Seven Thought-Provoking Quotes by Friedrich Hayek

I discovered Friedrich Hayek in the 1980s when I took an increased interest in politics. I keyed in on the relationship between the individual and the state. As with everything else, my self-education begins with books. Two of the books I studied were Suicide of the West by James Burnham and The Road to Serfdom by Hayek.

Friedrich Hayek was an Austrian-British economist and philosopher who in 1974 was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. A leading figure in the classical liberal and libertarian movements, his ideas have been influential in the development of economic theory and political philosophy. Hayek was a critic of central planning and government intervention in the economy, and he argued that the free market is the best way to achieve economic prosperity and social justice.

The quotes here highlight Hayek's belief in the importance of individual liberty, limited government, and the free market. They also reflect his skepticism of central planning and his belief that the best way to achieve a prosperous and free society is to allow individuals to pursue their own interests without interference from the state.  

1. "The road to serfdom is paved with good intentions."
2. "The more the state interferes in the life of a nation, the less free the people will be." <Truckloads of examples can be found.>
3. "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become freer than it is."
4. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
5. "The use of force to prevent people from making mistakes is worse than the mistakes themselves."
6. "The ultimate foundation of a free society is the recognition of individual rights, not the aggregation of collective will."
7. "The worst form of inequality is to treat unequals equally."

Each of these statements could be elaborated on extensively. I thought the last of these deserved more comment here.

Hayek's statement "The worst form of inequality is to treat unequals equally" is a critique of the idea of equality of outcome. This is the idea that everyone should have the same level of wealth, income, and opportunity, regardless of their individual abilities and circumstances.

Hayek argued that equality of outcome is not only impossible to achieve, but it is also undesirable. People are not equally talented, nor equally motivated. It should be pointed out that equality of outcome is not the only goal of social policy. We should also consider the importance of individual liberty and economic efficiency.

Who Was the Worst President In U.S. History? I Nominate This One

Warren G. Harding was one of the worst they say.
His sex scandals weren't even a consideration
By that measure we'd see FDR, JFK, Bill C
and others listed as well.

When it comes to voting for the best and worst presidents in our history, one must first establish some criteria. Currently there's no doubt a large contingent who say there's no point asking the question. Trump is most obviously such an odious president that there's no point in going further with this discussion. C'est la vie.

What triggered this blog post, though, was a book title that caught my eye on Amazon.com with the title: The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. 

Really?

According to the promotional info on this book the author compiles more than 200 "inconvenient truths" to support his assessment including "his shocking abuses of taxpayer dollars; his bitterly divisive style of governing; his shameless usurping of the Constitution; his many scandals and cover-ups; his policy failures at home and abroad; the unprecedented expansion of government power...and more."

Now to be honest, in my opinion many of these accusations could be made against many presidents. Divisive? Abuses of taxpayer dollars? Policy failures? And as regards the last, "the unprecedented expansion of government power" I would suggest that the past 120 years of this nation has seen a continued and ongoing expansion of government power. The past three presidents have made "executive orders" a modus operandi for expanding the power of the executive branch. It's an innovation that frees presidents from bipartisan wrangling altogether. "Let's Make a Law" is practically a new program on The Game Channel.

So, I decided to ask Google and was directed to a U.S. News & World Report page that claimed it was able to identify our worst presidents.

The first listed was Zachary Taylor. His crime? He was a war hero who was utterly forgettable. He died in office and failed to complete his term, so I'm not sure he got a fair shake when it comes to making his mark. There are plenty of presidents who did more damage than that

Herbert Hoover gets the second nod, assuming we're going from worst to first. A poor communicator is his crime, as well as ushering in the Great Depression. Big problems create big opportunities for those who succeed in tackling them. Some of his decisions exacerbated, rather than alleviated, the challenges we faced as a nation. 

USN&WR gives John Tyler and Millard Fillmore a tie for 7th worst. Tyler was a defender of slavery and abandoned the party platform he was elected on. "You voted for me on this, but guess what? I am going to do my own thing now. Sorry, you losers." Fillmore's sins were greater still, beginning with the Missouri Compromise that permitted the spread of slavery. 

Warren G. Harding is tagged as sixth worst in this list. Scandals permeated his presidency I'm not sure he knew what his primary responsibilities were. "When the cat's away, the mice will play." 

William Henry Harrison died 30 days after giving his unnecessarily long inaugural address in the rain. I have a hard time saying he was a bad president. He never really had a chance to get any traction. 

Franklin Pierce. 

Franklin Pierce  is another of those presidents a majority of our citizens would be unable to identify in a final exam. It was his view that pursuing abolitionist would be a threat to the Union. Therefore, he acquiesced to the pro-slavery Southern Dems. "Staus Quo is the way to go," must have been his motto. "Don't rock the boat."

Andrew Johnson takes the #3 slot in this list. He opposed Reconstruction, was an enabler of carpetbaggers and scalawags, among other things. Ultimately there was an attempt to impeach him, but he was acquitted. These were turbulent times and it didn't help that he had a somewhat obstinate personality. Those first years after the Civil War would have been a trial for anyone.

USN&WR lists Donald Trump as #2 in this list of "worst" presidents. Whereas it's true that he never had more than a 50% approval rating, there were numerous presidents with a lower approval rating at the end of their service in the White House. Gallup Polls (measuring only since FDR) show Truman, Nixon, Carter and both Bushes to have the lowest approval ratings at the end of their tenures. In light of the ongoing media hostility toward the 45th president it's quite surprising his ratings were as high as they were.

According the this list, James Buchanan (1857-1861) gets to wear the moniker of "Worst President." He did nothing to stand in the way of the spread of slavery and set the stage for the secession by the Confederacy.

* * * 

Personally, I believe Millard Fillmore can't be far behind as an instrument of stupidity with regards to these matters. The absence of Andrew Jackson and his treatment of the Native peoples that resulted in the "Trail of Tears" seems an error somehow. 

You can probably poke a few holes in the inflated importance of Woodrow Wilson as well, in my estimation, the Ivory Tower President who really couldn't grasp the significance of many of the events unfolding in the aftermath of the First World War. His unrestrained use of propaganda to generate a hatred of Germans (our largest immigrant population) and Germany had consequences that extended far beyond his visual horizon. 

* * * 

Another Explanation as to Why the Founding Fathers Didn't Deal with the Slavery Issue

Many of us, if not most, have spent a lifetime cobbling together personal views on various issues from personal to global. Personal examples include: what do I want to do with my life? How do I want to spend my time this coming weekend? How am I going to come up with money to fix the car or get a new one? 

Then there are the wider issues. What should we be doing about illegal immigration? How much money should our government spend on space exploration? 

On most issues, most of us probably have an answer in our heads that satisfies us for the moment, or at least until the notion is seriously challenged, because most matters have pro and con arguments to support or oppose them. Is Democracy the best kind of government? Until a few summers ago this was a settled question for me. I am less sure than I used to be.

Was Abraham Lincoln our greatest president? Has the American Experiment run its course? Does the Bible teach that people should submit to the governing authorities or is the State the enemy?

I share the above by way of introduction to a new thought. Why didn't the Founding Fathers do a better job of dealing with the problem of slavery?

How would you answer that? Do you have some kind of pat answer that you've accepted as the reason slavery was permitted to continue alongside the pronouncement in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal"?

Somehow, the answer that I'd accepted some time back was that the most important issue in breaking free from England was to have a unified opposition amongst the Colonies. That is, I believed the Northern colonial territories were willing to put off the slavery question till a later date in order to address the pressing issue of the moment: Breaking from from England.

A NEW EXPLANATION

Ben Franklin

I'm currently reading a book called American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies in the Founding of the Republic, by Joseph J. Ellis. The subtitle pretty much spells out the author's intent here. Our history has been remarkable as regards its growth from backwoods colonialists to world power by just over 150 years, and dominant power by 200.

On the other hand, our track record with regard to this continent's native peoples, and with regard to the slavery issue, has been shamefully dreadful. (I think here, for example, of the black servicemen who defended our country in World War II, putting their lives on the line for freedom only to return to a Jim Crow South where they couldn't drink from "white" water fountains and had to sit in the back of the bus.)

How was England able to eliminate, without a Civil War, the institution of slavery in 1807? This seems remarkable to me. What took us so long?

Here's what Ellis explained. Keep in mind that a primary motivation for the Founding Fathers to break off from England was the odious experience of Centralized Power. As a result, when they wrote the Constitution, a primary aim was to restrict the powers of the Executive branch of government. 

Having thus set up a system where states had power to self-govern to the largest extent possible, it became increasingly problematic for the the Federal legislators and presidents to change the rules by which they governed. 

Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was noble, but did not have any teeth. If anything the Civil War's major achievement, apart from ending slavery, was to strengthen Federal power and transform the country into a single nation as opposed to being a collection of independent states.

Even so, the foundation of state independence still remains, as we've notably seen in the past year as governors respond in a variety of ways to the disruption of Covid-19.

Our past 100 years has seen a level of Federal consolidation unlike anything anticipated by the Founders. I'd be curious how they would have felt about the increasing quantity of legislation set in motion by Executive Orders in the last 20 years. 

All that aside, I look forward to reading Joseph Ellis' interpretation of this significant saga, the founding of our Republic.

* * * 

Day One of Black History Month: How Much Do You Know About Sojourner Truth?

“I am not going to die; I'm going home like a shooting star.” —Sojourner Truth

Today is the kickoff for Black History Month and I thought it appropriate to share a bit about Sojourner Truth, one of the earlier stories from our nation's history. In 1797, when she was born in New York (no precise date has actually been recorded) both her parents had been born in Africa (father in Ghana, mother Guinea) so that she was a first generation African American.

The family who owned her parents lived about 95 miles North of New York City, which really isn't that far from Woodstock.

When she was nine, Sojourner Truth was sold at an auction, along with a flock of sheep, for $100.

New York had passed a Gradual Emancipation Act that would have permitted her to gain her freedom in 1827 at age 30. She learned, however, that her owners were not going to let her go free, so she ran away with her infant daughter. Tragically she had to leave her five-year-old son behind. The slave owner in turn sold the boy to a plantation in Alabama, a thousand miles away. (Do you think he was being vindictive?)

When her freedom was declared official, she brought a lawsuit against this former owner for selling her son illegally, one of the first lawsuits in our history by a black woman against a white man. Amazingly, she won her case in court and got her son back. Oh happy day!

In 1843 she changed her name to Sojourner Truth and began traveling around the country speaking out against slavery and for women's rights.

Over the years I'd been familiar with her in name only and upon becoming acquainted with her story found her achievements quite astonishing, not only because of where her story began and all she'd been through, but because she was later so influential. This was a woman who never learned how to read and write, but her public speaking rattled the walls and challenged people's attitudes.

Sojourner Truth died in 1883 and was buried
in Battle Creek, Michigan.

Her most famous speech was titled, "Ain't I a Woman?"  This was ten years before the Civil War, nearly 170 years ago. How many of us who write today will be remembered in 170 years? 

I'm most impressed by her courage. (Impressed is an understatement.) Against seemingly impossible odds she fought for what what was right, speaking out against injustice.

Here are some quotes from this mighty woman. Her slant on some familiar Scriptures is amusing and pointed.

“Truth is powerful, and it prevails.” —Sojourner Truth

“If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!” —Sojourner Truth

“I have borne 13 children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me!” —Sojourner Truth

“How came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and woman who bore him. Man, where is your part?” —Sojourner Truth

“It is hard for the old slaveholding spirit to die, but die it must.” —Sojourner Truth

“I went to the Lord and asked Him to give me a new name. And the Lord gave me Sojourner, because I was to travel up and down the land, showing the people their sins, and being a sign unto them.”
—Sojourner Truth

You can learn more about her story here:
https://www.biography.com/activist/sojourner-truth

Courage Made Her Influential: Ida B. Wells

Ida Bell Wells

Last week when I shared A Little Girl’s Dream on my blog here, it prompted me to become more familiar with the stories of African Americans who were early pioneers in the pursuit of freedom and justice. Many of their names were familiar to me but I knew very few of their stories, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman preeminent examples.

While doing research this week for Black History Month (Feb 1-29) I came across a list titled the 100 Greatest Books by African American Women. It was an enlightening read. This blog post today on Dr. Martin Luther King Day is about one of these women, Ida Bell Wells.

* * * *
Ida born into slavery in 1862 during the Civil War in Holly Springs, Mississippi. Her parents were slaves till the 13th Amendment freed them after the war. In 1877 a yellow fever epidemic killed both of her parents while she was away visiting her grandmother.

The authorities would have split the family but she said she could raise her younger siblings, and took a test that enabled her to get a teaching job. Her only previous experience was teaching her younger brothers and sister.

One day Ida took a seat on a train but was forcibly removed to the smoking car. She sued the railroad and actually won a $500 settlement. The headline in the papers read, “Darkey Damsel Gets Damages.”

Naturally, the railroad didn’t like that outcome and took the matter to a higher court where the decision was reversed.

Ida wrote about these experiences for her church newspaper The Living Way, and even though she never received the money, she saw the impact her writing had on people who reacted to what she wrote. She was learning the power of the written word. In 1889 she became part owner of a black-owned newspaper called Free Speech and Headlight. For two more years she also continued teaching until she was dismissed for writing about conditions at the black schools.

Ida learned early the power of the written word, but it was her courage that most stands out. She wrote about what she saw in order that others would know what was going on.

Ida had friends who ran a black grocery store called The People’s Grocery, which was in competition with a white grocery store. An incident occurred which escalated. Three black men were taken to jail. Then, in the middle of the night 75 masked men came, took them from the Shelby County Jail and shot them dead.

It was this event that led Ida to begin investigating and writing about lynchings. After writing an editorial about another incident, her newspaper office was burned to the ground.

Ida married in Chicago and raised a family there.

Ida was in New York at the time her office was looted and destroyed. She was urged not to return and began writing from up North. She later moved to Chicago.

In 1892 Ida Wells began publishing her lynching research in pamphlet form It was titled Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases. The following year her lynching research was compiled in a book titled The Red Record. Frederick Douglass wrote the introduction.

She was invited to speak in England and Scotland. She spoke with eloquence and passion about the unfair treatment of blacks. Her pamphlets included disturbing photos of actual lynchings.

Ida claimed that "ten thousand Negroes have been killed in cold blood, [through lynching] without the formality of judicial trial and legal execution." She believed that the massive rise in such killing after the Civil War was because previous to the war Blacks had more value as “property” of the slaveholders.

Ida found support from white women involved with the battle for women’s rights, becoming friends with Susan B. Anthony and others in the movement.

In 1928 she began working on her autobiography, but it was never finished. She died in 1930 after an influential career. Her story was published posthumously four decades later in 1970. For more than half a century she used her writing skills to promote freedom, safety, and justice.

* * * *
Information for this brief bio came from the Walter Dean Myers' book Ida B. Wells: Let the Truth Be Told and Wikipedia.

Related Links
12 Facts About Marting Luther King, Jr. That You May Not Know
Who Killed Dr. Martin Luther King?

Thoreau on Slavery and a Pre-Civil War Poem by Thomas J. Lees

Many of us when we think of Thoreau think of Walden, of peaceful reflection, of quiet and contemplation. We recall to mind the influence his ideas on nonviolent resistance had on men like Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But people are seldom so one-dimensional as to be summed up in such a snappy pigeon-hole, and Thoreau is no exception.

While reading this summer I came across a reference to Thoreau's support for the actions of John Brown* and it sent me to inquire further.

For those unfamiliar, John Brown's 1859 raid is usually cited as a critical event leading up to the Civil War. The raid was an attempt by Brown, a radical abolitionist, to start an armed slave revolt by seizing a United States arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Brown's raid was defeated by a detachment of U.S. Marines led by Col. Robert E. Lee, whose opinion of the man was that he was insane.

In response to John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry, Henry David Thoreau two weeks later delivered a speech in support of John Brown's actions.

Thoreau had delivered his lecture “The Character and Actions of Capt. John Brown” for the first time in the vestry of the First Parish Meetinghouse in Concord... He delivered the speech that evening to a crowd of twenty five hundred at the Tremont Temple, and the lecture was widely reported in the newspapers.**


What struck me about this is how contradictory it seemed to and at odds with what many would believe to be his Pacifism. How could Thoreau endorse John Brown's use of violence to achieve a noble end?

Though we associate Thoreau with the idea of non-violent resistance, here in his Tremont Temple lecture Thoreau gives the strongest support possible to a man who three years earlier lead a group of anti-slavery partisans to assault and kill five pro-slavery settlers in Kansas in the Pottawatomie massacre. Thoreau makes John Brown out to be a hero. It would appear that when it comes to changing society Thoreau's support for Brown seems to put him more in alignment with the Black Panthers and Irish Republican Army (IRA) than the non-violent attitudes of Gandhi and Dr. King.

* * * *

Last week I acquired a copy of Stories and Verse of West Virginia, compiled by Ella May Turner (copyright 1923.)  The following poem, titled Slavery, appears on pages 34-35. The poem by Thomas J. Lees, a native of New Jersey, was written while he was living in Wheeling in what was then Virginia before it broke off in 1863. He also wrote poems that addressed women's issues, how little they were paid for their labors and their limited rights as people.

Slavery

On seeing a drove of Africans pass through  certain town in Virginia, Bound in Chains

Hark to the clang! What means that sound?
'Tis slavery shakes its chains--
Man dragging Man in fettes bound,
And this where freedom reigns!

Say, what have these poor wretches done,
That claims their lot should be?
Are they not punished to atone
For some great robbery?

Or deeds of bloody homicide,
Or treason 'gainst the land?
Ah! no--to pamper human pride,
Man chains his fellow man!

God's noblest work, through thirst for gol,
Is thus to market driven
Like herds of cattle, bought and sold,
By Christians! heirs of heaven!

Great God! does such hypocrisy
Not call for vengeance due?
Shall Freemen shout for Liberty,
And act the tyrant too!

Columbia's Sons, why will ye nurse
The serpent on your soil?
Why hug ye that which threats to curse
The fruit of all your toil?

Think ye that heav'n will bless the hand
That deals in huan blood? ----
It cannot be--this impious land
Must feel the wrath of God!

* * * *

*http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/thoreau_001.asp
**http://pastispresent.org/2011/good-sources/a-story-you-probably-didnt-know-about-john-browns-body-douglass-emerson-and-thoreau/

Religion in the Public Square

Yesterday I mentioned a few themes from the book Founding Brothers, but I avoided the issue of religion in the public square because there was insufficient space to make a point I wanted to explore.

The manner in which the slavery issue was debated throughout early American history exemplifies, probably more than any other, the challenge of bringing religion into public debate. The Quakers were quite vocal against it from the beginning, but their voices were dismissed because they were also pacifists who had been against the revolution itself. To some extent there was a condescending attitude toward the Quakers because although they were "nice" and "good" their views were not practical.

The tragedy (one of many, actually) with regard to Christians bringing the Bible to bear upon political issues like slavery is that the slaveholders were themselves church-going Bible-believing Christians who quoted the Scriptures to defend their way of life. Even after the end of slavery, these same believers went on to defend racist policies and fight against the very principles of freedom for all which the revolt against England was all about.

This unfortunate misuse of the Bible within the context of politics is not a uniquely American phenomenon. In Britain, during the Irish potato famine of the mid-nineteenth century Christians in Parliament argued that the people of Ireland should not be fed or helped in any way because it was a judgment of God.

Does this mean Scripture does not apply to political battles? Am I suggesting that Christians should have no voice in the political process? Absolutely not.

My personal belief is that the Ten Commandments, for example, are not true and good because God said them. Rather, they are true and good because God is a loving God and He understands how the soul works and the human social order works, that murder and adultery and lying are behaviors that damage communities and ourselves as well. It is in our best interest to live in harmony with the underlying rules of the universe we find ourselves in.

This may be an oversimplification for the sake of brevity, but I take it to the public square in the following manner. When arguing our case, whether it be for life affirmation or against the wrongfulness of treating humans as property, we must speak into the culture without the religious jargon and hardline arrogance that says, "My view is God's view." As mortals, can any of us have an absolutely perfect understanding of the ramifications of every situation, every piece of congressional legislation?

In point of fact, everything is easy in the ethereal realm of ideas and ideals, but it gets messy when you pull it down into the broken mess that is our world today. First, being a hardliner makes it very hard to find common ground to negotiate solutions with your enemies. Second, a thing may be "wrong" to one person but all the solutions are equally bad. Numerous examples can be cited.

Bottom line: our philosophical approach as Christians in the public square must be one of being Biblically informed, but we can't march into the arena spouting Bible verses and expect to have influence. Bible-wavers have been on both sides of nearly every ethical issue, from slavery to Viet Nam.

Our attitude must be one of humility and teachableness. The real need in the public square is for truth, compassion and justice to prevail. These are values for which banners must wave and for which all Christians must speak up. Our world is broken. How can we not make some attempt to be agents for healing and restoration?

The Fighting Never Ends

"I don't think this is a very bright page in American history." ~ Robert Kennedy

I've been reading a biography of James K. Polk called... Polk. He's not someone the average citizen really knows much about, despite being a U.S. president. He pretty much gets lumped in with a host of other unknowns like Harrison, Tyler, Taylor and everyone's favorite unknown Millard Fillmore.

Polk really did make some significant moves, nearly doubling the size of the United States through aggressive negotiations with England to take Oregon and a dubious war with Mexico to secure Texas to California. The book is loaded with anecdotes and details which I certainly have no space for, but the net net is this: Polk, the book, is a worthy read.

In my junior year in high school we had a great set of team teachers who provided a more complex view of U.S. history than we'd previously encountered. Our studies of the Mexican war were especially interesting, told from the point of view of Mexico. It wasn't pretty. Especially when the philosophical underpinnings were melded with the religious notion of Manifest Destiny. It is God's will that we steal these lands, because we will put them to better use than they can.

As the war drums began to sound, a homely looking skinny representative from Illinois stood up in Congress and called the president on the carpet saying this war had no right to be. Mr. Lincoln's arguments failed to win the day, and the war was carried to its ignominious conclusion.

Like many wars, the Mexican war continued to be "fought" long after the bullets stopped flying, hence Bobby Kennedy's comment during a trip to Indonesia in 1962. Upon hearing this remark, Vice President Lyndon Johnson released his own volley of venom, defending the history books by calling our Texas land grab "a bright page indeed."

Ironically, the former Texas senator helped immerse us in yet another controversial war, this one in Southeast Asia, a war that nearly split the country. More than forty years later, this war too is being debated, its motivations and costs and value heavily examined and re-interpreted. Unpopular war, yes. Yet many still defend its ends, despite the manner in which it was executed.

The 21st century introduced yet another controversial war. Just last week I saw an article saying this war, maligned as it is, will look different fifty to a hundred years from now. I do not wish to comment on that. My only comment here is that I'm willing to guess that fifty to one hundred years from now, we will still not have consensus, and somewhere someone will be arguing about it with someone else who disagrees with them.

Oh well...

One more trivial piece I learned from this biography about our second president from Tennessee. He was a slave owner. Almost immediately after leaving office he died, probably from the stress of this demanding occupation. In his will he freed his slaves... which would go into effect when his wife passed away. Unfortunately for the slaves, his wife lived 42 more years. Fortunately for the slaves, that skinny fellow from Illinois became president in twelve years, and declared those slaves free men in 15. Such are the twists and turns of history.

Christian Anarchy

It might be worthwhile to make a differentiation between Christian anarchy and Marxism, which looks to anarchy as the path to a new world order. Marxism endorses violence. Christianity cannot.

Jacques Ellul, in his book Anarchy and Christianity, notes that the achievements of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were accomplished by virtuous means. By way of contrast, the Black Panther movement did not advance the cause of black liberation that it purportedly intended.

Political power corrupts. And against this corruption we must take a stand.

Ellul notes that once we rule out violence as an option, we must resort to persuasion, “the creation of small groups and networks, denouncing falsehood and oppression.”

Dr. Glenn Martin, in his book Prevailing Worldviews, points out how the institution of slavery was ended in England without violence through persuasion, and the tireless efforts of a few important voices. Even though it took more than forty years, spearheaded by the Society of Friends (Quakers) and politician/philanthropist William Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was ultimately accomplished without bloodshed.

By way of contrast, the U.S. experienced a torrid Civil War as a result of the activist revolutionary approach to the problem of slavery. Yes, there were some who sought slavery’s termination by peaceful means, but the revolutionary approach ultimately superceded the tireless efforts of the persistent persuaders. According to Martin, actions like the Nat Turner rebellion, which left eighty persons dead, set back the cause of peaceful negotiation, and helped fortify the deeply entrenched status quo of slavery.

It reminds me of the story of the wind and the sun. Each made a bet to see who could force a desert traveler to remove his cloak. The wind went first, blowing fiercely, but the more savagely the wind assaulted, the more firmly the man clutched his linen. Then the sun took his turn, and we all know how that story ends.

Lest I babble indefinitely, let me cite two additional observations from Ellul’s challenging book.

1. “Our experience today is the strange one of empty political institutions in which no one has any confidence any more, of a system of government which functions only in the interests of a political class, and at the same time of the almost infinite growth of power, authority, and social control which makes any one of our democracies a more authoritarian mechanism than any Napoleonic state.” ~ p. 22

2. “Most people, living heedlessly, tanning themselves, engaging in terrorism, or becoming TV slaves, ridicule political chatter and politics. They see that there is nothing to hope for from them. They are also exasperated by bureaucratic structures and administrative bickering.” ~ p. 23

To be sure, it would be nice if everything were black and white, which it will never be. But let’s not be lulled into the stupor of non-thinking, quasi-acceptance of all that is, as if it cannot be any different.