Skip to content

No Corn Fields for Scholars

January 27, 2021

As founding President of a solely Internet-based online University, I was approached by a person who wanted to deed land for use as a college or University. In 2,004 another grant of land in a remote area of Colorado was deeded to something called Julius Caesar University.

Thank God nothing came of that venture. The latest university founder has leased an ancient monastery in a remote Italian village and has attracted the interest of Steve Bannon who wants to train political “nationalists” in taking power.

Nothing will come of that either.

A college or university is a complicated organization and the worst thing to do is start a university in a corn field or remote village.

In the context of fourth‑century Athens, the Platonic philosophers engaged in dialogue in order to answer questions which arose from within the political community of the polis. Their philosophic discussions occurred in reference to problems of political order, arose in response to the political and moral decay of Greek culture, and was in that sense “political.”

In my experience, the worst physical locations for a college or university are South Bend, Indiana, Grove City, Pennsylvania and Hillsdale, Michigan. These remote locations are where campuses of Notre Dame, Grove City and Hillsdale College are located. All three were founded by religious institutions Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam  and character education.

These institutions were not designed to accommodate the intellectual creativity of scholars.

Major cities such as Los Angeles and New York are cities where the best and brightest gather to shape culture. Even Pittsburgh where I was raised and where I attended undergraduate school was a better place for creative minds than South Bend, Grove City or Hillsdale.

If you are very wealthy and want to leave a legacy that enriches American society by founding a college or university, do not look for a corn field.

President Biden’s War

January 27, 2021

A political ideology that we can call “Internationalism” developed during the early part of the 20th century. Though very much representative of “enlightened” ideas shared by intellectual classes in the West, none were original and, if they had any philosophical basis, they could be traced to Immanuel Kant’s essay on Perpetual Peace (1795) and the influence of German idealism.

Idealist humanism, which our Transcendentalists brought to America, replaced God with a new man-god– mankind–and viewed history as the working out into consciousness of the divinity of man.

The belief that international law would replace war was rooted in the Enlightenment concept of “progress” and encouraged Woodrow Wilson to propose the idea of a “League of Nations.”  Wilson believed that relations between nations–as practiced by the European powers from their origins up WW I– were the main obstacle to world peace and willingly engaged the United States in the first World War in order to destroy “balance of power politics.”

In other words, it was necessary to use warfare in order to assure universal peace.

That mixture of Liberal internationalism and advocacy of use of military force may be seen in books by the President of the Council for Foreign Relations, Richard N. Haass. Haass is concerned about the developing nuclear arsenal of North Korea and advocates a policy that does not exclude a first strike. Coincidentally, Jeb Bush called for a first strike against North Korea during the 2016 campaign for the GOP Presidential nomination.

Bush’s brother, President George W. Bush, also believed in the use military force–to achieve peace–of course.

The Internationalist wing of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party Establishment are in agreement on use of war to achieve peace. These advocates of international law have built into the system of international organizations a “hair trigger” mechanism set to authorize use of military force on behalf of humanitarian causes and violations of United Nations resolutions.

The United States has not unilaterally ceded its sovereignty to the United Nations, however, and has always affirmed the right to use force for reasons of state, or national interest. But, the ideology of Internationalism of our intellectual classes, like the Nicene Creed for Christians, encourages service to a higher order.

Within two years, Internationalist ideologues in the GOP will join the Biden Administration as it prepares to start a war on behalf of world peace.

Engineers and Deep Doo-Doo

January 27, 2021

Engineers and Deep Doo-Doo

Recently the President at Marquette, Michael Lovell, attempted to fire a tenured professor who wrote a distinctly anti-Political Correctness “outing” of a Marquette University teaching assistant.

And this week, Frank Doyle, dean of Harvard’s John A. Paulson School of Engineering & Applied Sciences (SEAS), cancelled a course on a counter insurgency policing technique because students protested that the procedure was designed for control of militants in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The instructor in the course, Kit Parker, is a Biologist who serves as a “colonel in the United States Army Reserve and has served two combat tours in Afghanistan where he was awarded the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal with V device, and the Combat Infantryman’s Badge. He was also selected to serve on the Gray Team, a science advisory team assembled by the Joint Chiefs. As the operations officer of this team, he completed two additional missions to Afghanistan in 2011 to assess and report on issues pertaining to combat casualties and their care.”

In both instances, the engineers at Marquette and Harvard put their feet into “deep doo-doo” and thus sustained a general impression that engineers in academe are not astute politicians.

There are so many of them serving as college presidents, provosts and academic deans that I am compelled to ask why?

My answer in the case of Marquette was that Michael Lovell was “chosen by Marquette University academic factions because he is malleable” and had they chosen a Marxist, or another type of radical activist, wealthy donors would cease giving to Marquette.

Engineers are considered “safe” but they do step in “deep doo-doo.”

The GOP’s New Leader

January 21, 2021

President Trump challenged the GOP by adopting policies contrary to the Internationalist direction in which the nation had been directed by both parties since World War II.

Why he took the Party and the Nation in that direction was never explained and his loss in the 2020 election, Impeachment and likely conviction will remove him from an active and traditional role in American politics.

He may try to work from outside the system by extra-legal methods, but that leaves a GOP in search of new leadership.

Fortunately from an otherwise banal group of Trump Administration appointees one genuine leader stands out. If he takes the initiative as I expect, Mike Pompeo, will lead the Republican Party back from oblivion.

He can do that by countering Progressives in the new Biden Administration on issues where their policies are not based in reality: environment, carbon emissions, race, education, equality and gender.

By meeting proposals of this loopy element seeking control of American government with reality-based policies, these “Progressives” can be pushed back into the recesses where diseased spirits are generated: higher education, government agencies of the Deep State and the churches and theological seminaries, both Catholic and Protestant, where “faith” is converted into a “religion” of social activism.

Mike Pompeo, a graduate of West Point and first in his class, is a former Congressman, former Director of the CIA and U.S. Secretary of State, and most important for Republican Politics, Pompeo is an Italian-American. He is a young 58 years of age, and fervently “patriotic.”

Ever since Communist China released the Covid-19 virus and did not alert the United States of the danger that virus presented to the United States and other countries, President Trump did not turn the other cheek. He unleashed Mike Pompeo to lead that attack.

On July 23, 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave an address at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California that spelled out the Trump Administration’s position on U.S./Communist China relations. Given the importance of this retaliatory policy– and the likelihood of its reversal by a Biden Administration—I encourage everyone to watch Mike Pompeo’s remarks and consider that he gave them at a Presidential library not Harvard. Ordinarily the remarks of a U.S. Secretary of State are archived for access at the State Department’s website, but the foreign service “officers” at State have “deep-sixed” the transcript.