Photography by Adam Current '11

The Goodrich family was one of Wabash’s greatest supporters, both financially and institutionally. The family is credited with numerous financial donations that have helped make Wabash what it is today. James P. Goodrich, father of Pierre as well as the 29^th Governor of Indiana, contributed to the building of the Pioneer Chapel and also gave the dedication speech on January 10, 1929. He became a member of the board of trustees for Wabash in 1904 and received an honorary Master of Arts degree at the 1915 graduation ceremony for his dedicated service to the college. In 1937, he contributed $150,000 for the construction of what was then Wabash’s science hall, now known as the Goodrich building. When he died in 1940, James Goodrich left Wabash with a sum of $100,000. While Wabash was fortunate to have received the generous philanthropy of James Goodrich, I should note that he was not a Wabash alum. To my surprise, he attended Asbury College in Greencastle, Indiana (now known as DePauw University) for two years, but was forced to drop out due to lack of funds to pay for his tuition. It seems somewhat ironic that one of Wabash’s greatest contributors attended its rival school, and later down the line his son would attend Wabash.

The life of Pierre F. Goodrich was one full of dedication to the promotion of academic excellence and liberty. He graduated from Wabash in 1916 and led a successful business career, giving back to the college. While he contributed financially to the college, his greatest contribution dealt with advancing Wabash’s academic programs. Former Wabash President Frank Sparks described Pierre Goodrich as having “a profound influence on the intellectual life of Wabash in the post-World War II era.” Goodrich was very involved in the Great Books movement during the 1940s. Along with Frank Sparks and Byron Trippet, Goodrich traveled the country investigating various Great Books programs. After having explored a series of programs at various colleges and universities across the country, Wabash developed its own version of the Great Books program in 1946. We know it today as Senior Colloquium.

Yet Goodrich’s greatest contribution to Wabash began in March 1957 with the construction of the Goodrich Seminar Room. The room was later dedicated on June 4, 1959. Over two thousand books were donated from Goodrich’s personal library, many of whose authors’ names are inscribed on the walls. In a letter written in November 1961 to Donald E. Thompson, college librarian at the time, Goodrich explains the purpose behind the room: “It is hoped that the individual who enters this room will immediately feel the humbling presence of the centuries of written communication portrayed by the walls… [and have] the desire to use the books on the shelves plus one’s own experience in life to better understand it. If you are now sufficiently humbled and sufficiently curious you can explore [these] questions: What am I? Can I? Ought I?” The books that are shelved around the walls are arranged in chronological order, “on the theory that man at any given point of time is influenced by the conversation which he is able to find in the written records of the past and in current discussion if he wishes to better understand.”

The names and events that can be seen on the walls illustrate the development of freedom over time, the fragility of civilization, and humankind’s enduring need for liberty. The books that line the walls are a collection of works that represent the long conversation that has endured over the years pertaining to mankind’s struggle against tyranny. While the inscriptions that adorn the walls exemplify the significance behind the important figures and events in the history of liberty, it is not by any means a definitive list. It only suggests the many possible approaches to gaining a better understanding of the evolution of liberty. Goodrich spent a great amount of time and research exploring the various cultures from around the world and across time. One can see that the cultures of Mesopotamia, India, China, and the Islamic world are represented alongside various western cultures, all of which shared a common appreciation for the development and preservation of liberty.

There are two unique symbols on the walls which stand out amongst the numerous names and events. When you walk in and face the right side of the eastern wall, you will encounter a cuneiform inscription. This is considered to be the first recorded instance of the word “liberty” being written down. Pronounced amagi, or literally “return to the mother,” the inscription is a replica taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash. According to the noted scholar Samuel Noah Kramer in his work From the Tablets of Sumer, “Lagash was the site of the first recorded social-reform movement. Once considered a relatively free society of farmers, cattle breeders, boatmen, fishermen, merchants, and craftsmen, the Lagashites found that a change in political power had stripped them of their political and economic freedoms and subjected them to heavy taxation and exploitation by wealthy officials.” The exact nature of the meaning behind the term remains unclear, but it is thought that due to the heavy taxation imposed on the citizens of Lagash, families were forced to sell their children to the state in order to pay off their debt. Under the reforms of Urukagina, whose name can be seen to the right of the inscription, those children that had been sold off to the state were returned to their mothers. This symbol also serves as the logo for the Liberty Fund, an organization created by Goodrich in 1960 whose mission is to “encourage a deeper understanding of the requisites for restoring and preserving the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.”

Another symbol that stands out is the radiant sun that adorns the left side of the eastern wall. The sun sets in a precarious position: is it at the beginning of the timeline or at the end? Does it reflect the knowledge that has been endowed upon humanity or does it symbolize the lamp that lights the path of uncertainty of the future? Goodrich made this an ambiguous aspect of the room and left it up to the observer to decide.

Goodrich also designed the room also to serve as a tool that allows students and teachers to engage in Socratic dialogue, something Goodrich believed strongly in and saw as an important feature of a liberal arts education. He states that the Socratic discussion offers an “opportunity for both breadth and depth of education for those who have the will to use this activity whether they be a professor who supposedly knows all there is to know or the student who is supposed to learn.”

With the recent decision to reduce all college courses from three to two, I think it would be pertinent to mention a few things regarding the change. The replacement of Cultures and Traditions with a new course will not damp the spirit of the liberal arts here at Wabash. As my colleague, Adam Brasich, pointed out in the previous issue, the process by which the liberal arts is practiced is not a static concept nor is it universal, but rather changes over time and is practiced differently across the world. I would argue that the spirit behind the liberal arts remains the same, but the implementation and practice changes due to the progress that is encountered in life.

That being said, the new course has been devised to “foster student engagement with fundamental questions of humanity, from multiple different perspectives  and with texts (broadly defined) from multiple disciplines” and “To foster a sense of community starting with the freshman class and extending throughout the college. The course will be guided by the overarching question of what it means to be human.” This is nothing revolutionary. It is an age old question that is often asked and should continue to be asked. Even Pierre Goodrich stated in his Education Memorandum that, “In order to arrive at a concept of education, it is necessary to consider the nature of man as a guide toward the search for…ultimate truth concerning man and the universe—man’s cause, purpose, and destiny in the universe; hypothetical truth or working truth; and revealed truth; [and] the capacity of human beings to act, to will, to adjust themselves, to live, and to succeed in a society of free and responsible [individuals].” What better way to understand this question than to venture into the Goodrich Seminar Room and reflect on what it means to be human and to be free?

No related posts.

In case if you were wondering, REAL ID stands for “Rearing and Empowering America for Longevity against acts of International Destruction.” Like the PATRIOT ACT before it, this law has little to do with security and more about codifying information all in one spot. In this case it is information on the American people in the form of a national identification card. Granted, the law stipulates that states will issue the cards; however, the transformation will be carried out by the Department of Homeland Security, who will have the power to regulate the design and content of all state driver’s licenses, and require that all of the underlying state databases be linked into a single national database. Even the passing of this law should be suspect. The Act was placed in H.R. 1268, known as the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. It was placed in the bill as a rider, an additional provision having little connection with the subject matter within the bill. Since H.R. 1268 was widely regarded as “must-pass” legislation, it was passed in the House on May 5, 2005 by a 368-58 vote and was unanimously passed in the Senate on May 10, 2005. The Senate never discussed or voted on the Real ID Act specifically and no Senate committee hearings were conducted on the Real ID Act prior to its passage. A May 3, 2005 statement by the American Immigration Lawyers Association said: “Because Congress held no hearings or meaningful debate on the legislation and amended it to a must-pass spending bill, the REAL ID Act did not receive the scrutiny necessary for most measures, and most certainly not the level required for a measure of this importance and impact. Consistent with the lack of debate and discussion, conference negotiations also were held behind closed doors, with Democrats prevented from participating.”

The law itself is frighteningly Orwellian in its scope. Consider this: Federal agencies would reject licenses or identity cards that do not comply, which would force Americans accessing everything from airplanes to national parks and some courthouses to have the federally mandated cards. There is even consideration of placing radio-frequency identification chips on the cards, a form of biometrics. If this seems unlikely, I would encourage you to look to your passports. Since 2006, passports have had these chips embedded within the cardboard that binds the passport together. What is stopping the federal government from implementing fingerprints and other biometric data on the cards? If you think this is farfetched, Europe is already on the verge of doing so. A January 2008 statement by the ACLU of Maryland says: “The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to a Redskins game, or buy a gun. The private sector could begin mandating a Real ID to perform countless commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. Real ID cards would become a necessity, making them de facto national IDs.”

States, however, are fighting back. As of right now, 25 States have passed, or are in the process of passing, legislation that opposes the REAL ID Act on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment. Sadly, my home state of Florida and the State of Indiana are willing to comply with the law. President Barack Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano have stated that they oppose the law and seek to change it or are not even willing to enforce it, due to its controversial nature.

Americans do not need to be reared and empowered for longevity against acts of international destruction. Americans do not need a big brother government watching over them in the name of “security”. This fear-mongering rhetoric does nothing but increase the people’s suspicions about the government’s actions. “Those who seek to lose a little freedom,” Ben Franklin once said, “in order to gain a little security deserve neither.”

No related posts.

That being said, one of the less well known (and least understood) political philosophies that has become synonymous with classical liberalism is growing with popularity around the world. It places it a strong emphasis on limited government, free markets / trade, individualism, and liberty. Libertarianism is not just a political stance one takes, but rather it is an epistemological outlook on the world. Individuals who have taken this stance are often labeled by critics of libertarianism as “radicals” and / or reactionary. Yet, libertarians respond that the United States was founded on libertarian principles. The Constitution defined a limited role for the federal government, a government that was much more limited than it is today. Although the libertarian vision harkens back to the spirit of the foundation of this country, it is by no means backward looking or reactionary. By promoting the ideas of libertarianism, the extension of individual liberty and the proliferation of free trade promises a world where personal liberty is limited only by preventing damage to other people or their property.

Since libertarianism is often misunderstood, misrepresented, and dismissed, many individuals have come forward to stand in its defense. One such person is Dr. Tom G. Palmer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Born in Germany, Dr. Palmer has been very active in promoting libertarian principles worldwide. He received his B.A. in liberal arts from St. John’s College, his M.A. in philosophy from The Catholic University of America, and his doctorate in political science from Oxford University. He was very active in the late 1980s and the early 1990s in the spread of classical liberal ideas in the Soviet bloc states and their successors. He continues to be active throughout the region through his work with the Cato Institute. Dr. Palmer is currently attempting to replicate in the Middle East some of the work he did in Eastern Europe. He has commissioned the translation into Middle Eastern languages and the publication of works by various libertarians / classical liberals such as Frederic Bastiat, F. A. Hayek, and James Madison. He has a personal blog (tomplamer.com) in which he writes extensively about various topics ranging from his many projects on spreading liberty around the world to current political and economic events.

On December 10, the Wabash Conservative Union will be hosting Dr. Palmer who will be giving a talk on his recently published book Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice. In an interview with Reason magazine, Dr. Palmer described his book as “a presentation of a coherent picture of libertarian ideas with two elements: to respond to [the critics of libertarianism….The other element is that liberty is about doing. It is about implementing freedom. It’s about realizing freedom, not just talking about it. It’s about going out and doing the hard work in changing the world, getting world to realize a more free, a more just society.” Consisting of a series of essays written over the course of two decades, Dr. Palmer presents the theory, history, and practice of libertarianism.

Dr. Palmer explains libertarian theory in a series of chapters devoted to the definition of freedom, clearing up the myths of individualism and the market, justice, rights theory, and the role of institutions and law in economics development. According to Palmer, “the rule of law is the key to freedom.” This has been repeated throughout the ages by classical liberal philosophers and can best be summarized by Frederic Bastiat in The Law: “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it is the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place…The nature of law is to maintain justice... [by] preventing injustice from reigning.” This is the notion of negative liberty, which is the idea that the people have the freedom from interference by other people. This is the opposite of positive liberty which refers to having the power and resources to act to fulfill one’s own potential. It is interested in action by citizens within the government. These two definitions of liberty have been in conflict with one another for centuries. Palmer seeks to clear up the distortion by using logic to clarify the complexities that surround the debate. Palmer quotes Kant in saying that, “Every action which by itself or by its maxim enables the freedom of each individual’s will to –coexist with freedom of everyone else in accordance with a universal law is right.” Palmer states that, “I have a right to those actions that are compatible with the equal freedom of all others; the sum total of those parts yields justice.”

The history of libertarianism is also discussed, where Palmer traces it from ancient civilizations to the classical liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment to the present day. He starts out by examining the roots of civil society and how it relates to the individual, the community, and, justice. Palmer also explores the history of limited government throughout the past and how its effects lead to order, stability, and justice. He concludes the history section with a section reminding us the collapse of the socialist Eastern European states, most notably the Union of Soviet and Socialist Republics, and why it collapsed.

The final section of the book deals with the practice of libertarianism, where Palmer examines the current world and seeks to illustrate how liberty can be achieved. He investigates the role of culture, globalism, whether or not infrastructures should be public or private, taxes, and the challenges of democratization. The book concludes with a section devoted to the literature of libertarianism, highlighting notable contemporary classical liberals and libertarians of all stripes from Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Robert Nozick.

Devoted to the cause of spreading liberty around the world, Dr. Tom G. Palmer has dedicated a great deal of his life in making sure that the tenants of libertarianism do not perish in apathy, but rather are preserved and strengthened by allowing others to learn and experience it. On December 10, the Wabash Conservative Union will be hosting Dr. Palmer in order to help further his quest in making sure that the ideas behind liberty are still active in the minds of younger generations.

No related posts.

Artwork by Austin Rovenstine '10

If one seems to doubt this claim I would encourage you to turn on the television and watch the misnamed “reality” shows. These so called “reality” shows are devoid of what the common individual does in everyday life. Rather, these shows offer a window into another world, one of trivial randomness, allowing us to participate with the members of the show without actually being there on the set. We can experience living on a tropical paradise for 30 days trying to outwit, outlast, and, outplay on Survivor; we can experience living amongst seven strangers on The Real World; we can experience losing weight on The Biggest Loser. Yet, all of these “reality” shows offer nothing more than an hour of entertainment, offering a glimpse into a the lives of others in order to experience what it is actually like to be there. The recent case of the death of Farah Fawcett offers a great example. The former sex symbol and star of Charlie’s Angels had a two hour special on NBC, chronicling her painful experience with terminal cancer. It gave the world a chance to experience the life and death of another person with cancer—on television. Another example is the popular show American Idol, a show which saw more Americans vote in the 2004 season than in the 2004 presidential election. Why care about how your country is run when you could be singing along with your favorite idol on television?

Televised news is also being degenerated from its original purpose. Instead of actually reporting events that are worthy of the brand “news,” networks such as MSNBC and FOX are reporting opinions on incidents such as President Obama killing a fly to Paris Hilton’s tenure in jail. Talking heads with opinions have replaced the substance of what used to be considered news and in between the pundits’ opinions are the commercials peddling useless products such as the Snuggie or Shamwow.

Despite the limited mobility of a television set, the introduction of portable devices ranging from smartphones, iPods, and laptops have allowed easy access to the World Wide Web. A plethora of information exists out there in cyberspace, allowing individuals to seek the information they desire in order to satisfy their beliefs. The internet itself is a medium of communication that constantly redefines itself in terms of how people view information in its entirety. Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are some of the newest applications that offer individuals the ability to communicate en masse. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on the method of use. During the Iranian elections during this past summer, Twitter was swamped as Iranian dissidents sent 140 character newsfeeds reporting to the world what was happening as the regime cracked down. Yet, the same application is used by millions of individuals who are “following” celebrities such as Ashton Kutcher.

What also should be a cause for concern is how our materialist and individualist society is turning everything into a commodity. Religion, for instance, has taken on a free-market persona in which individuals under the moniker of “follower of Christ” or “nondenominational” pick and choose what to believe, devoid of any ecclesiastical hierarchy. Sex has been devalued for recreational purposes and is being used constantly in advertisements to promote this idea of a blissful paradise on earth. Marriage has become a relic of the past, sought only for the tax and legal benefits offered by the state.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World seeks to remind us that the chains of bondage need not be the physical wrought iron. The chains of apathy, ennui, passivity, and egoism can serve as instruments of bondage as well, and can arguably be more effective. It may do one well to turn off the television for a few hours, log off the internet, and sit back and enjoy a good book.

No related posts.

Shapiro began his October 13, 2008, Wabash lecture enlightening the crowd that the source of today’s increase of Presidential powers stems from three events that all occurred within the last 100 years: the Truman administration during the 1952 Steel Strike, Dick Cheney’s tenure in Congress, and 9/11. He explained that all of this culminated into the hallmark of a classic shell game, or an attempt to defraud a person or group through their own purposely misled confidence. Shapiro argued that in this shell game, the Bush administration increased the power of the executive branch but made it appear to legitimate follow the Constitution. The American public was kept from realizing that the administration defrauded not only them, but more significantly, the U.S. Constitution as well.

The 1952 Steel Strike centered on the issue of how much power a wartime President is legally allotted by the Constitution. In the time of the Korean War, President Truman saw it in the nation’s best interest to seize control of the privately owned steel mills. The Defense Production Act of September, 1950, permitted the President the requisition of any facilities, property, equipment, supplies, component parts of raw materials needed for the national defense, as well as gave the President the authority to impose wage and price controls. This was essentially eminent domain on private steel mill companies. The Act prompted the United Steelworkers of America to organize a strike in opposition to what they believed was a gross abuse of power. Upon the strike, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1952 case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that the President had no authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the United States Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The President’s attempt to seize more power through the Defense Production Act was deemed unconstitutional, but even still, it began a gradual elevation of Presidential power that has since expanded in subsequent administrations.

Fast-forward to the 1980’s and we see Dick Cheney’s role as a Congressman from Wyoming. While in Congress, Cheney was able to circumvent the Constitution’s ambiguity on Presidential power. Shapiro’s evidence of this was the results of the Iran-Contra scandal of 1986. As the scandal became unearthed, a special commission was formed to investigate the shady actions of the involved persons and consider how much blowback the scandal caused. Upon the conclusion of the investigation Cheney authored a controversial minority opinion, arguing that the most significant factor behind the Iran-Contra scandal was the President not having enough power to direct his foreign policy. He stated, “Congressional actions to limit the President in this area therefore should be reviewed with a considerable degree of skepticism. If they interfere with the core presidential foreign policy functions, they should be struck down.” Cheney claimed that the Constitution provides for a strong President who has the Constitutional authority to operate his office as he sees fit. This was very significant, Shapiro argued, since it laid the foundation of the Bush administration’s view of executive authority.

The final factor in this relatively recent spike in executive power, Shapiro continued, was 9/11. The tragic events of September, 2001, created a “nation at war” mentality, a mentality that often can lead to widespread breakdown in social law and order. So, in Cheney’s theory, in such times as that it is the duty of the President to step in and take full control of the situation and act as he best sees fit. After the attacks the result was a wide spectrum of laws being passed and implemented, among which where the controversial PATRIOT Act and the FISA bill, both of which smack of unjust abuse of power.

The effect of these three events, Shapiro claimed, has been a dramatic shift in the balance of power within the government, whereby the executive branch has gained much more power and the legislative and judicial branches have suffered a considerable shrinking of power. If a President claims to have the Constitutional authority to operate as he sees fit, he doesn’t have to follow the laws Congress passes or act according to how the Supreme Court interprets the laws. The best evidence of this is the Presidential Signing Statements, where the President writes a pronouncement on a bill directly before he passes it into a law. In other words, the President can write anything on any bill, modifying the meaning of a duly enacted law, and pronounce that he may or may not follow this part or that he interprets this particular section differently than how it is meant to be interpreted. It should be noted that the Bush administration has issued more signing statements in eight years than all of the previous Presidencies combined.

But as Shapiro mused, now that the Bush administration has come to a close, the question remaining is what President Obama will do now that he has inherited the executive branch and its elevated power. Will he continue the trend started by the Bush administration or will he place the executive branch back into the balance of power among the legislative and judicial branches? It is too early to speculate possible answers, but I would place a cautious eye on his plans as he begins his first days in office. More importantly, in light of these three historical events we should take notice of his political career and the individuals he has appointed to be in his office and cabinet.

It is disturbing to note that while President Obama was a state Senator for Illinois during 1997-2004 and then a United States Senator in 2005, he was among the realm of the corrupt Illinois Governors George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. When Governor Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris as the replacement of Obama’s senate seat, the people of Illinois as well as the Democrats of the United States Senate cried foul, charging that any appointee chosen by Blagojevich may very well be tainted with the very corruption that laces Blagojevich’s office. While Obama himself is supposedly untouched by Illinois corruption, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been called an “ally” of Blagojevich. Also, Governor of New Mexico and Secretary of Commerce appointee Bill Richardson recently backed down only due to a federal investigation into shady ties with a company that has done business with his state. Other appointments Obama has made include many former members of Bill Clinton’s administration, and we all know how “honest” an administration that was. Based on these and other appointments made by Obama I would say that the actions of the administration should be heavily scrutinized in order to judge accurately their utilization of executive power.

This all should cause a great deal of concern for the American people, since the increasing of Presidential powers by means of deception, corruption, or other means, is not only unconstitutional but utterly tyrannical. The American people should not and must not fall hook, line, and sinker for the assumed “constitutional” actions of the executive branch, which in fact might be sham interpretations to serve as a means to a tragic end: to make the executive branch the sole authority of the United States government.

Especially in this time of war, special concern should be placed on the lessons history teaches us. While it is enumerated in the Constitution that the President is to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, this doesn’t give him free reign to do as he pleases. He is to act according to the laws of Congress (most especially the Constitution) and to the interpretation of those laws by the Supreme Court. Dick Cheney’s actions as a Congressman, when he sought to decrease the power of Congress and increase the power of the President, were a grave foreshadowing long before his tenure as Vice President. Even though this nation may be at war, the President has no Constitutional power to assert his authority as he sees fit, whether in wire tapping the homes of American citizens (FISA Bill) or in denying the same citizens the right to due process even if it is in the name of national security. Despite the benefits these laws seem to bring, their very essence should alarm the American people. The wise words of Benjamin Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”, give a chilling testament to this.

Though the office of the Presidency has seen a whole host of individuals with a wide spectrum of characteristics, I feel that the office should be one most importantly of humility towards the American people. The President should be always called to uphold the oath he swore at the start of his term, “…to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States…to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Simple mistakes in reciting the oath may be forgivable, but the same slip-up in performing the oath while in office cannot be taken as light-heartedly. The Presidency was not, is not, nor ever shall be an office with the authority to solidify absolute power. The creation of or evolution into such an office would be a certain danger to the American people.

No matter Shapiro’s political alignment, I could not disagree with his fundamental point: as has been proved throughout history, in the end, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No related posts.

In order to better understand the current situation one must delve into the past to find the causal roots. Johnson presents a brief history of American foreign policy as an introduction to today’s events. Beginning with George Washington’s Farwell Address in which he urged America to stay out of foreign entanglements, Johnson explores the gradual change of American foreign policy from isolationism to internationalism, with the most apparent divergence occurring between the start of the Spanish-American War and President Wilson’s tenure as Commander-in-Chief. From there, Johnson explores the rise of America as a superpower during WWII and its victory over the Soviets during the Cold War. The perspective then shifts to the years after the fall of the Soviet Union and America’s reign as the hegemonic superpower to present day. He uses this historical summary to provide the foundation for his critique of America’s foreign policy in its current state.

He criticizes the fact that despite $15 billion and 16 agencies devoted to gathering intelligence, the United States government was not able to prevent the worse attack on American soil in history. He claims that the chief error lay in the faulty assumption that the fall of the Soviet Union was considered the last major threat to the world and the United States. The CIA had its budget slashed, disabling the intelligence community to effectively combat considerable national threats. Johnson sees also that much of this stems from the lack of professional individuals who are well educated in world affairs and have a high proficiency in a foreign language, especially in languages such as Arabic, Russian, Farsi, and Chinese. He states that the education system here in America severely needs to be overhauled to produce more efficient and educated individuals who are more fluent in the affairs of the world.

Another crucial problem Johnson sees with American foreign policy today is the excessive emphasis on the military to solve the problems. The old adage that “might makes right” was often evoked during the Bush Administration, which led to a two front war and the alienation of America’s allies. Given that America boasts the world’s strongest military, there’s created a sense of arrogance, an arrogance that leads to the notion that America is the one in charge. This policy of unilateralism is counterproductive as it alienates our allies and gives them less reason to help us in the long run. The “our way or the highway” approach is not the best way to gain friends (or keep them) in the international community. More emphasis needs to be placed on diplomacy, economic statecraft, and especially espionage to further combat the changing grounds in the foreign policy environment.

What should also be a cause of concern is the amount of power the Executive Branch has gained and how it uses that power to isolate itself from the oversight of the Legislative and Judicial Branches. The President and Congress were meant to work with one another. Having the Executive call the shots, so to speak, denies Congressional oversight into the actions done by the President and the members of his cabinet.

Seven Sins of American Foreign Policy provides for an easy read for the lay person who is unfamiliar with the happenings in the world of foreign policy. It overall provides for an interesting perspective which is critical of American foreign policy as a whole rather than a particular policy instituted by a particular presidential administration.

No related posts.

It was by random chance that I even stumbled upon the name Wabash. I was in the market my junior year of high school looking for a good private college that fostered an excellent academic environment, was small in terms of class size, and more importantly was located outside of Florida. I had been schooled for twelve years in Florida, and though the weather is pleasant most of the time, I wanted to challenge myself. I’ve never been away from home for long periods of time and I wanted to experience living in another part of the country. It just so happened that I picked up the recent issue of Newsweek magazine which had an article about the top liberal art schools in the nation. What made Wabash stick out to me was that it met all the criteria I was looking for in a college and more. One of the appealing features to me was that a common major chosen by students was history. That led me to assume that Wabash must have a good history department. I told my parents I was really interested, and we sat down and did some research on the college. When I later discovered that it was an all male school my interest grew. The idea of going to an all male liberal arts college reminded me of the movie The Dead Poets Society, which appealed to me since it seemed like an interesting experience living in a community that fostered a spirit of brotherhood. My mom asked me if I wanted to take a trip to see the college and I said, “Sure, why not?”

So a flight was booked, and we set off to the rolling plains of Indiana. Upon arrival I was nervous about how the campus may look, but once I saw the red-bricked buildings and the architecture I knew that this may be the real deal. I met with Chip Timmons and he gave me the 411 of Wabash. A tour of the campus revealed more of the true beauty of Wabash which included a chance for me to sit in two classes, one with Dr. Warner on Latin American history and the other with Dr. Abbot on rhetoric. At the end of the day I was really impressed and added Wabash to the top of my list of colleges. Yet, my mom was a little apprehensive at first. “It’s a really beautiful college,” she told me “but I don’t think we can afford it. And do you think you can handle being 16 hours away from home?” Chip Timmons overheard her and said “Oh don’t worry. We wouldn’t have you come all the way up here for nothing.” Just saying that confirmed to my Mom that there was something special about Wabash and that it was worth the risk. After I received the letter in the mail and later learned that I was granted a scholarship, I began the transition moving up north. I became very nervous and wondered if I couldn’t handle it and if I would have to come back to Jacksonville and go to the city schools. Yet I had a smooth transition and started to learn to live a Wabash life. I still remember President White’s speech at the ringing in of the class. What really stood out was him telling the parents “don’t think of this as you losing your son for four years. But rather, think of this as gaining a college for a lifetime.”

Nonetheless, I don’t think this story fully answers “why Wabash?” I still seek to answer that question every now and then. The easy answer would be that Wabash is an excellent liberal arts school that fosters an exceptional academic environment. However, there is so much more than that. There is something about the college that gives off an aura of romanticism that makes you fall in love with it. As the late Professor Bill Placher once said, “walking around this campus at night with a new fallen snow, I always fall in love with it all over again.” It can also be that despite the recent losses we as a campus can still come together and proclaim Wabash Always Fights. Whatever the answer may be, I continue to revise my responses over time. The reason being is that as I continue to attend this school I see more examples of what the answer is, for the answer simply cannot be explained in words. It is just part of the experience the College offers— an experience I’ll admit that I am and will likely be ever grateful for. I’m sure that even as an old man with my college days long past, “when future days shall bring its name before me” still “my greatest joy will be to shout the chorus…”

No related posts.

Dr. Webb’s class is offered as a religion course with a theological mindset which deals with various attempts to reconcile (or reject) creation and/or evolution. A major issue brought up in the class deals with strict Darwinists, those who reject any notion of a creator. Two famous strict Darwinists are Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, the best selling author of The God Delusion. The issue that causes many religious individuals to object to a strict Darwinist’s point of view is the notion that life is completely random and has no purpose.

Alternatives to this point of view come in many forms such as theistic evolution (the notion that a supernatural being helped to guide the evolution process along), Intelligent Design (the notion that features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection), and creation science (which rejects the Darwinian model all together in favor of a young earth which fits with the Genesis story.) All three have been heavily attacked by strict Darwinists for being nothing more than “religion in disguise.” A prominent example was the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which stated that Intelligent Design is not science and could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in a public school science class.

As the evidence on both sides is compelling, leading individuals are faced with choices as to what interpretation sounds more logical. The strict Darwinist side offers a multitude of evidence in the form of the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, and comparative molecular biology. Meanwhile, proponents of Intelligent Design claim to have mathematical and statistical analysis on their side, stating that it is statistically improbable that life began as random chance and continued that way. When Dr. David Menton from Answers in Genesis came to Wabash College as a guest lecturer last year, one topic he discussed was the probability of the proteins in hemoglobin correctly sequencing to function properly. The likely of this happening is so miniscule that it would be nearly impossible to have happened by chance. In order to grasp the size of that number, Dr. Menton told the audience that the probability of proteins coming together to form hemoglobin is far greater than the estimated total number of atoms in the observable universe, or 1081. Such an improbable number provides weight to the idea of random chance is not very likely to occur.

Another issue that is often mentioned is whether or not any of the alternatives of evolution can be considered “science.” Since Dr. Webb’s course is offered as a religion class, the topics of discussion are not obviously limited to those scientific in nature. It allows for more ability to discuss other points of views and have to freedom to be open minded to other alternatives. Even Dr Webb says that among the Intelligent Design movement, there are even agnostics who disagree with the theory of evolution. “The argument is that the people behind Intelligent Design are conservative Christians. This is simply not true. There are even individuals who support ID who are agnostic.”

The idea of teaching a course about evolution and creation and how to better understand each has been a project for Dr. Webb’s for some time. He is currently writing a book entitled Dome of Eden, which will offer Dr. Webb’s own personal analysis on the subject.

No related posts.

Ron Paul offers his answer in his latest book The Revolution: A Manifesto. Debuting this past April, it became an instant best seller, ranking number one on the New York Times Bestseller’s list as well as on Amazon. The relatively brief book has been described by Barry Goldwater, Jr. as “the real truth about Liberty. This book takes a wrecking ball to the political establishment…It’s The Conscience of a Conservative for the twenty-first century.” The contents include a brief preface, seven chapters, and a reading list of books that have influenced the Congressman over the years.

The first chapter opens with what Congressman Paul considers the “false choices of American politics.” He feels that American voters are frustrated and left with no choose between voting for a Democratic candidate or a Republican candidate, both of whom have strayed away from their traditional roots. Paul cites examples of such illustrating how the Republican Party has become a party for big government while the Democratic Party is being branded as the “do nothing party” based on the lack of accomplishments in Congress. What Congressman Paul desires is a party based on freedom and individual rights, an idea he attributes to the late Republican Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, who defined liberty as “the [ability] of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life.” While championing the freedom and liberties of the individual, Paul also advocates for limited government, constitutionalism, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Having gained momentum during his campaigning, Paul was told that his ideas and the message he was spreading was considered a “revolution.” He merely sees this as the peaceful continuation of the message the Founding Fathers created at the beginning of the country.

In chapters two through seven, Paul expands on his message of a non-interventionist foreign policy, constitutionalism, civil liberties and personal freedom, as well as explaining his approach to the economy and money by way of libertarianism. He has often been labeled as an “isolationist” based on his views of foreign policy, yet he has declared he is for free trade, diplomacy, and the freedom to travel. While I tend to agree with most of Ron Paul’s political ideology, I consider the notion of a non-interventionist foreign policy is not the best of options for the United States in an age of globalism. Though he cites that it was the wish of the Founding Fathers to keep out of international affairs and even quotes Thomas Jefferson who called for “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” However, it was also Thomas Jefferson who declared war on the nations that supported the Barbary Pirates who raided American merchant ships. While free trade, diplomacy, and the freedom to travel may be espoused by America, it is not a universal concept excepted by all nations. It is clear that if America is to prosper in an age where state sanctioned terrorism, cyber crime, counterfeiting, and money-laundering occurs while nothing is to be done, then it damages the very policy we try to implement.

While Ron Paul addresses his concerns mostly to George W. Bush’s successor, I doubt he will follow Congressman Paul’s advice. His treatise is meant for the people, the same people who are sovereign and are the ones who give the government the power and authority to rule. If there is an appropriate line to quote from the book it would be the last paragraph: “One is not a fated existence, for nowhere is our destiny etched in stone. In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on a needless wars, destroys the value of the dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would all be without it, there is no force that can stop them. If freedom is what we want, it is ours for the taking, Let the revolution begin.”

No related posts.