Alexander Solzhenitsyn, RIP

It is difficult to underestimate the effect that Alexander Solzhenitsyn had on his time. With the Gulag Archipelago, he pulled back the veil and forced Western leftist fellow-travelers to confront the reality of Soviet communism.

He was hardly an uncritical observer of the West. He had the temerity to address a Harvard University commencement in the late 1970's, and remind the gathered elite that the motto of their university was Veritas -- proceeding to point out that a purely secular and humanistic pursuit of the truth, such as he knew was the norm at Harvard, is doomed to failure.

...we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.

In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.

Solzhenitsyn's critiques of the West, however, usually came in one of two forms -- he harshly criticized the West's increasing rejection of traditional religion, and he criticized the West for not being willing to stand up for itself in the face of Communism. While he noted "the similarity of the disease" rotting the West to that which had destroyed humane (as opposed to humanistic) culture in the East, Solzhenitsyn never bought into the idea of moral equivalence between the free world and the communist world. He knew too much, and knew better.

His critiques of the Soviet bloc were one's designed to help bring those regimes crashing down -- his critiques of the West were the "faithful wounds of a friend," as the Scriptures put it.

Solzhenitsyn was a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, and it is perhaps telling that he died on the feast day of the prophet Elijah on the Russian calendar. Like Elijah, Solzhenitsyn was reviled for telling truth that the rulers of his time didn't want to hear. Both men were exiled to desert places, and remarkably survived. At one point, Elijah tells God that those who persecute him "have digged down Thine altars, and have slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I only am left alone, and they seek my life to take it." Could this not have been the story of Solzhentisyn's own life in which he must have felt as though he was a lone voice in the wilderness?

Of course, God reminded Elijah that there were yet 7000 who had not "bent the knee" to the false gods of his time, and one can be sure that Solzhenitsyn likewise learned over time that he was hardly alone. But his stances won him few friends among the elite intellectuals in the West, the longer he stayed here.

One recalls Malcolm Muggeridge, appearing on William F. Buckley, Jr.'s "Firing Line." The Oak and the Calf had recently been published, and Muggeridge (no stranger to the vicious attacks of former admirers) predicted that Solzhenitsyn's book, because of its unapologetically Christian character, would result in "the hounds being set on him" by the secular-minded Western press and intellectual world. Muggeridge was certainly right about that.

Solzhenitsyn was, like all great writers, someone for whom a mere reference to his "complexity" hardly suffices. While the different phases of his life and work can be categorized and parsed endlessly, what should ultimately be remembered are books like The First Circle -- still as fresh and piercing today as they were when they were written 40 years ago.

Just one scene in that book illustrates what Solzhenitsyn brought to his fiction: The scientist (and political prisoner in a forced labor camp for high-level scientists) Gleb Nerzhin sits across the desk from a man who assumes that Nerzhin will be trembling with fear. Instead Nerzhin calmly tells the official that when the state takes everything away from a man, it has unintentionally set him free again, since there is nothing left for that man to lose. In that moment, the official realizes that it is he who is actually feeling fear, something from which Nerzhin is paradoxically free.

Solzhenitsyn wrote with the power of someone who had experienced losing everything -- and who had also experienced the freedom that comes with having nothing left to lose. At the heart of his writing and his life was a simple principle: do not take part in "the lie." Not bad advice for anyone living in any country in any time. And never is it easy advice to follow.

Like great writers who are more attentive to their pursuit of the truth than to cultivating popular celebrity, he was no stranger to controversy. But that voice speaking the truth as he saw it will be missed. The Nobel Laureate will long be read. The visionary will be remembered. Prayers will be said around the world for his soul and for his family.

As the Russians would say, "Vechnaya Pomyat!" Memory Eternal...

________________________

Update 8/4/2008 -- Read the fine editorial that appears in National Review today -- the beginning of what is sure to be a great outpouring of gratitude and praise.

Jesse Helms, RIP

Sen. Jesse Helms was to liberals what Sen. Edward Kennedy is to conservatives -- a convenient whipping boy who symbolized all that was hated about the opposition. Like Kennedy, he was a great fundraiser for the opposition. Groups like the ACLU should build great shrines to Jesse Helms because of all of the money he helped them raise by being one of their designated bogeymen.

It was somehow fitting that this great American died on the 4th of July, since he was a true patriot who loved his country and served it well.

Among his many accomplishments were two things:

1. Without Jesse Helms, Ronald Reagan would likely never have been elected President. Reagan had a string of primary losses to Gerald Ford in 1976, and was down for the count. Jesse Helms was responsible for the strategy and implementation of Reagan's win in the North Carolina primary, which boosted him to what ended up being a challenge to Ford that the latter won only by a whisker. Reagan came into the convention with half of the delegates, and stole the show with his impromptu speech at the end. From that point he was the presumptive nominee for 1980, and had grassroots organization in every corner of the country by the end of the campaign.

Had Reagan lost in North Carolina, he would have had to drop out of the 1976 race, and he wouldn't have had the organization in place, and he would have had a hard time making the case in 1980 that a conservative could win the nomination and the Presidency. Thank you, Jesse Helms.

2. Sen. Helms instituted the practice of forcing roll-call votes in a U.S. Senate that had increasingly adopted the practice of shuffling legislation on through without Senators having to go on record. Helms thought that Senators shouldn't be able to hide whether they did or didn't support a specific piece of legislation, and he forced roll-call vote after roll-call vote.

In the political climate of the time, this had the added benefit of leading to the electoral defeat of many a liberal Senator who had heretofore been able to portray a more moderate image back home. But even without that, the now routine practice of making Senators go on record should be applauded by all who value transparency in government.

Latin Mass in Missoula -- and random thoughts on conservatism and religion

Carol over at Missoulopolis noted last month that the Latin mass had returned to her area.

While doing some routine browsing around, we noticed that the Missoulian has some nice video footage of St. John's in Frenchtown with clips of the traditional mass being said.

It's enough to warm any old-fashioned traditionalist's heart, whether one is Catholic or not. It's a cultural thing, and it's nice to see it happening.

The old American conservative movement was pretty heavily laced with Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic sensibilities (think Russell Kirk, Wm. F. Buckley, Thomas Molnar...) Through exposure to their keen minds and (for the most part) gentle souls, whole generations of conservative Protestants who were intellectually engaged with the conservative movement learned first not to be wary of Catholicism, and then learned to be friendly to it -- seeing the power of acknowledging the cultural commonality.

The success of this enterprise has led to Roman Catholics being consensus conservative nominees to the Supreme Court. All five "conservative" Justices appointed by Republican Presidents are Catholic -- Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. None of the four "liberal" justices are -- Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens. Which is quite something when one thinks about the fact that Catholics and the Democratic Party were once synonymous.

There is really no argument being made in these musings -- they are just random thoughts prompted by the beauty of the Missoulian footage.

Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

Knowing a place: It isn't unusual to have someone in Montana claim to know a river or a piece of land well. Ranchers and farmers certainly tend to know every nook and cranny of their land, especially when they grew up there.

Ed Kemmick had a beautiful piece on a Columbus man who sets a high bar for knowing a river -- more particularly "his" 20-mile stretch:

Over the years, Ostwald has swum in it, waded it, inner-tubed on it, navigated it by canoe, raft and jet boat, walked up and down its banks.

He has fished every tributary in those 20 miles, investigated every ravine and gully. He has hunted game on its banks, run trap lines, explored its environs for human and natural artifacts.

Nine years ago, he was even married on it.

While the modern condition has introduced a level of nomadism of unprecedented scale, at the heart of a traditional life well-lived is being rooted in a place and knowing it well.

Thanks to Kemmick for giving us yet another living example of someone doing just that.

Rehberg on SCHIP: We're glad to see that in Rehberg's recently released editorial on SCHIP that he pointed out the inconvenient truth that it was a Republican Congress (of which he was a part) that created the program in the first place -- for children whose families made too much for Medicaid and not enough to afford private insurance or who had otherwise fallen through the cracks.

He points out what was wrong with the original House bill that he opposed, such as benefits for illegal aliens, inclusion of adults in a children's program, and robbing Medicare Advantage programs.

In short, he kept his promise to vote for a more reasonable bill -- and incidentally, it was a bill that does no less for children than did the original House bill for which Democrats and Montana editorial boards were beating the wearying "it's for the sake of the children!" scare-drum.

He calls on President Bush not to veto the bill, but truth to be told, a veto wouldn't be the worst thing for the legislation, since there are many more improvements that could be made. Rehberg himself alludes to one when he points out how many currently eligible children are not enrolled. These lowest-income families need the program the most, and more effort should be put into enrolling them, rather than trying to turn the program into a lower-middle-class entitlement program.

There are those who say, "If we can spend a gajillion dollars in Iraq we can...(insert favorite pet project.)" Not really -- someday we will be out of Iraq, and we are, after all spending half of what we used to spend on defense, as a percentage of our GDP. On the other hand, government entitlements are, as Ronald Reagan used to say, "the closest thing to eternal life you'll ever see on this earth," or something to that effect.

Since entitlements and vote-buying domestic spending are forever, it is worth grinding these bills down until they are the very best and careful legislation they can be.

Sens. Max Grassley and Charles Baucus: In a tribute to a Senator who "embodies the most ancient of conservative principles, a suspicion of institutional power," the New Republic reminds us of what a gem Sen. Charles Grassley is, and how utterly unappreciated he has been by most of the Republican Party over the last decade.

TNR notes that "it's incredible that Grassley has retained this disposition during the Bush years, when amassing institutional power became conservatives' reigning m.o."

Also making an appearance in the article is our Montana Sen. Max Baucus, who has taken a lot of heat from lefty Democrats for many things, including allowing Grassley to continue to set much of the agenda of the Senate Finance Committee, even though the Dems are now ruling supreme:

Losing his Senate Finance chairmanship in January, Grassley was himself to the end. When incoming Democratic chairman Max Baucus presented him with the parting gift of a wooden gavel, Grassley groused, "It probably cost more than it should, and more than I would have spent on somebody else." Luckily, his colleagues knew him well: Baucus assured him that the gavel was not a new purchase but Grassley's old one. "OK, so it's worn out," Grassley said. "Thank you very much."

An interesting bit of human interest, but what follows tells more of the real story, and it is a story that should remind Democrats that in Washington, what goes around eventually comes around -- and that this applies to good behavior, and not just bad:

Grassley's behavior when he was in the majority means that, in the minority, he retains more power than Republicans who screwed their opposition counterparts. Baucus has scolded officials who appear inclined to pay less attention to the demoted Grassley, telling them, "If Chuck asks you something, it's like I asked you for it."

Though Baucus is also worried about private equity, he's allowed Grassley to take as much--if not more--of the lead on the issue. It's a battle in which Grassley's passion for fair government can shine. His continued prominence also feels just because, out of all the Senate Republicans, he probably deserves the least blame for their 2006 catastrophe.

(...Grassley is) still stunned by what happened, and he even entertains the possibility that, via some convoluted mechanism, it might have been all his fault.

Though he noticed his colleagues running wild, "I stood by the sidelines," he says.

The hypothesis is unconvincing. It's hard to imagine other Republicans would have accepted behavioral advice from a guy like Grassley. But at least--unlike other Republicans--he's willing to say he's sorry.

Indeed -- of all the things that Republicans need to be doing right now, the most important thing is a little self-examination in the wake of the well-deserved 2006 blood-letting, and Grassley is one of the guys who can show us the way.

No men with boas in Montana? Say it isn't so! : From the Helena IR -- Women sported giant flashing glasses and pulled feather boas from around their necks to wave at the stage. Men, well, men didn’t.

You don't say.

Boas, glasses, whatever, Elton John is someone who took pop music to heights of genius -- and he still gives people their money's worth at age 60. And that's something that not every aging rocker can say.

One of the things that is worth taking note of with any strutting star is to take a look at the band. Davey Johnstone on guitar and drummer Nigel Olsson (who was the first major drummer to realize that headphones make a world of difference on-stage and not be embarassed to wear them) have been recording and touring with Elton John for most of what is now nearly 40 years -- something else that most aging rockers can't claim.

Missing is bassist Dee Murray, but he's dead, so he has an excuse. And while he's even older than the piano player, percussionist Ray Cooper should be mentioned, who recorded and toured with that lineup, and who also did some unique work when he and "Sir Elton" toured by themselves as a duo. And to think you used to have to prove yourself in battle to be made a knight... My but how England has changed.

And while we're at it, how about another one with Ray Cooper on percussion... plus Eric Clapton and his band doing backup. As we said, still giving folks their money's worth and even singing on pitch.

Look Right: This weekend, we made note of the new "Dextra Montana" wire that has been popping up on conservative blogs around Montana, including Montana Headlines (just look to the right side -- where else? --of this screen.) In a similar spirit, we'd like to link to Last Best Place, where one can find a nice summary of some recent conservative blog-entries from around the state. Check it out.

Who is Jack Galt?

What conservative with even the smallest streak of Randian libertarianism could resist that title?

And yet, serendipitous name-similarities aside, the story that Charles Johnson told this weekend about long-time Montana rancher and Republican "baron" Jack Galt has some similarities to the literary John Galt.

Both Galts worked largely behind the scenes, both men recognized early on what they believed and what causes they wanted to promote, and both men had a penchant for holing up in their private rustic kingdoms far from the usual sources of political "civilization."

It is hard to read about Montana's Jack Galt without more than a a little twinge of nostalgia, since the story of Jack Galt is in many ways the story of Reagan Republicanism and its grassroots leadership.

When James Q. Wilson wrote his now historic Commentary article "A Guide to Reagan Country" back in 1967 or so, the subtitle was "the political culture of Southern California." (My how times have changed.)

But the expanded subtext of Wilson's article was about more than Orange County and surrounds. He, and the writers who little by little expanded on the subject, noted that Reagan shouldn't be written off as a flash-in-the-pan novelty of California and its sometimes surreal atmosphere.

His article pointed out that there was a informal network of people throughout a broader "Reagan Country" who were just waiting to be tapped into. Goldwater had won his nomination on the strength of a nascent form of this informal network (and then promptly betrayed it by advising country-club Republican Gerald Ford on how to defeat his own former loyalists in 1976, when the former "Goldwater people" were backing Reagan.)

"Reagan Country" was largely comprised of what we today think of as "Red America" -- "red" because of the decision by television broadcasters in 2000 to reverse what had most commonly been a red=Democrat and blue=Republican convention and to start coloring Republican states red on the maps on election night.

Whatever the color, it was Western, Southern, rural, small-town, AM radio, little newspapers, church suppers, county Republican meetings in the basement of the REA building, barbershops with men in boots discussing the weather and cussing the government (or is it the reverse?) -- and men who had quietly made their millions in humble ways ranging from car dealerships to small engineering firms to oil-field supply companies. And always, ranchers -- lots of them.

When he wrote about the people of "Reagan country," Wilson was talking about men like Jack Galt, as Charles Johnson's article illustrates. Johnson notes that Jack Galt backed Reagan for the GOP nomination back in 1968 against Nixon -- a forgotten bit of Reagan history, when Reagan was actually Nixon's most serious contender for the nomination, even though Nelson Rockefeller is usually thought of in that role and though Reagan came in third in the delegate count.

Galt was emblematic of that generation of Reagan Republican leaders -- self-employed, well-off but not born wealthy, unpretentious and usually quiet, and determined to use what money and power they had accumulated during their lives to turn the political tide in a country they loved, but that had drifted ever leftward. Self-interested and unapologetically honest about it -- and yet selfless enough to give of their time and money in order make a difference in public life.

Those who knew Reagan often remarked on the fact that for all of his being lumped in with "corporate interests," Reagan never cared to be around "trust-fund" Republicans (part of his long-time disconnect with his Vice-President,) but tended, from his earliest years, to surround himself with self-made men who, like himself, had started out with little or nothing but had done pretty well for themselves.

Republicans seem to need regular reminders that Ronald Reagan is dead and in the grave -- and that he isn't coming back. Reagan probably couldn't be elected President today, but then, he didn't need to be. He needed to be ready for his time, and in spite of the fact that many of us thought that his time was 1976 (or 1968) rather than 1980, the good Lord had other, and probably better, plans for the Gipper.

Less often remembered is that the backbone of the generation that elected Ronald Reagan is also dead or dying, sort of like the generation of WWII veterans that a wee Montana Headlines once thought would never, could never, die. Now, every time one has a chance to talk to those remaining vets, it is hard not to pepper them with questions until they are too tired to say any more.

The same is true of the veterans of the Reagan political battles -- the men and women who remembered the dark days of 1964 when Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat "proved" that no conservative could win the White House. We can be grateful that the Jack Galts of this country collectively decided to say "nuts" to that idea, and as a result changed the landscape for a generation -- and for the better. And we talk to them every chance we get about their experiences and recollections. Not so we can try to copy them, but so that we can learn from them. There is a difference.

We don't need "another Ronald Reagan." As good conservatives we do revere his memory and the memory of those who made his election possible, against all odds.

We now need leaders for our own time, who understand the particular challenges of our generation just as Reagan and his supporters throughout the 60's and 70's understood the challenges of their own time.

It is hard now not to think of Reagan as a sort of inevitable President. But he wasn't.

His Presidency was possible only because of the Jack Galts who were ready and waiting for him across the country. Looking around, trying to identify those state and local leaders today, it is, then, not at all inappropriate for us as conservatives living in Montana to use our own version of the most famous line in Atlas Shrugged, and ask, for our own time: Who is Jack Galt?