Who Was Washington's God?

The need for this book stems from the lack of interest in religion on the part of most biographers of Washington, especially since World War II. The occasion for this book was a magnificent outdoor candlelight dinner on the veranda at Mount Vernon three years ago, at which the executive director James Rees asked me if I would write a book on Washington’s religion. More than a million visitors come to Mount Vernon each year, he said, and at the bookstore, the book they most request is a book on Washington’s religion—which they do not have.

I had a theory that Washington was more religious than most people thought, but I was basing this only on his public, official statements as General and President. I would not have been surprised if more research showed that he was actually not much more religious than Thomas Jefferson, probably the least religious of the founders.

Since a large percentage of Washington’s writings are now available online, research is infinitely easier than it used to be. Moreover, immense generosity was shown us by theMount Vernon historical researcher Mary Thompson, who has been working on her own marvelous book on the religion of the Washington family. Washington’s personal library of some 900-plus volumes was also made available to us, both by second copies collected at Mount Vernon, and by the originals, owned and beautifully maintained by the Athenaeum in Boston.

And Washington’s God? There is no doubt that Washington was a lifelong Anglican as his ancestors had been, and as his progeny (through Martha’s children) were to be. Because of a clergy shortage,Washington ’s local parish church had services on average twice a month; he attended a little more than once a month—much more often in later years than in earlier. He was an active vestryman, and church warden, giving the parish both his time and hisfinancial help. His pastor cherished him as an unusually helpful parishioner.

My daughter Jana and I were able to find only a very few clear confessional statements in which Washington openly declared his faith as a Christian. The example of his life is clearer than his words. From his twenties on, as a Major in theVirginia militia, he was a leader of men of diverse religious beliefs, and he made it his practice to use a general religious language that excluded as few as possible.

He preferred to speak of “the Governor of the universe,” “the great disposer of human events,” the “Beneficent Author of all good that was, that is, or that will be,” and especially “a kind Providence,” “a gracious Providence.” We never found him saying “Redeemer,” “Savior,” or other such more confessional language, although he did commend the figure of Jesus Christ to the Delaware Chiefs, and urged his men to conduct themselves as “Christian soldiers” worthy of thefavors they asked of divine Providence.

Washington’s favorite word about Providence was “inscrutable.” He knew that Providence brings evil and suffering as well as victory and success. He knew the trials of a “Pilgrim’s Progress,” the depths and the Slough of Despond. But in his view,Providence was not bound by Fate or any other necessity, but Sovereign, and Disposer of all events. Although he thought God acted chiefly through the contingencies and “concatenations of causes” in natural events, in the timing and placement of “acts of nature,” he also spoke occasionally of what seemed to him truly miraculous. Jana has already described several events of both kinds—both happy arrangements of natural events and, on the other side, events so improbable as to appear to be miraculous. (Washington, in one instance, used the word “miraculous” himself—when every other officer on horseback fell, and Washington’s own coat took four bullet holes, and he lost two horses, yet kept remounting, and stayed throughout the battle unhurt.)

Washington saw the “interpositions” of Divine Providence in small events and in large—in the timely discovery of Benedict Arnold’s plot to turn over to the British the forts on the upper Hudson—at daybreak over the East River in the Battle of Brooklyn, when only half of Washington’s army had escaped by boat, a sudden fog fell thick, murky, and yellow over the River for another six hours, until the whole army got across. He sawProvidence in the almost impossible unanimity of the constitutional convention, which completed its work in 53 days. He saw Providence in good harvests, and in prosperity. He saw it in the fortitude of his ragtag, wounded, and sickness-ridden amateur army during the darkest days of defeat in 1776 and 1777.

It was Washington who in his written General Orders of July, 1776, twice told his men that they, “under God,” were the only supports of American Independence, for the sake of millions yet unborn–the very words that Lincoln read there, and then made immortal in his Gettysburg Address, the very words that are repeated by Americans today when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Washington had a layman’s (but also a sophisticated) grasp of what he himself called “the Doctrine of Providence,” and this doctrine shaped the prayers he advised his army, and later the whole country, to address to God for His “favorable interpositions” in the American cause.Washington knew that both the British and the Americans prayed to the same Providence. But he also believed that (in Jefferson’s phrase) “the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.” And with William Penn, Washington believed that the reason God created humans was so that they might walk in friendship with Him—but freely. No freedom, no friendship.

Therefore, Washington held that to be faithful to His own promises, God was bound to favor those who fought for their liberties against those who tried to deprive them of those liberties.Washington’s God is the God of liberty.

Often Washington reminded Americans of how many times they had experienced the “interpositions” of a “kind Providence” on their behalf, and told them that they must be “worse than infidels” and even “wicked” not to give thanks to that Providence on every occasion.

Recently, a new story has come to light. One of the great figures in American Lutheranism, Henry Muhlenberg, wrote in his diary of a report he had just heard from Valley Forge (probably from his son General Peter Muhlenberg, who was an officer on duty inValley Forge, not far from the Muhlenberg home). This is what the older Muhlenberg wrote:

"I heard a fine example today, namely, that His Excellency General Washington rode around among his army yesterday and admonished each and every one to fear God, to put away the wickedness that has set in and become so general, and to practice the Christian virtues. From all appearances this gentleman does not belong to the so-called world of society, for he respects God’s Word, believes in the atonement through Christ, and bears himself in humility and gentleness. Therefore the Lord God has also singularly, yea, marvelously, preserved him from harm in the midst of countless perils, ambuscades, fatigues, etc., and has hitherto graciously held him in his hand as a chosen vessel."

A chosen vessel? On one occasion, in the dark, two units of Washington’s army were firing on one another, killing and wounding in ignorance—and Washington, on seeing the carnage, spurred his horse right through the center of the fire shouting and knocking rifles upwards with his sword right and left. It was a reckless thing to do.

On another occasion, rallying his troops in flight, he turned them around into a vigorous counterattack against the British units coming up, who themselves then took flight. Getting well ahead of his troops, sword flailing,Washington called out “It is a fine fox chase, my boys!” His men finally stopped him, lest a marksman take down the General they loved.

No wonder his people saw this man as “under the protection of a kind Providence.” No wonder he persuaded them that so was their country.

Published in First Things March 23, 2006

Just War and the Iraq War

A pair of articles on the justice of the Iraq war have appeared on the website Right Reason, in the form of a review of a new book bitterly opposing the war, President Bush, and the neoconservatives. The book’s title typifies the seriousness of the essays it includes: NeoCONNED. The reviewer at Right Reason, Edward Feser, measures the traditional criteria of the just war according to the moral manuals of the pre-Vatican II period, in order to employ a fair meaning of “traditional,” at least from (one would think) the paleoconservative side. In doing so, he collects some absolutely marvelous texts.

But since the paleocons in this instance, although not in others, fall all over themselves in exclaiming how they are faithful to the guidance of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in regard to the war in Iraq, the reviewer also includes a passage from Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004, when the morality of the war in Iraq was precisely the central issue. This gem cuts through moral pretense like a diamond:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Published in First Things March 17, 2006

The Springtime of Life

On Monday one tree here, another there, burst into blossom in Washington, and when the weather the next day hit eighty-five fahrenheit, more and more trees burst out white, pink, and a very light violet. Including, I am told, at least one cherry tree near the Capitol. The innocence of newborn spring gives the lie to the weariness of Washington politics. What we knew as the blossoms appeared is that the first midwest candidate for the presidency in 2008 chose to announce informally by calling for a censure motion against President Bush for listening in on phone calls from al-Quaeda to the United States–a motion that brought delight to elected Republicans and panic to elected Democrats. The former called for a vote, the latter delayed, evaded, and soft-shoed away. As I say, a weary season, given the lie by oncoming spring.

Which put me in mind of a passage from the splendid article on demography to which Father Neuhaus linked yesterday. Did you know that religious women are having many times more babies in America than secular women? Not to put too partisan a ring on it, but the same article–and the discussion it has prompted–points out that women in the red states are having 12 percent more babies than women in the blue states.

The 17.4 percent of baby boomer women who had only one child account for a mere 7.8 percent of children born in the next generation. By contrast, nearly a quarter of the children of baby boomers descend from the mere 11 percent of baby boomer women who had four or more children.

The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies. Consider the demographics of France, for example. Among French women born in the early 1960s, less than a third have three or more children. But this distinct minority of French women (most of them presumably practicing Catholics and Muslims) produced more than 50 percent of all children born to their generation, in large measure because so many of their contemporaries had one child or none at all.

In the U.S., even without counting the loss of millions of black votes through abortion (at a rate of something like three to one with respect to white babies aborted) sheer demographics are killing the Democratic future. Feminism, gays, and abortion have not been demographic plusses. But how on earth did I get back into weary politics?

Well, spring got me thinking about new birth, and babies, and that got me thinking about demography ... and that wound me back into...

But it is out of winter and decaying autumn that spring comes, isn’t it?

Published in First Things March 16, 2006

The Huge Event of the Week, February, 20-25

Until Thursday morning, an ominously huge event had barely been reported, and its significance very little reported on in the American press, which was preoccupied with other matters. During the Muslim holy day last Friday, the golden dome of the Ali al-Hadi Mosque in Samarra gleamed in the sun, the pride of Shia Iraq – indeed, of the Shia world.

As of early this week, that dome is no more. It was blown up in a huge blast and is now represented only by strips of hanging metal and broken stone, amid the rubble of treasures centuries old. Splendid mosaics below the dome and on the Mosque walls have been savagely torn apart by the power of the string of bombs set off inside.

This Mosque is one of the holiest in Shia Islam, certainly so in Iraq, the shrine special to the 12th Imam, Al-Mahdi. According to Shia traditions, this Mahdi was taken up into a supernatural realm (much as Christians hold that Jesus was taken up into heaven at his Ascension), and will return one day to complete his work.

There are many Shia around the world, such as the infamously fickle and dangerous Al-Sadr of Baghdad, and President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who have been saying publicly that the Mahdi’s Second Coming will happen soon.

After this horrific blast in this most holy temple, there is turmoil in the Muslim world, extending as far away as Pakistan.

Reports of reprisals against Sunni Muslims and Sunni Mosques in Iraq are far too frequent, and at times too ghastly to contemplate with serenity.

The point of blowing up the Mosque in Samarra was clearly political. The sacrilegious blast was meant to destroy any chance of a new democratic government from forming in Iraq. It was meant to precipitate immense passionate reactions, and counter reactions—in short, civil war. A huge, bloody civil war. In Iraq.

Almost immediately—did you notice?—the government of Iran announced that this horrible blast was an act of foreign intelligence: Israeli and American. The speed of Iran’s governmental campaign to spread this message suggested that some in Iran had advance warning, perhaps only to the extent that this sort of dramatic terror was coming any day. The next day, people were burning American and Israeli flags in the streets.

Who knows? Events might necessitate the intervention of Shia Iran into Iraq – that is, even more overt intervention that is already under way every day.

I myself connect this deed to the hard work by politicized imams from Denmark and all through the Middle East since early last autumn to awaken violent outbursts, almost on cue, all around the Muslim world against four-month old cartoons published in an obscure paper in Denmark. I am absolutely no expert in these matters. But I cannot help noticing what my eyes see.

The original cartoons from Denmark were not judged by the organizers to be shocking enough, and so they manufactured another three truly vulgar and disgusting cartoons to add to the published dozen. The long-planned and vigorously stoked demonstrations that eventually followed, months later, were manifestly political, highly approved of, where not positively organized by such governments as those of Syria and Iran, backed by a surrounding chorus among their neighbors.

But what exactly is the political aim of the ruthless apostles of terrorism, cruelty, violence, and destruction? To be as sophisticated by every means of terror to capture the fascination of the mass media, to inflame hordes of unemployed youths throughout the Muslim world, to intimidate the vast decent majority of Muslims by fear for their own children and grandparents, and to cause the old and new “crusader” nations to lose heart. These political dreamers and schemers really do intend to topple western governments, cow entire populations, and establish a vast empire of power and terror reaching from Asia to the Atlantic—and across the Atlantic.

If you do not believe me, and I am no expert, just read their own documents. Listen to what their seemingly crazed leaders say on their own seemingly semi-crazed smuggled tapes. One of these times, don’t just shrug and say, “He’s nuts!” One of these times, stop and think: “He means it. He really means it.” And note what they are doing. And where, month by month, year by year. And how it all hangs together. There has been a record now, for some twenty years and more.

These cynical political operatives are working from a position of great weakness. But since so very few outside their little conspiracies take them seriously, or pay attention to their moves and the sequences of those moves, they have advanced to the point where they are willing to provoke open civil war by blasting off the dome of one of the most sacred shrines of Shia Islam—while at the same time feigning outrage that a poor but brave editor in Denmark would publish a dozen cartoons, which even the conspiring imams found insufficiently shocking to stir up all the hostility they desired.

And the murderous operatives carried out their latest deed, only after the earlier cartoon offensive had done its immense damage to Western morale and self-confidence.

Naturally, the West is feeling guilty about the cartoons, and chillingly intimidated by the “Muslim reaction”—more exactly, by the contrived, heavily stimulated, long-contained, and deliberately timed demonstrations of focused political outrage against them—while failing to pay serious attention to the truly huge event that started off this week with a great boom.

That event, I have a hunch, might well be followed by another shocker fairly soon.

For the stakes for Iran—its nuclear future—and for Syria—its safety from within—and for the future of Hamas in Palestine, could scarcely be higher than they are just now. The most organized radical forces are poised to act in great concert. The moment is crucial for their future prospects.

Published in First Things February 23, 2006

Religion and the State Constitutions

The first amendment prohibited the federal government from making any laws “respecting” the establishment of religion (either for it or against it). Its intent was not to derogate from religion, but to signal its intense importance to the American people. Over the next 175 years or so, as new states entered the Union, the people of all but one of the states (Oregon) took care to give their belief in God prominence of place in the preambles of their state constitutions. Many of the preambles seem almost like opening prayers set before the text of the constitution of a free republic. They “invoke,” “recall,” “acknowledge with gratitude,” and express “reverence.” The reason for this appears to be that most Americans believe that liberty is a gift of God, and therefore that their opportunity to erect a republic is also a gift of God. Here is how the state constitutions read: Alabama, 1901: “We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.”

Alaska, 1956: “We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.”

Arizona, 1911: “We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.”

Arkansas, 1874: “We the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government; for our civil and religious liberty; and desiring to perpetuate its blessings; and secure the same to our selves and posterity; do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

California, 1879: “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”

Colorado, 1876: “We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice, insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for ‘the State of Colorado.’”

Connecticut, 1818: “The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy the blessings of liberty, free government, do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights, and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors, hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.”

Delaware, 1897: “Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.”

Florida, 1885: “We, the people of the state of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…”

Georgia, 1777: “We the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Hawaii, 1949: “We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island state, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by our state motto: ‘Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono.’”

Idaho, 1890: “We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution”

Illinois, 1870: “We the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which he hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois.”

Indiana, 1851: “WE, the people of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government, do ordain this constitution.”

Iowa, 1857: “We the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.”

Kansas, 1859: “We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.”

Kentucky, 1891: “We, the people of the Commonwealth, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Louisiana, 1921: “We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property… do ordain and establish this constitution.”

Maine, 1820: “We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God’s aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State…”

Maryland, 1867: “We the people of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare…”

Massachusetts, 1780: “We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

Michigan, 1963: “We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.”

Minnesota, 1857: “We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Mississippi, 1890: “We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Missouri, 1875: “We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the State.”

Montana, 1889: “We the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a State government, do, in accordance with the provisions of the Enabling Act of Congress, approved the twenty-second of February A.D. 1889, ordain and establish this constitution.”

Nebraska, 1875: “We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, do ordain and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government, as the Constitution of the State of Nebraska.”

Nevada, 1864: “We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.”

New Jersey, 1844: “We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this constitution.”

New Mexico, 1911: “We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

New York, 1846: “WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.”

North Carolina, 1868: “We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.”

North Dakota, 1889: “We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.”

Ohio, 1851: “We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.”

Oklahoma, 1907: “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Oregon: Religious language is not found in the preamble, but Article I, Section 2 of the State Bill of Rights asserts that “All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.”

Pennsylvania, 1874: “WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Rhode Island, 1843: “We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.”

South Carolina,1895: “We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.”

South Dakota, 1889: “We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of South Dakota.”

Tennessee, Section 3, 1870: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience.”

Texas, 1845: “We, the people of the republic of Texas, acknowledging with gratitude the grace and beneficence of God, in permitting us to make a choice of our form of government, do, in accordance with the provisions of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March first, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, ordain and establish this constitution.”

Utah: “Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.”

Vermont, 1777: “Whereas, all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever those great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent, to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness.”

Virginia, Section 16, 1776: “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

Washington, 1889: “We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.”

West Virginia, 1862: “Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the state of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity.”

Wisconsin, 1848: “We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this constitution.”

Wyoming, 1890: “We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Michael Novak holds the George Frederick Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Ashley Elizabeth Morrow is a graduate student of religion, culture, and public life at Harvard University.

Published in First Things February 8, 2006

Method in Their Madness

Conventional wisdom seems to say that the Left has gone around the bend, is jumping off cliffs, is stark raving mad. But there is a method in the madness of the Left. There has always been a method in it. The Left is not engaged in an “argument,” it is engaged in a revolution in the name of all that is just and right and good. Therefore, it does not aim to out-argue its opponents, but to shame them, to drive them from the field in ignominy, to make them figures of ridicule, moral indignation, and revulsion.

Go back and read your Lenin. Revisit the show trials. The point is that no one dares defend such bad people. (This tactic works. Think twice before defending Bush on a college campus. How much indignation can you bear?)

Better yet, watch Ted Kennedy in action. His attacks on Judge Alito, like his earlier attacks on Judge Bork, were not intended as arguments, and certainly showed little regard for fact. They were all bluster, moral indignation, character assassination, ridicule, ostracism. If words could kill, his were the words of an assassin.

This leftist tactic has worked for over one hundred years, because there are not many people who can stand unafraid before it. Most do not want to attract attention to themselves, lest its indignation and vituperation and moral ridicule be turned loose upon them. The tirades in which these words are launched—Senator Kennedy’s neck muscles bulge, his flesh turns bright red, his voice rises ever higher so as to forbid anybody–anybody–from interrupting him—are meant to enforce acquiescence, not consent. They are meant to intimidate, not to present an argument. They are meant to reduce to subservience all who are obliged to listen, even friends and associates (however embarrassed they might be).

Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin had mastered this Leninist trick himself, and turned it upon the Left. His every tonality and accent dripped ridicule and moral disdain. It is a method that can be learned by anyone. But Lenin was the first to put it in handbooks and train hundreds of agitators, organizers, cells, and units to use it.

Playing tapes of Senator McCarthy in some of his famous hearings and Senator Kennedy in the recent judiciary hearings would, I believe, be quite instructive as to the method. But why does this method work? As a method of last resort, it has the merit of intimidating good people into silence. It strikes fear into most hearts. Ridicule and moral opprobrium, and manifestations of sheer hatred for one’s very being, are not easy to bear, especially for conscientious and upright and morally sensitive people. Such persons, like Mrs. Alito, feel like bursting into tears. Those near them feel powerless and weak, unable to help, unable to make appeal.

Moreover, hatred spreads. Once the speaker licenses moral ridicule toward the accused, and destroys in him any semblance of moral character, truthfulness, or decency, on what ground will such a person stand? What shred of dignity is left to cover him? Such a person is unfit to be seen in the company of better people—the intention is to banish him. Don’t even consider him! Reject him! Cast him out!

To say that Senator Kennedy has become a bully is not enough. He is a destroyer of the moral dignity of persons.

When I was a boy, Democrats dominated everything. But Democrats since 1952 have held the White House only fitfully. They have lost the Senate. They have lost the House. They have lost the Supreme Court (which, although it is supposed to be independent of politics, was reconfigured to become the major motor of progressive reform). They have lost religious people, once their main base of support. They are losing popular appeal. But by turning back to their Old Left handbooks, the Democratic leadership has found the acids that destroy opposition. Even though the nation is in a deadly war, they constantly attack the credibility and truthfulness of the President, ridicule him, call him names, morally assassinate him. That acid seeps through society.

As to building a better country, there is not much in this method to commend it. But for destroying the moral standing of the other side, it has had proven effect for many decades. It is not crazy for Democrats to conclude that, having lost so much, they have little more to lose.

And even if it is crazy, there is method in it. Canonical method, approved method. In a democracy, alas, destroying the “in” power sometimes is sufficient for boosting the electoral success of the “outs.”

Published in First Things February 3, 2006