A recently released study from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, contrary to the analysis offerred by some observers, should give Americans renewed comfort in the founding concept that has, probably more than any other single element, fostered American exceptionalism among the nations.  This concept, based on the dual U. S. Constitutional guarantees of anti-religious establishment along with the free exercise thereof, has produced a healthy free market dynamism of religious tolerance and practice that is unique in world history.  

According to the study, 60% of Americans consider religion “very important”, compared to 12% for the French, for example, and 84% of Americans claim one of a broad range of religious institutional affiliations.  So what of its finding that 44% of American adults have switched religious affiliations at some point in their lives?  Although this might smack of ”cafeteria-style” religion to suit a lifestyle without doctrinal commitment, it seems attractively dynamic to me and describes the competitive religious marketplace free of coercion which the founders envisioned, except that they no doubt could not have forseen the amazing number of choices that would be available.  One more thing that is distinctive about America that has produced a “public” religion is the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which begins “We hold these truths to be self-evident………………….”.  This is the real source of American genius and exceptionalism, however it is practiced. 

On the other hand, among many in our establishment elite, this element of exceptionalism is not necessarily an asset or a characteristic to be praised, and this view is particulary evident among our foreign policy officials.  Writes Angelo Codevilla in the Claremont Review, ”Having concluded that mankind is outgrowing religion, our experts react to religion’s presence in the Islamic world–and in America–by inventing the distinction between “moderate” religion, acceptable because not taken seriously, and “fundamentalism”, i. e., actually believing in God and His commandments.”  This view inevitably leads to the conclusion that religion is the mother of all strife and the enemy of all progress in world affairs, and precludes an intelligent and honest discussion about why certain religious beliefs and expressions are preferable to others.  Unfortunately, this growing attitude among our elite that the prominence of religious faith in the public square is an American anachronism which the rest of the West has moved “beyond” is destructive to the very genius that underpins our exceptionalism, as well as a significant foundation of our moral authority. 

I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world.  I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.–William F. Buckley, Jr., God and Man at Yale, 1951.

Obviously, Bill Buckley had the essentials of the struggle pretty well nailed at a very young age and he pursued the battle identified in this quote with vigor and intensity, not to mention enormous success, for six decades.  When he re-founded the conservative movement in the mid-1950s, it was a mess.  He gave it order and coherence, a structure of ideas, relevance, sophistication, acceptability, and class.  As important, he marginalized and discredited the isolationists, the John Birchers, the anti-Semites, and other radical elements.

In some ways, his recent death was timely, because it comes at a watershed moment for the movement he helped found, a time when it is badly in need of another young Bill Buckley.  But it is also in need of a re-examination of what produced the success of the movement.  Many say it needs new ideas, that the founding principles of the Goldwater/Reagan revolutions are anachronisms, outdated by new realities.  David Brooks, for whom I have very high regard as an articulate observer of the landscape, is one of these.  He believes, for example, that supply side economics has run its course, tax cuts can no longer be a centerpiece of conservative Republican economic policy, that the “entrepreneur is no longer king”, that government must take an increasingly active role.  I couldn’t disagree more.  The so-called “opportunity society” built on lower tax rates, supply side economics, more competitive choices in public education and health care, and less punitive government regulation of business is exactly the core of the Reagan revolution that should be retained and advanced.  Not that government has no role, but its role should be as enabler, not as super-nanny.  If there is an ideology that is completely out of style, it is the concept of one size fits all government solutions to health care and retirement systems, as well as monopoly management of public education.  This is the Buckley legacy and it is worth preserving.

The elephant in the living room–the topic Washington won’t broach–is the dollar itself as a powerful but unused monetary policy tool………….probably the most important economic and investing variable in the last decade.  The best stimulus policy is a sound currency.–David Malpass, Chief Economist, Bear Stearns, Wall Street Journal.

No less an authority than Lenin well understood the importance of a sound currency in the stability of economies and societies and, in fact, said that there is no surer means of overturning the existing basis of a society than to debauch the currency.  We may not be near debauchery, but the trend is clear and the results are becoming traumatic.  In the last week of February, the dollar reached a new record low against the Euro, a six-year slide during which it has depreciated 40% versus the European currency and more than 20% against a broad index of currencies.  And what was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s response in testimony before Congress?  To point to the weak dollar as a rare bright spot in an otherwise gloomy economic picture because of its impact on exports, jobs, and the trade deficit!  Further, he indicated that the Fed will do whatever it takes to stop the subprime mortgage-induced credit squeeze from becoming a recession.  He couldn’t have been more clear in confirming that he has completely abrogated the Fed’s number one responsibility–the stability of prices and the value of the currency. 

And more recently, evidently believing that voluntary loan restructurings arranged between borrower and lender are not enough, he strongly urged lenders to begin discounting the principal balance of distressed mortgages to their borrowers, thereby restoring equity in the underlying collateral and the incentive to remain in the home.  Since when did the Federal Reserve, which has considerable responsibility for the soundess of the banking system, become the coercive supervisor of bank loan workout policy?  This puts him in virtually the same policy position as Congressman Barney Frank, except that the latter would then have the government refinance all the distressed mortgages, a path to the same disastrous ”solution” that we reached in the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980s with the Resolution Trust Corporation that converted a $10 billion problem into a $500 billion problem.  This is madness. 

The dual strategies of ignoring the restoration of the value of the dollar as a primary foundation of monetary policy and pursuing coercive credit restructuring procedures that infringe on the sanctity of contract and subsidize moral hazard are very dangerous for our economic health and will produce major unintended consequences.  

This spectacle of a race for the Democratic nomination for President is unlike anything any of us have seen in our lifetimes and seems to be transforming the entire electoral landscape that we have known for at least 30 years in ways that will not become entirely clear for years to come.  I have never seen a phenomenon like Obama and how he has captured the imagination of so many unlikely supporters.  He is probably farther to the left than any candidate who has come this close to the presidency since maybe Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party in the 1920s, but none of his supporters seem to care.  Have we come to this level of superficiality?  Has he really touched a meaningful chord of communitarianism?  Or will it become evident that “the emperor has no clothes” and buyers’ remorse will eventually overcome the charisma?

In a recent letter to the editor in The Houston Chronicle, a reader wrote, “As a long time Republican, I’ve got to say that Obama is someone I could live with.”  Think about that statement, even if it is possibly motivated by a desire to avoid Clinton.  Where is the core here?  It reminds me of a quote by Groucho Marx: “These are my principles, and if you don’t like them, I have others.”  But, all of this seeming incoherence aside, there is very little doubt that there is a pervasive sentiment abroad in the land that almost anything and anyone is acceptable as an alternative to more of the same from the past 20 years.  Where will that take us?  I don’t know, but we had better figure it out and come to our collective senses before November.