So I’ve been getting a good number of challenging emails about our recent postings. Here’s one (from someone most of you know and respect):
Your view relies on viewing the open-endedness of Locke’s doctrine and the mixed or incoherent nature of the Founding. If true, the big obstacle really is not the observable empirical data of American political life but one’s ability to see that the political “brand,” to use your phrase, that wins the day has to be both malleable and recognizably American. BHO sees this and exploits it, by using the mish-mash of the Founding, including its potentially open-ended Lockean elements, to his advantage. The cult of the Founders natural rights club, by defending a more or less univocal and basically coherent view of the Founding, cannot see this or unwilling to see this and thus cannot shape their brand as deftly or effectively.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…