It is a point of agreement, generally, that a healthy Republic--or a democracy--has as a prerequisite an educated electorate. Few would contend that the state of education in the United States is in nothing short of a deplorable condition (we can argue why on some other occasion), it is nothing short of amazing that the most educated in this country are also those who seem to rely most on emotive fear as a key motivation for their political views.

The recent attacks on Sarah Pelin, and the Middle America she represents, I find astounding. In particular, the shrill yawlp by Matt Damon, obviously quaking in his boots at the prospect of a religious person in the White House, "with the nuclear codes," epitomizes the far left's failure to recognize their own beliefs as a religion. While the Hollywood elite represent only a component part of those who fear a Bush-Cheney-McCain-Pelin theocracy, the view echoes also in academia and among those left-wing supporters of the Democratic party.

It is frankly ridiculous that any Republican would institute anything like a theocracy in the United States. Certainly there are those who would, but they are not found amongst the Middle America supporters of Sarah Pelin or even the unpopular Bush administration.  Republicanism is all about maximizing liberty, which has as a prerequisite a respect for diverse expression. But as my wife is so fond of saying, "the First Ammedment does not protect one from being offended--in fact, precisely the opposite is true. It virtually guarantees that everyone will be in some way offended."

But being offended does not convey, as the Left so often proposes, a right to be free from hearing contrary opinions. In supporting such anathema as the so-called "fairness" doctrine--and the use of Leninist redefinition to control the argument is obvious here--they prove just how uninterested they are in the cornerstone of American democracy--the right of free speech. The Republican idea is to provide the freedom of all caring citizens to participate, leaving the free market of ideas to sort the good ideas from the bad.

But there is a problem. When education breaks down, messianic demogoguery can replace reasoned debate. This perhaps partially explains the emotive foundation for political party affiliation in our country, because those who are largely uneducated will fall for any pap with great promises, regardless of its basis in fact. This accounts, I believe, for Obama's popularity, his messianic image that stands not so much on its own but for the hatred of the Left for the Bush Administration.

Why, then, are the most educated in this country the most suceptible to his empty messages? I would submit that those who are the most educated in this country are so specialized in their pursuit of knowledge that they lose perspective. Many of those who are educated believe, like Woodrow Wilson, that humans have somehow evolved beyond war and violence. The Bush Administration, in this view, in its readiness to commit the United States to war, is less highly evolved than they simply because the President and his advisors view state violence as a legitimate tool of policy. But their opposition, amongst a rational elite, should be expressed as a rational debate. This isn't the case, however--they argue instead based on fear and hatred (Perhaps the hatred comes from a fear of war and violence). But it comes across not as argument, but hatred.

Hatred and fear. These are old, tribal emotions that have been with us since the dawn of time. It is possible, perhaps, that Middle America, in pursuing the joy and advancement of their families have aligned themselves not with the overwhelming negative emotive message of the modern Democratic party but with the messages of hope, the belief in the strength of our country and our system?

Like most zealots, Matt Damon and those like him fail to recognize the extremity of their position and see all those who disagree not only as wrong, but as dangerous. It has been often observed that the most unforgiving and unyielding point on the modern American political spectrum is the far left, which labels all contrary opinion with its own brush--as zealotry.

So long as our educational system lies in tatters, the risk of demogoguery from either the right or the left is potent, particularly in days of challenge that await an increasingly dangerous world. While the vast center is generally silent in political debate, it looks like Sarah Pelin has solidly connected and, if the numbers are right, has tapped into that reserve of common sense from Middle America that Obama, Matt Damon and those like him so despise.

Reading over one of the comments on Hugh Hewitt's blog entry today, commenter athingortwo characterized the American voter as, "by and large, a sentient being." His point was that during the upcoming debates, the viewers would decide for themselves which candidate was sentient and rational and which wasn't.

I agree completely that the American people are, for the most part, practical, rational people who pursue their lives through their families and their local communities, supported by hard work and all resting on American liberty, structured as it is on the theory that the "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable [sic] right. Unfortunately, voting patterns and party support do not necessarily correlate with the policies that such such practicality might suggest. 

Living in California as I did for nearly eighteen years, first as a student and later as a senior level manager during the Internet boom, I had the opportunity on many occasions to cross philosophical swords with otherwise intelligent people who were reflexively liberal (the meaning of the words conservative and liberal have indeed become hijacked, but I'll pursue that idea later). Defending what seemed to me practical thoughts on policy and national direction was in those days to invite derisive or even angry invective. Oddly, so long as the affinity with conservatism or Republicanism were hidden, it was surprisingly easy to gain agreement on these same questions.

Moving to Texas (the DFW area) seeking better schools at a better price and more favorable environments for both political and business activities, we were surprised to find the opposite case. Again, most people my wife and I have debated with in either academic or social circles could rationally discuss politics and national issues, such as the proper level for the national safety net, the need for improved education and personal responsibility, abuses by judges, the need for a strong defense, etc. (Iraq excepted), and any disagreements were/are conducted along rational lines. But just infuse party identification in any way, and suddenly the rational dialogue seems to disappear, heralding a shift to emotional appeal. Now there were (thankfully) people whose instincts led them to support more conservative policies, but very few could actually articulate why they felt a given policy was right or wrong, but they supported their affiliation anyway.

I know brilliant, otherwise rational historians who, when building an argument for their fear or hatred of the Bush administration, fall back on statistical or heresay evidence that they would rip apart as unqualified if it was presented in the same way within their chosen field of study. Their arguments are logical and well thought out, certainly, but the usual rigor applied to the foundational data is relaxed when disucussing political issues (they would, of course, be aghast at this suggestion, but they don't see it).

I am coming to the conclusion that voters largely identify with their party for emotive, rather than rational reasons. I am coming to believe that the institutions of party evoke emotional responses quite apart from policy realities. It seems very much as if people identify with a party not because they agree necessarily with its policy platform, but because their community does. They may define their community in different ways--family, workplace, friends, church, fellow hobbyists--but by and large, they go with the flow in the groups whose membership means the most to them. If someone comes from a family of Democrats, or if their co-workers are overwhelmingly of one party or the other, or their chosen social circle is, then they are too, no matter what they think about the component issues.

So I agree that most Americans are not only sentient but perceptive--in all areas except for this one area. For some reason, when it comes to politics, we emote. I for one am hoping that in this election season, the appeal of security, experience, and common sense will prevail over the vague message of change for the sake of change that seems to be the only touchstone of the Obama campaign.

I've been deeply impressed in the last few years with the energizing potential that talk radio has had on what I consider to be the mainstream of American political opinion. Commentators such as Hugh Hewitt have created a dialog based not on the emotive slogans that have long been the mainstay of the left, but rather a citadel built of bricks based on American culture and bonded with the mortar of reasoned argument. The result is an impressive monument to the polis--to the democratic basis that is the glory of liberty. I would like first to salute all of those pioneers--especially Rush Limbaugh--for their trailblazing efforts. Add those who I have found a particular joy in listening to, such as  Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager and Dennis Miller, and I am well pleased to add my own voice to the envigorating chorus of political debate that characterizes this present-day Athens.

I became a Reagan conservative almost from the start, responding to his fiscally conservative and firm mission of defense in the age of the threat of nuclear conflict. My father was an Air Force SAC officer, so I lived with the reality of of the SIOP plan and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) throughout my formative years. The Cold War wasn't quite so cold for us, since wherever we were was likely fairly high up on the Soviet targeting list. But under this Damaclean threat, I found as a young student that the beating pulse of American culture thrived not in the collective impulse pushing in from Europe, but rather in elements of individual liberty--both political and economic--that seemed to drive American innovation. And this innovation, this vibrant drive to make things better on an individual basis, built an amazing economic engine that, as Alan Greenspan so eloquently emphasized in his recent book, a resilience capable of overcoming even the potentially annhiliating threat of a Mexican-type nuclear standoff. Resting our economic freedom on a bedrock of military strength, we have been able to defend our liberties in the face of successive threats, and I for one intend to defend these liberties that give us such a cultural strength. It is precisely this strength that draws the envy and ire of our present opponents, but I have faith that we will be able to drive ahead and, so long as we avoid the collective traps which have seduced much of Europe, to prevail.

Professionally I am a writer, publisher and teacher of history at the University of North Texas, one of the few universities I have found where some number of the faculty have sympathy with conservative ideas. I am also a teacher of Western martial arts, European arts recorded in fighting treatises of the 14th and 15th centuries. I find both the combat and philosophical aspects of this Art reinforces my political, economic and cultural beliefs, because the arts emphasize individual initiative, innovation and personal valor in service of doing one's duty. Like sports, pressing against another thinking, striving human being--yet sharing camaraderie with that same opponent--is a hallmark of the healthy competition that epitomizes our exceptional American culture.

In this blog I intent to comment on events as they unfold, linking my studies of the past with the events of the future in an effort to add some small contribution to the dialog that is our democracy.

Brian R. Price
Principale, Schola Saint George
Publisher, Chivalry Bookshelf