this a growing movement. Noah Schreiber 

Editor: There is a dimension behind the so-called clash of civilizations that is not getting enough focus to make me comfortable. An Orthodox Rabbi recently (2002) said some things relevant to both Christians and Moslems that merits more attention than it is getting. (This is a Lutheran Christian writing, New England Yankee by heritage.) Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in his book, The Dignity of Difference, speaks profoundly to the need for people of faith to learn how to address (including listen to) people of other faiths, on the same plane, to dialogue as fellow "people of God."  It's a tall order for many, but it needs to happen

To put it another way, there is a need for "people of faith" to practice building bridges to other "people of faith" who happen to be of different faiths. I am surprised and disappointed that I see no evidence that the "think tanks" and the foreign policy establishment are bringing into the discussion any of those religious leaders, professors of theology or of philosophy of religion, who have some of the authoritative knowledge and the faith commitment to make that aspect of the discussion meaningful. Everybody in the foreign policy "business" seems to be tuned in to Professor Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" but the message of Rabbi Sacks is not on anybody's agenda that I can see, and that's too bad. Herb Melendy, Norfolk, Virginia