Charitable Giving, Religion, and Politics

A truly fascinating AP article was published by The Advocate on Tuesday.  Its focus is the connection between religion and giving, but the political correlations and  implications are provocative and defining.

"BOSTON (AP) — States with the least religious residents are also the stingiest about giving money to charity, a new study on the generosity of Americans suggests.

"The study, released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity...." 

Red States v. Blue States: Who Gives More

Here it's important to note one of the other conclusions of the actual study.  Commenting on the correlation between giving and political affiliation, the website of the Chronicle of Philanthropy also observes that:  "Red states are more generous than blue states. The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama."  The state-by-state analysis appears on the website - http://philanthropy.com/article/The-Politics-of-Giving/133609/.

Attempting to provide a balanced view, the AP story contains the following illuminating explanation/rebuttal to the study's religious conclusion:

"Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College [pardon my editorial emphasis], said it's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity.

"'People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits,' Wolfe said. 'And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college's Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life.'

Wolfe said people in less religious states 'view the tax money they're paying not as something that's forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they're citizens in the common good. ... I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they're being altruistic.'"

Here we have the quintessential expression of the liberal ideal.  Government is better at spending our money than we are.  It is fairer - in fact, better - if the taxpayer just lets government collect all of the money and distribute it.  

This statement would have sounded insane to the voters who elected Ronald Reagan in 1980.  No candidate, regardless of their belief in the idea, would have dared say it out loud.  Today, however, it's apparently a viable political concept.  Whether Americans actually believe this or not is, in fact, the defining political question of this era in our history.

Happy Birthday, Cadillac!

1959 Cadillac Eldorado

1969 Cadillac Deville

1948 Cadillac

Even if "icon" is an overused term, it certainly must apply to the quintessential American luxury car, Cadillac.  One hundred eleven years ago today (August 22, 1901), engineer Henry M. Leland formed the Cadillac Automobile Company in Detroit, Michigan, from the remnants of an early, unsuccessful Henry Ford venture.  Its first models, produced in 1902, were known for their precision engineering and were immediately successful because of the resulting reliability.  Cadillac became part of General Motors in 1909, and has since produced some of the most memorable cars in American automotive history.  "Cadillac" was named after the 17th-century French explorer Antoine Laumet de la Mothe, Sieur de Cadillac, who founded Detroit in 1701.

Red Letter Anniversary for the U.S. Navy

USS Constitution

The first ship-to-ship action in the illustrious career of the USS Constitution was fought on August 19, 1812 – two hundred years ago today.  While the American Navy was born during the Revolutionary War, it came into its own during the War of 1812, and the Constitution’s resounding defeat of HMS Guerriere is unquestionably one of the milestones of our Navy’s proud history.

During the 18^th Century, naval battles were fought mainly in two ways.  Fleets would fight each other by lining up their largest ships (known, therefore, as “ships of the line”), and pounding each other – not subtle but effective.  Probably the most famous of these battles was the British victory over the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar in 1805.  Other lighter, faster ships such as frigates, which were used for protecting or raiding commerce, scouting, and a myriad of other duties, fought, if at all, usually one-on-one battles.  

A “frigate,” as the term was used in the 18^th Century, was the largest class of ships below the size of battleships.  Frigates were generally described by the number of cannon they carried.  USS Constitution was a 44-gun frigate.  HMS Guerriere, its opponent on August 19, 1812, was a 38-gun frigate of the British Royal Navy.  

USS Constitution escaping British squadron

This apparent difference in firepower should not, however, be exaggerated.  While the Constitution had more (and larger) guns, it had never fought a single-ship action.  On the other hand, the Royal Navy had more than 20 years of experience and almost unbroken success fighting the Revolutionary and Napoleonic French and their allies.  The British public expected, and routinely got, victories by its smaller ships against larger adversaries.  In fact, the Guerriere had originally been captured from the French (hence it’s French name) in 1806 by a smaller British ship.  

In July, 1812, Constitution had narrowly escaped a group of British frigates off the New Jersey coast.  On August 19, Guerriere and Constitution were alone in New England waters when they spotted each other.  As was typical at the time for ships of relatively equal size, the two combatants immediately closed in for a fight.  Guerriere shot first, but did little damage to the Constitution.  In fact, Constitution’s oak siding was so thick that cannon balls fired from a distance merely bounced off, earning her the nickname “Old Ironsides.” 

Constitution dismasting Guerriere

After several exchanges of fire, Constitution maneuvered within 25 yards and fired a devastating broadside (simultaneously firing all of the cannons on one side), which knocked down Guerriere’s mizzenmast (her rear-most mast).  The two ships collided and became entangled, but the angle allowed Constitution to continue to fire.  When they finally separated, the shock caused Guerriere’s remaining masts to fall, leaving her helpless.  After further pounding from Constitution, Guerriere finally surrendered, with more than a third of her crew killed or wounded.  The damage was so extensive that she was burned after her crew was removed, rather than being captured and incorporated into the U.S. Navy.

Constitution’s defeat of Guerriere was the first of a number of actions in which American frigates bested British forces – defeats which, while not really strategically significant, were a shock to British pride and a huge morale boost to the Americans.  Nevertheless, the Royal Navy continued to dominate the world’s oceans until it was finally overtaken by the United States Navy between World Wars I and II.

Tidbit – USS Constitution, launched in 1797, is the world's oldest commissioned naval vessel afloat.  Technically, HMS Victory (Admiral Nelson’s flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar), launched in 1765, is the oldest commissioned naval vessel, but it’s been in dry dock (i.e., out of the water) since 1922. 

Historical irony - VJ Day and Woodstock?

August 15 is the anniversary of two important historical events, the contrast of which has an

Japanese surrender ceremony

interesting ironic flavor.  August 15, 1945, as all pre-Baby Boomers probably know, was the day that Japan announced its surrender to the Allies, marking the end of the most devastating war in world history (because of the time difference, it was actually August 14 in the United States).  Unlike many other conflicts, World War II, from an Anglo-American point of view at least, was straightforward.  It was a reluctant fight by western democracies, against totalitarian tyranny.  August 15, 1969 was the opening day of the Famous Woodstock Music & Art Fair, billed as "An Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music".  It occurred at the height of the Vietnam War protest movement.  Generally, but certainly not universally, the World War II veterans (the parents of most of the Woodstock participants), opposed the anti-war movement and couldn't or wouldn't understand the "hippies" that the 500,000 festival attendees represented. 

The irony, of course, is that those brave men and women whose generation sacrificed so much blood and treasure in the 1940s did so to preserve the very freedoms that Woodstock represented - freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom to be the individuals they chose to be.  How many of either group understood that relationship on that rainy August weekend in 1969?  Whether they did then, hopefully we can today, and savor both events as great American moments.

Guadalcanal Remembered

70 YEARS AGO – The first Marine division made it's landing on Guadalcanal (ironically unopposed) on August 7, 1942. The battle which followed, lasting more than six months, marked  the turning point in the Pacific land war. The stunning American naval victory off the island of Midway in June stopped Japanese expansion. Guadalcanal was the first Allied offensive against Japan, and the first time the"invincible" Japanese army was defeated.

Decades after the end of World War II, there seems to be an inevitability in the Allied victory. The Guadalcanal campaign, however, with its air of improvisation and desperate hand-to-hand fighting, is still captivating.  Gen. Archer Vandegrift, Col "Red" Mike Edson, and Sgt. John Basilone (the three Medal of Honor winners), and the thousands of heroic men who fought, and frequently died, deserve to be remembered and honored. 

If you're interested in learning more, I highly recommend Robert Leckie's very readable Challenge for the Pacific: Guadalcanal: The Turning Point of the War.

Battle of Baton Rouge Sesquicentennial

ONE HUNDRED FIFTY YEARS AGO – The only serious attempt by Southern forces to retake Baton Rouge ended in a Confederate defeat on August 5, 1862.  

The Union forces captured New Orleans on April 26, 1862, about which time Louisiana leaders decided to abandon Baton Rouge.  It was occupied on May 29.  

 

The Confederates considered the capital city as a key first step to retaking New Orleans, and therefore planned the attack.  The assault initially succeeded in driving back the Union troops, until their retreat brought them within range of the guns of the ships anchored in the Mississippi River.  Those ships were to have been driven off by the Confederate ironclad Arkansas, but it broke down and never arrived.  Without any reasonable prospect of overcoming the naval support, the Confederates retreated.

From August 5, 1862 until the end of the Civil War, Baton Rouge was safely under Union occupation and control.

School Vouchers and Creationism

Let me start by saying that I have long supported vouchers.  I believe in school choice, for a variety of reasons that aren’t relevant here.  I am also one of the many Louisianans that are embarrassed by the State’s obsession with Creationism (by whatever name).  It is only slightly less humiliating than the 1925 Tennessee prosecution of John Thomas Scopes for teaching evolution in the infamous “Monkey Trial.”  Notwithstanding my quasi-religious upbringing and church-affiliated high school education, I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone can seriously dispute evolution. 

So what do I do (intellectually) when these two strongly-held beliefs collide, as they have now apparently done in Louisiana’s new voucher program for students in failing schools?  According to The Advocate’s article, a number of the schools which will enroll these fleeing students are taking the extreme position – not that Creationism is an alternative theory, but that it is the ONLY theory.  

I am no expert on the teaching of Creationism, and I’m frankly skeptical (as I’ve said before) of The Advocate’s ability to present a balanced view of an issue.  Nevertheless, the article quotes one school’s course description as saying that “the learner will be expected to defend creationism through evidence presented by the Bible versus traditional scientific theory.”  Somehow, for me at least, this crosses the line.  This really amounts to an attack on the scientific method itself.

Many will say that parents should have the right to chose what their children learn.  Okay, I think I can agree with that in theory.  But what should a society do, if anything, about parents who insist on handicapping their children by imposing ideas that render them functionally illiterate in a key area of their lives.  Imagine parents who think that the multiplication tables are invalid, and therefore insist that their children not learn them.  

Other random thoughts on this issue come to mind.  For example:

• Are the un-scientific beliefs of the parents who select these schools a small price to pay for children raised with all of the advantages of a (presumably) deeply moral and committed family? 
• Are these children not still better off than those learning evolution in a failed public school?
• Is this really just an issue trumped up by voucher opponents who are desperate to discredit the system? 
• I really don’t believe that this is an issue of separation of church and state.  Remember that taxpayers have been paying for parochial school bus service for decades.
• Opponents of evolution will sometimes retort that since I personally can’t prove it, my belief in science is as much an act of faith as believing in Creationism.  This, of course, is just a tactic.  I can’t personally prove that matter is made of molecules, but I understand that others have proved it. 

I long ago stopped believing that my views are unique.  Frankly, I think that I’m probably just an example of a great many Reagan-era conservatives who believe in small government, lower taxes, strong defense, and personal liberty.  We “Reaganites” are, I suspect, mostly appalled by this philosophical dilemma – what happens when privatization (because that’s what vouchers are and should be) drifts into fanaticism?  According to the article, Superintendent of Education John White said that “if students are failing the [LEAP] test, we’re going to intervene, and the test measures evolution.” Ironically, I suppose I’ll have to trust in government to curb the extreme.  On balance, I guess I still think that vouchers are worth the risk, but my excitement over the new system has cooled appreciably.

The Race To The Center

One of the most fascinating rituals of presidential election politics is what I like to refer to as "The Race To The Center."  This race has two legs – starting in the center, the candidates first sprint far enough to their party’s political extreme to get the nomination, then promptly try to get back to the center ahead of their opponent in order to win the race (ie, the election).  Let me explain.

The American electorate of course covers the political spectrum, from extreme liberal to extreme conservative.  No one would seriously disagree that the extreme left is the Democratic base and the extreme right is the Republican base.  While the reality is that this spectrum is a messy bell curve with moderates occupying the largest, central sector, it is simpler to think of this spectrum as linear. 

That means, obviously, that to get the nomination, each candidate has to appeal to the most extreme parts of his/her party - its base.  However, to get elected, the candidate then has to turn around and appeal to the center, because their base is not large enough to win.  Hence, The Race To The Center. 

Like all races, winning depends on a number of factors.  The first, and arguably the most important, is how far they have to run. If they started the campaign running far to the extreme, they have farther to run to get back to the center. How long that initial leg is depends on the willingness of the base to shorten it by moving to the center (or, more accurately, not making him/her run all the way to the extreme) to meet the candidate.

The next most important factor is the speed (ability) of the runner/candidate. Rhetorically, a good runner can cover more ground than a slow one.  The corollary to that is the speed/ability of the opponent.  The winner doesn't have to be fast, he just needs to be faster than the loser.

The third factor is the intangible of luck. Again, the winner doesn't have to be very good if the opponent stumbles, or if the opponent's race course is strewn with obstacles. 

Finally, and most cynically, this is a race of perception, with tens of millions of judges/voters.  It doesn't really matter what the runner actually believes.  All that matters is what the judges think about the candidates.

Now that the nominations are secured, the candidates have completed the first leg of the race.  It is frankly entertaining to watch them now run back to the center and try to convince moderates and independents that they aren’t really the extremists they pretended to be on the nomination leg of the race.  In the end, do we really know what they actually believe?  Probably not.

What would Ben Franklin think of the 21st Century Post Office?

TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS AGO – Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first Postmaster General of the soon-to-be United States by the Continental Congress on July 26, 1775.  Franklin had served as postmaster of the British American colonies from 1737 until he was dismissed in January, 1774 for “pernicious activity” in connection with the rising colonial rebellion.  

Franklin is certainly one of the most fascinating figures in American history.  His extremely readable autobiography, which covers much of his early life, has been used in schools for more than a century.  He was a self-made man, famously starting from humble origins and ending as one of the richest men in America.  One part of this remarkable life that has intrigued so many over the years are the novel ways in which Franklin obtained his wealth, including a primitive form of franchising his printing business, vertical integration (at one time he was the largest manufacturer of paper in the colonies) and, of course, frugality.

 

The anniversary of Franklin’s Postmaster General appointment may be a good excuse for considering the plight of the current U.S. Postal Service.  Franklin actually made the British postal system profitable through management and innovation.  He was never afraid of change, having been responsible during his lifetime for improvements in such diverse fields as electricity, government, meteorology, civic organization, insurance, and more.  What do you think Ben Franklin would have thought about an expensive, bloated, and bureaucratic system rapidly being made obsolete by modern technology and changing customer needs?  Do we really think that this no-nonsense businessman would have supported efforts to prop-up what has clearly become a make-work, unionized jobs program?  Just food for thought.

 

To end this on a politically correct note (readers know how important that is to me!), those interested in a different view of Franklin should see Joseph Ellis’ Pulitzer prizing wining history Founding Brothers.  Chapter Three - The Silence - discusses Franklin’s impassioned role in early efforts to abolish slavery.

Jimmy Carter's Malaise

President Jimmy Carter’s presidency was marked by a number of significant national problems, including a continuation of the “energy crisis” which had begun with the OPEC reductions in oil output in the early 1970s.  Having already made four speeches on the subject, Carter felt in the summer of 1979 that another was needed, but that the American people were no longer listening. In preparation, he consulted Democratic leaders from Congress and around the county.  His pollster believed that the American people simply faced a crisis of confidence because of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.; the Vietnam War; and Watergate.  Based on those consultations and that information, on July 15, 1979 - thirty-three years ago today - he gave  the now-famous televised address that has become known as the “Malaise Speech” (ironically, the word “malaise” was not actually used).  The following is the heart of the talk:

"I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy. . . . I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might. The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. . . .

"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning....

"I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel.... I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation. . . ."

Although it has since been almost universally criticized, it was not immediately seen as a failure.  The New York Times ran the headline "Speech Lifts Carter Rating to 37%; Public Agrees on Confidence Crisis; Responsive Chord Struck" later that week.  

How much did this realistic (almost pessimistic) speech contribute to Carter's resounding defeat by the upbeat, optimistic and charismatic Ronald Reagan less than sixteen month's later?  It's of course impossible to tell, but it's tempting to believe that it (or the tone that it represents) was at least a part of the story.  Undoubtedly the President was correct, but you have to wonder how much consolation that was to him after the election.