Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Summer Reading

Martin Cothran introduced my wife and me to Wendell Berry's works, so my wife read his novel, Jayber Crow. She recommended it to me, so I read it too.

I am very selective about the books I read, especially novels. There are too many and life is too short, so I choose books that are moving enough to matter and deep enough to have something to think about. My favorite novels are Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, Crossing to Safety by Wallace Stengler, anything by Jane Austen, and, now, Jayber Crow.

This might be my favorite novel of all. Reading it was nothing short of a conversion experience for me. I've had problems with materialistic capitalism for some time, but the options seemed to be limited to feudalism and socialism. Feudalism is much more humane than either socialism or capitalism, but it isn't adequate. Wendell Berry digs more deeply into the context of Economic reality than any economist I have ever read. And he puts it in a human situation, telling a beautiful story of the passing of a small community and the loves that lived there. He also explains 20th century American history better than any text book.

Nobody can write like Wendell Berry and that may be because nobody can see like Wendell Berry.

But I've been unfair. I've described this book like it's an essay. In fact, the reason it is so powerful is precisely because Berry shows the human realities that essay fails to express. He tells a beautiful story about a barber, an orphan, who spends his life overcoming "the man behind the desk," and learns the place of suffering and loss in making us what we are made to be.

Put this book near the top of your summer reading: Jayber Crow by Wendell Berry, by Crosspoint Books.

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Remembering World War II

Education is the institutional memory of a people. What are we remembering about world war II during this memorial day, D-day, Ronald Reagan period? Go to WWII in the schools for an article worth reflecting on. (They'll want you to register, but its generally worth it and only takes a few seconds.)

To remember is to honor. To forget is to despise.

Monday, June 07, 2004

Ronald Reagan: In Memoriam

One of my prized possessions is a Time Magazine given to me by a childhood friend of my wife. Dated January 2, 1984 it lists the Men of the Year 1983. One of them some people will still remember. His name was Yuri Andropov.

The other one, we will never forget. His name was Ronald Reagan.

I loved Ronald Reagan. He was elected president on my 17th birthday, at the time when a boy starts looking beyond the classroom to the world outside and wonders what his place will be in it and who will make the decisions on which his hopes depend. I still take his election personally - in that quirky way we all imagine cosmic events (like whether your team wins or loses) are determined by our relation to that event. His election was my birthday present.

I first heard about Reagan in 1976 when he was campaigning for president and I was trying to get out of junior high school intact. A heavy set, politically sharp kid named Kirk (Bolis, I think) gave me his bumper sticker and explained conservatism to me. Back then it made good sense. Now that it has become so enmeshed in the power game I don't recognize it any more. Those power games are the eternal advantage of liberalism.

My father told me the difference between liberals and conservatives was that the former insisted that problems had to be solved now, while conservatives understood they sometimes took a long time. That has always seemed very wise to me.

It was something Reagan seemed to get.

In 1984 I married Karen and her brother gave me a desk. I put my Reagan Bush bumper sticker on the side of the desk figuring that way I could keep it forever. Somebody threw my desk out in one of our moves.

That bothers me more than the ounce of gold that disappeared - probably in the same move.

Reagan was hated by the radical and presumptive moral conscience of America. He didn't care for the poor, they insisted. He was racist, they cried. The night of the election, Bruce Springsteen addressed his concert goers. "This is a dark night for America," I believe were his words. I wonder if that wasn't behind his sudden rise to popular superstardom in 1985.

Reagan simply knew these were human problems and that politics on the grand scale, politics run by inhuman bureaucracies and morally decrepit unions, wasn't going to solve the problems of the poor, the minorities, the immigrants. He also had a great deal more confidence in the poor and minorities to solve their problems than the Nanny State will ever have.

Reagan understood that between the idealized statements of the public forum and the actual exchange of resources on the street was a vast unaccountable bureaucracy that would siphon unspeakable amounts of those resources into the abyss of its own corruption. He knew that the poor wouldn't see much of the money the government took in. He knew that politicians weep for the oppressed with one eye, while hunting for a vote - or a victim - with the other. He knew that voters salved their consciences by paying taxes so they could avoid actively loving their neighbors.

Reagan didn't trust unaccountable power - not in Congress, not in the Judiciary, and not in the everexpanding halls of the bureaucracy that endlessly sucks the moral life out of our country.

He knew, as any school teacher knows, that the more laws we have on the books the more lawless a people becomes.

Reagan transcended politics. He infuriated the left in his day because they could not, they did not have the categories to - and they still don't - understand him. Reagan was a shrewd politician precisely because he saw through the illusions of politics. He saw them as a means and a stewardship - by no means an end in themselves.

They called him the teflon president. This was a term made up by journalists frustrated in their endeavor to destroy him. They couldn't understand why their petty attacks had no effect. It was because he had integrity and because we needed him. The journalists were like a group of playground brats attacking the teacher. When we saw how unphased teacher was, we stopped fearing the brats. The brats bided their time.

Reagan knew what to say and when because he had a sure instinct for human feeling. He remembered how America had once seen herself and he believed she could still be beautiful.

What came from Reagan's heart was politically effective, so presidents since him have tried to wear his jacket.

It hasn't fit.

He knew what he stood for and he was mature enough to stand for it without bombast and vacuity. He stood calmly for us all.

Reagan had entered politics relatively late in life, running for governor of California after his 1964 speech at the Republican convention. That speech was a classic and needs to be listened to annually by everyone who believes in humane conservativism.

Because in the end what set Reagan apart was his humanity. As simple as that seems, it simply isn't a common trait. He honored everybody, even those who attacked him. When he said of the Societ Union, on March 8, 1983, "They are the focus of evil in the modern world," he gave them the honor of straightforward dialogue. When he said, on January 29, 1981, "The only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat..." he did us the honor of saying what we all knew to be true, what they had written in their manifestos, and what we feared.

So we trusted him.

He honored his political opponents. He honored the media. He honored Nancy and protected her honor and gave us men a model for how to treat a lady. He honored the White House. He honored the oval office. He honored his country.

The world honors him today in a way they would not when he was president.

It is oddly fitting that he should die between Memorial Day and D-day. I remember his speech on June 6, 1984, remembering what our fathers had sacrificed for us. He couldn't fight for medical reasons, so he did what he could. And then he honored the soldiers by remembering them and fulfilling the purpose of their deaths.

And it must be insisted that they did not die on the beaches of Omaha or Utah or on the inland bridges (as my great Uncle Arthur did) or at Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal or anywhere else so our freedoms could be severed from the duties they fulfilled. Reagan knew why they died. We dishonor them when we excuse sin and grant rights founded in the arbitrary will of a state that has radicalized its people and has already begun to reap the whirlwind.

Because Reagan was a man of honor, I will honor him. I will not forget my debt to him. I will strive to help the nation he shared with me rebuild itself on a foundation of virtue, rooted in humane duty, defending the right to fulfill the duties, and denying the infantile right of the self-indulgent to accomplish what neither Hitler, Stalin, nor Osama could have honestly hoped.

I will remember Ronald Reagan.

Because I love him.

Friday, June 04, 2004

Biblical aesthetics and godly poetry

In Psalm 45 the poet pulls back the curtain on how godly poetry is composed and provides a model for us to imitate.

Consider the words of the first verse:

My heart overflows with a good theme
I will recite my verses to the king
My tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

Here, listed unpoetically, are some principles exemplified in this verse:

- the heart can still overflow during a recital:
- there is no conflict between the fully active mind and the
fully active heart.
- the audience must be recognized and honored in the form of
the poem
- during a recital, the words should be prepared with skill. To
be a ready writer means to be a writer who is ready to write.
That takes training. In fact, some translations use the
phrase "skilled writer" and it is clear that the poet who
wrote this Psalm was no slouch - as he himself tells us in
line 3.
- Inspiration and labor are not in conflict. This poet was
inspired by God in the most complete sense of the phrase
(this is scripture!) and yet he didn't set aside his own
duties in the production of this masterpiece.
- the form of the poem must fit the occasion of the recital

The closing verse reminds us of the fundamental purpose of all artwork:

"I will make your name to be remembered
from one generation to another;
therefore nations will praise you for ever and ever."

Art is our memory of the noble and good. It is the ultimate expression of honor. That is why we cannot afford for it to be abandoned or corrupted.

Can you see more principles of art? Go to the forum and help the rest of us see them.

Thursday, June 03, 2004

Give Me Liberty

Cathy Duffy has been a leader among home schoolers for over a decade with her excellent curriculum guides and her warnings about the government's meddling drive to deprive us of the right to raise our own children. Her book Government Nannies is an important work on the topic of liberty in education.

At this summer's conference she will be discussing the role of classical education in preserving our educational freedom. Sometimes we think passing laws or writing bills will preserve our rights. It simply isn't so. If we aren't educated for liberty we will not be able to stay free.

Whether you are a home or institutional educator, you are going to want to hear this talk. Cathy is a clear communicator and has a gift for making the implications of ideas clear to us all. Go to www.classicalteachertraining.org if you would like to register or to learn more.

Every day I get a little more excited about this conference. I hope you'll be there.

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

June Monthly Meditation and conference update

If you haven't received the Monthly Meditation for June you should sign up for it now. The easiest way is to go back to the front page of the web site and click on the invitation there.

I just spoke with Wes Callihan yesterday and I have concluded we are going to have the most fun conference on classical education the world has ever seen. Wes, who has the perfect voice and disposition for public communication, is joining James Taylor and me in a poetic knowledge panel discussion of justice in Dante. He compared this activity to a jam session, where a group of musicians sit down with their instruments and see where the music takes them.

Exactly.

Wes will also be doing two colloquies:

"Modern Man is a parricide" yes or no.

This is a quotation from Richard Weaver. Wes will lead a discussion as to whether or not Weaver was justified in his statement and how we should respond.

What is God's purpose in history?

In addition, Wes will be doing two workshops:

- How to be classically educated in ten easy lessons
- History as the spine of the curriculum

While I was writing the foregoing, John Hodges called and we finalized his sessions. Listen to this:

Pillar 1: Reflections on the Definition of Classical Education. John will do this talk and emphasize the importance of both ethics and aesthetics in fulfilling the definition.
2 Workshops:
Aesthetic priniciples that integrate the curriculum
Music and Justice: How music prepares the soul for virtue
2 Colloquies
Should love of learning be the goal of instruction?
What is the relation between ethics and aesthetics?

If it sounds lofty, don't be lost in the words. Everyday we think about what is right and wrong and good and bad, and we think about and experience the arts. That's what we mean by ethics and aesthetics.

If you haven't registered for the conference yet, you need to. It'll be one of a kind.



Tuesday, June 01, 2004

Perverse Incentives (part 5)

So what are the incentives that pervert education? Here are a few (and there are many more)

1. Making grades the end of school work
2. Making college admissions the reason for study
3. SAT scores
4. Pleasing the teacher

As always, this blog is meant to provoke reflection, not end thought. I'd love to hear your responses. Follow this link to the forum and express your views.