Rss

  • youtube

Same-sex marriage will be a bust for civilization

Posted by :admin On : October 10, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Homosexuality, Humanism, Marriage

Lisa Bracken believes that legalization of same-sex marriage would be good for Oklahoma’s economy (“Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy”[1]). She is wrong on two counts.

In the short-term, the supposed economic gains will be enormously offset by costs associated with societal dysfunction caused by same-sex marriage. Even though the legitimization of same-sex marriage is relatively new, its devastating effects are already being felt in those countries that have allowed it. Documenting 10 years of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Hoover Institution researcher Stanley Kurtz found that it has led to far fewer marriages and soaring illegitimacy in which “80 percent of firstborn children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of children born thereafter are born to unwed parents. This has a devastating impact on children since unmarried parents are much more likely to separate.” Kurtz wrote, “Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline—an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood—can be linked to gay marriage.”[2]

In the longer term, homosexuality and same-sex marriage undermines society. The central cultural vision upon on which the nation was founded was based on biblical Christianity and its understanding of the nature of man and his origins. The truth of the Christian worldview of marriage as being between a man and woman is supported by the fact that it is a cultural universal imprinted on human nature and common to all people groups, all cultures, and all ages in history. Heterosexual marriage is the well-spring of civilization, and its centrality in the human experience is indisputable. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring.

Supporters of homosexuality believe that they have the right to marry just as heterosexuals, and those rights are based on equality. However, homosexuality is a choice, and choice does not automatically equate with a “right to” nor mandate equal consideration. Many people may have a predilection to alcohol, criminality, or some other activity including homosexuality. But all are choices and with God’s help those tendencies can be conquered.

In his book Visions of Order-The Cultural Crisis of Our Time published 50 year ago, Richard Weaver states that when a culture “… by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements” imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the “nature of things.”[3] Homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are issues that must ultimately be dealt with in the arena of morality and cultural health. The economic considerations of Chamber of Commerce cheerleaders such as Ms. Bracken are both inappropriate and crass with regard to the debate about homosexuality and demands for its legitimization through same-sex marriage. But such dollars and cents concerns are to be expected from those with a humanistic view of life based on the material and denial of universal and timeless concepts of right and wrong.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Lisa Bracken, “Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy,” Tulsa World, September 27, 2014, A-19.
[2] D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., “Five Good Reasons to Reject Same-Sex Marriage,” Coral Ridge Ministries – Crosswalk.com, July 7, 2004. http://www.crosswalk.com/1272492/ (accessed September 30, 2014).
[3] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), p. 22.

The quest for equality and the loss of respect – Part II

Posted by :admin On : October 3, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, Humanism, Worldview

As noted in Part I, another name for equality is egalitarianism which is a fundamental tenet of humanism whose worldview has captured almost all of the institutions of American life and its leadership. The purpose of Part II is to reveal the undeniable linkage between humanism’s quest for equality and the consequent loss of respect in every facet of America life.

The defining characteristic of humanism is the exaltation of self, and this emphasis on self leads to inward focus and results in egotism. Humanist Manifesto II preaches that “The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value.”[1] The practical outworking of humanism’s view of self invariably leads to a quest for equality, the roots of which reach back to the leveling theories of the French Revolution. For biblical Christianity, the central theme is about relationships as demonstrated by the sacrifice of God’s only son at Calvary to make possible fallen man’s redemption and restoration to right relationship with Him.

Worldview

Universals are called by various names including norms, permanent things, eternal truths, and first principles. These universals apply to all of mankind, in all cultures, and all of human history. Human nature reflects a number of universals. Man’s craving for order is a human universal. Above all man must have order, and as man attempts to achieve order he constructs his worldview—his perception of reality, an understanding of the way the world works, his basic beliefs. The affliction of modern man is his propensity to cast off the universals as he constructs his worldview. The order upon which one builds a worldview cannot be based on whim, choice, or man-made theories but must reflect unchangeable truth. One of those truths is that man was created in the image of God, and the order sought by any worldview must reflect these image-of-God qualities and what it means to be human. When a worldview fails to account for the true nature of man, it is false and destined for failure because it cannot provide a sustained order.

Therefore, the superiority of a worldview must be measured by its ability to bring order, and this is the measure we must use in evaluating humanism and Christianity. Which of these worldviews provides the respect sought by human nature or becomes the catalyst for loss of respect: humanism’s exaltation of self through its quest for equality or the value Christianity places on relationships? The prescriptions offered by these competing worldviews for achieving respect between men in the conduct of human affairs are mutually exclusive. One must be true and the other false.

Christian worldview

Wilfred McClay wrote, “…we shape our relationships, but we are more fundamentally shaped by the need for them, and we cannot understand ourselves without reference to them…we are made by, through, and for relationship with one another.”[2] One of the fundamental needs (universals) of mankind is to dwell together, in other words, a need for relationships. For the Christian, the importance of human relationships is a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship, a picture of His fundamental being. God’s being is shown by the Father-Son relationship and the relationship of Christ with the Church of which He is the head and we are the body.

For mankind, these relational patterns are present in various entities—marriage, family, community, nations, and the Kingdom of God. In his first letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul gives an insight into the operation of these relational patterns which speak of brotherhood and not equality, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit…If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them as he chose.” [1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 17-18. RSV] Put another way, we are one human family, but not every member of the family can have the same place and position. Distinctions in the family are required. Status in family is determined by God. To sum up, man’s relational patterns are hierarchical.

Humanist worldview

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) was one of the principal founders of the humanistic psychology movement. In his 1943 A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow developed the concept of a “hierarchy of human needs” which proposed to rank the needs of humans.

Self-Actualization – Morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. Self-actualizers are people who strive for and reach a maximum degree of their inborn potential.

Esteem – Self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, and respect by others.

Love-Belonging – Friendship, family, sexual intimacy.

Safety – Security of body, employment, resources, morality, the family, health, property.

Physiological – Breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion.[3]

Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs conflicts with the human universal of the primacy of relationships in motivating human beings. In Maslow’s hierarchy, the sex act is labeled as non-relational physiological need and banished to the lowest level of needs. Family at the second level is merely for safety’s sake and non-relational. It is only at level three that we see relational needs: family, friendship, and sexual intimacy.[4] The other four levels deal substantially with self, whether basic physiological/safety or esteem/self-actualization.

Maslow’s theories of human motivation are based on the humanistic worldview. They fail as human motivators because they dramatically diminish the importance of relationship in favor of self. Apart from physiological and safety needs which are creational givens, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is upside down as it reflects human nature and leads to a false worldview. The societal disorder that permeates the entire planet is a result of the widely held humanistic worldview which has elevated self above relationships. And the engine driving this topsy-turvy worldview is the quest for equality which demands a leveling of society which in turn can be achieved only through socialism. Therefore, humanism’s imposition of equality as a means of establishing a foundation for respect in individuals and society in general is fatally flawed.

Humanism’s equality attempts to re-structure society by eliminating distinctions and thereby increasing respect, but it does the opposite. This is evident from the writings of Richard M. Weaver, “The most portentous general event of our time is the steady obliteration of those distinctions which create society…If society is something which can be understood, it must have structure; if it has structure, it must have hierarchy…” Weaver called the elimination of hierarchy through the egalitarian notion that in a just society there are no distinctions a perversion. “…the most insidious idea employed to break down society is an undefined equalitarianism…Such equalitarianism is harmful because it always presents itself as a redress of injustice, whereas in truth it is the very opposite.”[5]

Here Weaver reveals the fatal flaw at the heart of equality and its failure to instill respect among people. Justice breeds respect…respect for authority, property rights, institutions, customs, and traditions, and to regard with esteem people who share that understanding of justice. But, equality that pretends to insure justice is inherently unjust in doing so. Forced equality’s injustice is inevitably corrosive to human relationships and leads to loss of respect in all facets of society.

Undeniable linkage

How does this Christian view of the supremacy of relationship promote respect in a dog-eat-dog world focused on its rights rather than responsibilities? Just as a focus on self inevitably fades into a demand for equality, fraternity (brotherhood) is the product of relationship. Brotherhood taps into human emotions that are rooted in mankind’s divine connection – those image-of-God qualities indelibly imprinted on man’s being. Man was made for brotherhood, and the emotional bonds of brotherhood link him with family, community, and nation. Those connections give us status in family which extracts duties and obligations from its members, entangling alliances that call for and fosters fidelity and respect.

Equality is rooted in self and demands its rights which often are nothing more than gossamer imaginings of a humanistic worldview. The undeniable linkage between the humanism’s quest for equality and the consequent loss of respect at all levels of human activity and relationship are obvious. Humanism’s forced equality leads to suspicion, resentment, disunity, and ultimately to disrespect of people, laws, authority, institutions, and the nation’s central cultural vision. It fails to provide an order based on truth which is requisite for respect. Only through the Christian worldview’s focus on relationships and consequent brotherhood can man give and receive the respect that flows from his image-of-God qualities found in his human nature.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifesto I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 18.
[2] Wilfred McCray, “The Soul & the City,” The City, Vol. II, No. 2, (Summer 2009), 8-9.
[3] Neel Burton, M.D., “Our Hierarchy of Needs,” Psychology Today, May 23, 2012.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-needs (accessed September 18, 2014).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 35, 40.

The quest for equality and the loss of respect – Part I

Posted by :admin On : September 26, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality

Loss of respect for authority and time-honored institutions, customs, and traditions is one of the major casualties in the quest for equality in all facets of American life. Here we do not mean the equality spoken of by John Adams who defined equality as—a moral and political equality only—by which is meant equality before God and before the law. The humanist understanding of equality is synonymous with egalitarianism: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges. Basically, it is a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among men.[1] When we speak of equality in this article and the one to follow, it is meant to describe the humanists’ definition of equality. To properly understand the corrosive nature of the quest for equality on human beings and culture in general, one must understand humanism.

Humanism is focused on the individual and self as opposed to relationships. The humanistic philosophy proposes that nature is all there is and exists independently of any outside consciousness (God). Man is an evolutionary product of nature and his values and morals arise from his experiences and relationships on this earth alone. Truth is relative and discovered through advances in science and reason through which man will achieve his purpose—happiness, freedom, and unending progress—on this earth for there is no life after death.[2] Equality as a tool to level society is a product of humanism, and the tenets of humanism and its consequences to society must be understood before we can understand the role of equality in loss of respect. The antithesis of humanism is the biblical Christianity, and the two are the principle combatants in the raging culture wars.

It is from these two worldviews that we examine respect for people and their institutions, customs, and traditions. One sees loss of respect in every facet of society: personal conduct, marriage, family, the workplace, dress, law, government, education, and manners to name just a few. Before we examine the link between society’s quest for quality and loss of respect, we must first examine and understand the consequences of a loss of respect. In other words, the symptoms that lead to diagnosis of the disorder and its prescriptive remedy.

Examples of loss of respect abound in most Western cultures, and they are rooted in rebellion and disrespect for authority. One British study by Dr. Aric Sigman, psychologist and fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, reports that “…nursery-age children are becoming increasingly violent and disrespectful towards their teachers, ‘parent battering’ is on the rise, and the number of policemen attacked by children is soaring.” Dr. Sigman stated that the parents of these children have raised a “spoilt generation” with an inflated view of their own self-importance, and these “little emperors” are used to having their demands met by their parents. Such a combination hardly prepares the child for adult life. The consequences of this widespread lack of discipline among children have led to Britain having “…the highest rates of child depression, child-on-child murder, underage pregnancy, obesity, violent and antisocial behavior, and pre-teen alcoholism since records began.” The authority of teachers and parents has been enormously weakened legally, professionally, and culturally which has led to a rise in violence in the home, at school, and society in general. Dr. Sigman believes that respect for authority is a basic health requirement for children.[3]

The two people with the greatest impact on shaping the behaviors of American children in the twentieth century were John Dewey, architect of the American educational system, and Benjamin Spock, child psychologist and author of the most influential book on child-rearing in the twentieth century. Their humanistic child development and education theories, centered on the empowerment of children and coupled with a lack of discipline in the home and classroom, are primarily responsible for a loss of respect for authority throughout the Western world.

The premier generation birthed and baptized in the humanistic worldview was the Boomers born immediately after World War II to the end of 1964. J. Walker Smith and Ann Clurman wrote Generation Ageless, a book describing the general mindset of Boomers.

The economy, not protests, is the central dynamic shaping the shared generational character of Baby Boomers…Boomers didn’t have to aspire to the American Dream; they felt they were born into it…they championed a new notion: that of an unfettered, indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self.[4] [emphasis added]

It is the Boomers’ indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self that is the defining characteristic of humanistic worldview. In conjunction with focus on self, the Boomers embraced humanism’s “unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions.”[5] This caustic combination of self and a relentless questioning attitude is the vaccine with which many Boomers were inoculated against respect for authority, tradition, custom, and heritage.

If self is the defining characteristic of humanism, its polar opposite is the overarching importance of relationships (man to God and man to man) that is the keystone of the Christian worldview. The central theme of the Bible is found in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on the cross and whose story speaks overwhelmingly of the inestimable value that God placed on His relationship with man. The necessity of the cross was not an unforeseen accident, Plan B, or a last minute making the best of a bad situation because God foreknew the cost of His creation. The knowledge of that cost was over-ridden by God’s will to love, an expression of His very character, to share the inner life of the Trinity with His special creation. Being created in the image of God, man’s nature was also transfused with the importance of relationship with God and earthly relationships with man.

A picture of the importance of relationships as opposed to self is expressed throughout the Bible. It is interesting to note that nine of the Ten Commandments speak directly or indirectly with regard to relationships. Three speak directly of relationships. “I am the Lord your God…” is a direct ordering of the relationship between God and man, and “You shall have no other God before me…” gives clarity to that relationship. The third speaks directly to the relationship between child and parent: “Honor your father and your mother…” Six others prohibit actions which would be injurious to relationships: misuse of the name of the Lord, worship of false gods, murder, adultery, theft, and coveting a neighbor’s possessions, wife, or servants. Only the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath may be considered as dealing most closely with man’s self.[6]

Additionally, the biblical view of self is far different view from the unfettered, indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self of humanism.

As to the unfettered freedom of self promised by humanism, the biblical answer is found in Paul’s letter to the Colossians. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness which is idolatry…But now put them all away; anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.” [Colossians 3: 5,8. RSV]

Jesus condemned humanism’s indulgent, pleasure-seeking intemperance in the parable of the rich man who took his ease, ate, drank, made merry, and was consumed with his own plans. But Jesus called him a fool whose unprepared soul was required of him that night. [Luke 12:16-20]

Jesus dealt with the self-absorbed in the parable of the Good Samaritan when he answered the question of one of his disciples, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus exposes the heartless self-centeredness of the Pharisee and Levite and elevates the importance of relationship among all of mankind regardless of pedigree, purse, nation, or religion.

Matthew’s gospel makes plain Jesus’ attitude toward those with a celebratory self. “He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” [Matthew 23:11-12. RSV]

The foundation has been laid for an examination of the role of humanism’s quest for equality in the general loss of respect in society. This foundation has included an examination of humanism and Christianity’s differing conceptions of self and relationships and the consequences thereof. In Part II we shall examine how the humanistic exaltation of self as opposed to the biblical focus on relationships has undeniably linked the quest for equality with a loss of respect for authority and time-honored institutions, customs, and traditions.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] “egalitarian,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), p. 264.
[2] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, Eighth Edition, Revised (Amherst, New York: The Humanist Press, 1992), pp.35-37.
[3] Fiona MacRae and Paul Sims, “The Spoilt Generation: Parents who fail to exercise authority breeding youngsters with no respect for anyone,” Mail Online News, September 14, 2009. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213236/The-spoilt-generation-Youngsters-lack-respect-authority-attacking-parents-police-teachers.html (accessed September 11, 2014).
[4] J. Walker Smith and Ann Clurman, Generation Ageless, (New York: Collins, 2007), pp. xii, xiv.
[5] Lamont, p. 15.
[6] Exodus 20:3-17. RSV]

Quran verses taken out of context? Thousands of Christian deaths say “No.”

Posted by :admin On : September 19, 2014
3

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars, Islam

Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw said: “The Quran clearly states that non-Muslims should be killed. Arab is the ethnicity, not Muslim or Islam. Be wary of the individuals who claim to be ‘Muslim-American.’ Be especially wary if you are a Christian.” Mike Jones’ in his editorial[1] (“Out of Line-Bennett’s Muslim-bashing goes too far.”) accused Bennett of cherry-picking verses from the Quran and using them out of context. However, Jones is either naive or woefully uninformed with regard to the Quran and Muslim persecution of Christians around the world in the name of Islam. There are 109 verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Unlike practically all of the Old Testament verses of violence which are limited by the historical context in which they are presented, those in the Quran are mostly open-ended and not constrained by time or context in its call for war on non-believers.[2] For many countries dominated by an emboldened Muslim faith, the rallying cry has become “convert to Islam or die.”

Open Doors ministry reported that of the fifty countries with the worst persecution, forty-one are Muslim.[3] Exhortations to violence and persecution against infidels (any who do not believe in Allah or his messenger Mohammed) are found in the particulars of the Quran and are practiced by many of its followers, especially in countries dominated by Islam. Both the Vatican and the Center for Study of Global Christianity reported that 100,000 Christians died in 2012 because they were Christian—devout, nominal, or cultural. Christians were killed for their beliefs or ethnicity, killed while worshiping in a church, murdered because they were children of Christians, or killed because of their Christian witness.[4] Most of the deaths were at the hands Muslims and committed in the name of Islam as dictated by the Quran.

Bennett’s charges that the Council on American-Islamic Relations has ties to terrorist organizations are called unfair by Jones. However, CAIR’s founders had direct ties with known terrorist organizations, and its continuing ties to terrorist organizations are extensive and well-documented. In defense of CAIR, Jones notes CAIR’s condemnation of ISIS’ actions including its recent highly publicized beheadings. For CAIR and other Muslim organizations, ISIS has become a Muslim-Islam public relations nightmare. But in truth, ISIS’ actions reveal what a world dominated by an unrestrained Islam may look like. Such world domination by Islam is the unifying call of almost every Muslim-dominated nation and Muslim terrorist organization. CAIR’s condemnation of ISIS is about PR, not revulsion at their deeds. Otherwise, CAIR condemns the Quran which says, “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’” [Quran, Sura 8:12]

The tenets of Christianity speak of God’s creation of all peoples with one blood and mandate that we treat each person we meet with kindness, patience, and dignity. It is those biblical principles of Christianity and its predecessor upon which the nation was founded and made it possible for all faiths including Muslims to live and practice their religions in freedom. America’s story is not one of perfection but an example of what can be. But the reality is that Christians are being persecuted by the millions and killed by the tens of thousands throughout much of the Islamic world. A second reality is that that same Islamic world threatens America. And whether they are Christians or Muslims who reject the Islamic jihadist mentality promoted by the Quran, Americans must recognize the growing Islamic threat to their safety and religious freedom. This vigilance is not born of fear as Mr. Jones believes but a somber recognition of what’s happening everyday all over the globe.

If Jones really wants to understand the real meaning of fear, he should visit Christians in Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, or dozens of other cities in northern Iraq. He will be able to easily find Christians because many of their homes and businesses have been marked with the Arabic symbol for N. N stands for Nazarenes by which is meant Christians. Such markings effectively give license to steal from, maim, rape, and kill the inhabitants. The Nazis used the same tactic to mark the homes and businesses of Jews with the Star of David which also marked the beginning of the genocide.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Mike Jones, “Out of Line – Bennett’s Muslim-bashing goes too far,” Tulsa World, September 14, 2014, G1.
[2] “What does the Religion of Peace Teach About…Violence?” TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding Islam. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm (accessed September 15, 2014).
[3] “World Watch List Countries,” Open Doors. http://www.worldwatchlist.us/ (accessed September 15, 2014).
[4] Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, “Counting the Cost (Accurately),” Christianity Today, August 21, 2013. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/september/counting-cost-accurately.html (accessed September 16, 2013).

Statistics: Facts often used to replace truth.

Posted by :admin On : September 12, 2014
2

Category: Archives, Government, Truth

Leonard Pitts’ recent syndicated column was provocatively titled “If GOP is so right, why are red states so far behind?” Pitts raised the question because of the results of a recent study by two Princeton economists that found the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents. From President Kennedy to and including President Obama the economy grew at 4.35 percent as compared to 2.54 percent growth under Republican presidents during the same period. He also pointed to a statistic supplied by Occupy Democrats, a left-wing advocacy group, that of the ten poorest states, nine are red states and of the poorest 100 counties, ninety seven are in red states. Based on the report’s statistical revelations, Pitts asked several questions, “If Republican fiscal policies really are the key to prosperity, if the GOP formula of low taxes and little regulation really does unleash economic growth, then why has the country fared better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones and why are red states the poorest states in the country?”[1]

To be fair, Mr. Pitts does note that the ability of presidents to influence the economy is “vastly overstated.” He even cites the Princeton researchers who stated that their study does not support the idea that Democratic policies are responsible for greater economic performance under Democratic presidents. Further, he concedes that red states and counties tend to be more rural and likely to have modest incomes while at the same time may enjoy greater spending power than wealthier states and counties. Yet, Mr. Pitts can’t resist the assumption that the fiscal economic policies of the Republicans are inferior to those of the Democrats. He states that, “…the starkness and sheer preponderance of the numbers are hard to ignore.” After comparing the true blue state of Connecticut’s first place in per capita income of $56,000 with red-state Mississippi’s last place at $32,000, Pitts says that, “At the very least, stats like these ought to call into question GOP claims of superior economic policy…”[2]

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, d**n lies, and statistics.” Mark Twain popularized this quote in America but attributed it to former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. How does one lie with statistics? One way is to erroneously assume a correlation between two variables and simply imply that one causes the other. Although Mr. Pitts agrees that the study’s findings do not support the idea that there is a correlation between the economic policies of Democratic presidents and the above-mentioned superior economic statistics, that is, one does not cause the other, he does believe that, given the sheer magnitude of the numbers, we must assume there is some correlation between the economic policies of Republican presidents and the lesser economic growth experience thereunder.[3]

Mr. Pitts has not lied (in a manner suggested by Twain), but he has been seduced by the power of statistical “facts” and as a consequence has “…drawn a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion.”[4] To summarize, Mr. Pitts’ conclusion is that, although the statistics provide no correlation between superior economic performance and the economic policies of Democrat presidents, the statistics must almost certainly provide correlation between the Republicans’ lesser economic results and their economic policies. Therefore, Republican economic policies are linked in some unexplained manner with the poorer results and consequently must undermine Republican claims of superior economic policies. Calling the Republican claims of superior economic policies as “overblown, at best,” Mr. Pitts ends his column with a challenge. “If that’s not the case, I would appreciate it if some Republican would explain why.”

If Mr. Pitts had done his homework, he would have found the explanation given by another nationally syndicated columnist less than ten days earlier. Robert Samuelson has written about business and economic issues since 1977. He is the author of three books on the American economy, a columnist for the Washington Post, and formerly was a columnist for Newsweek magazine for twenty-five years. Like Pitts, Samuelson also wrote a column about the Princeton study which he titled “Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.”[5]

Samuelson’s interpretation of the results of the Princeton study was very different than that of Pitts. Samuelson stated that “Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large…growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim.” Samuelson called about half of the gap that favored Democrats attributable to their “good luck” with regard to outside events or trends beyond their control. Three of those events and trends that dominated (and whose timing favored Democrats) were the global oil shocks that hurt Republicans more than Democrats, productivity gains, and military buildups that boosted economic growth.[6]

To the Princeton researchers the cause of the remaining half of the gap favoring the Democrats is a mystery. But for Samuelson the reasons were obvious and contrary to what the study’s statistics seem to suggest. He explained that, “Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation. What resulted was a cycle in which Democratic presidents tended to preside over expansions (usually worsening inflation) and Republicans suffered recessions (usually dampening inflation).” Without thoughtful interpretation, the surface implications of the Princeton study suggest that the “…economy’s performance during a president’s tenure in office is a good test of the soundness of policies.” Samuelson disagreed and explained that there is a long lag between the adoption of policies under a current administration and their true effects over time (usually after the administration has left office). He points out that expansive policies that feed an economic boom spawn hurtful consequences (e.g., inflation and overconfidence resulting in financial crises) that must be addressed with more painful policies, usually during the next administration. However, those painful policies can (and generally do) result in long-term dividends.[7]

Samuelson’s diagnosis of America’s economic roller coaster is somewhat akin to the analogy of visits of grandchildren to permissive, over-indulgent grandparents. It’s party time for the grandkids. High sugar diets, new toys, fun and games, few rules, and a good time is had by all. However, when mom and dad pick up the kids, they have to deal with the belly aches, renew and enforce rules and restraints, and re-establish the connections between work-reward and rebellion-consequences. In other words, the kids must return to the real world under mom and dad’s rule. For close to six decades Americans have ridden the economic roller coaster, alternately driven by Democratic children and their Republican parents. Hopefully, the American electorate will eventually understand the cause of much of America’s economic ups and downs. If so, there is hope for Republican economic prescriptions.

In the information age, facts have grown exponentially. We have become a fact driven society. Richard M. Weaver wrote, “One notes that in everyday speech the word fact has taken the place of truth…And the public is being taught systematically to make this fatal confusion of factual particulars with wisdom…The acquisition of unrelated details becomes an end in itself and takes the place of the true ideal of education.”[8] The myopic acquisition of unrelated details by a society results in fragmentation through loss of wisdom. Such societies retreat from the glorious heights from which one can clearly see truth and descend into a forest of facts—minutiae that hide truth and ultimately destroy in men’s minds that even the concept of truth exists.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Leonard Pitts, “If GOP is so right, why are red states so far behind?” Tulsa World, September 4, 2014, A-13.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Leonard Louis Levinson, The Left Handed Dictionary, (New York: Collier Books, 1963), p. 218.
[5] Robert J. Samuelson, “Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.” The Washington Post, August 24, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-do-democrats-run-the-economy-better-nope/2014/08/24/1e3d847c-2a0c-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html (accessed September 5, 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 58.