I’ve been absent from this site for quite a while now, as I notice have been most of my colleagues here. But an article written on The College Conservative has prompted me to write this. Parts I originally wrote in response to this ridiculous article called “On Being Gay: Fighting the False “Hate” Dichotomy”.

In her article Amy Miller puts forth, unfortunately without the verbal dexterity of actual scripture, the standard evangelical Christian position about homosexuality: I don’t hate you; I love you so much I want you to see that you’re living in sin. Now, there are many Christians who genuinely believe this line of thinking, and hear it regularly from their pastors every week. I am not questioning their faith. That is not my place. What I am questioning is the reasoning that brought Church leaders to preach this kind of message in the first place. Miller contends that this is not a position of hate, and who am I to say whether or not any individual is hateful or not. This position itself, however, is hateful and bigoted. Again, I am not saying that any individual Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin is hateful or bigoted, I believe you are a sincere Christian living out your values and you genuinely believe what you’re saying. That’s fine. I think faith is one of the most important of human values. But the thinking that has brought parts of the Christian faith to deciding that homosexuality is a sin is entirely flawed.

Before I begin my argument I want to back a distinction on the use of the word homosexuality. It is true that homosexuality as a wide-spread social construct is something entirely new to human society. Homosexuality that simply refers to physical relations between members of the same sex, however, is as old as time. I will assume that as an educated reader, you will be able to tell the difference in my usage going forward.

Now for one thing, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Not one single time. Jesus condemned a lot of things, people intolerant of other people being one of the biggest. But he never condemned homosexuality. Now, this is certainly not to say that he was ignorant of it. First, since Jesus is God, he knows everything that goes on, and would certainly know about how widespread homosexuality was in the ancient world. Second, and less a matter of faith and one of historical veracity, Jerusalem at the time of Christ was dominated by Greek cultural trends and under Roman rule. Both Greece and Rome were cultures where homosexuality was normal and accepted, and in the upper classes homosexuality was even expected. The Greeks had various social constructs to deal with natural same-sex attraction. In Athens, pederasty was widely practiced as a perfectly normal and acceptable category of human relationships. In Thebes, the famed band of 300 warriors (who no, were not from Sparta) was sent into battle on the premise that if the love between each pair of men was strong enough, there is no way they could lose a war. Achilles, Alexander, Socrates, Augustus, Hadrian, all manner of prominent Greeks and Romans slept with men. Now, given that homosexuality was a part of the larger culture surrounding Jerusalem, if Jesus had a problem with it, he would have said something. He did not, and as a Christian, I am much more interested in doing the things Jesus told me to do than worrying about things he never mentioned.

So let’s look at the places in Scripture that do mention homosexuality. The first is Leviticus. OK, I’ll give the anti-gay Christians this one. But in the same passages, Leviticus also says I should kill someone who works on the Sabbath, that touching the skin of a dead pig is an abomination (which would mean football is an abomination) and all manner of other things we’d find ridiculous today. All we can surmise from this is that these were the cultural and societal norms of the ancient Hebrews, not the religious prescriptions of God. But given the wide variety of things prohibited by the Torah that most modern society would find not only absurd but illegal, why are we picking on gay people? Sodom and Gomorrah, too, is held up as having been destroyed by God’s wrath against homosexuals in the city. This is entirely untrue. God didn’t destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because they were full of gay people. He destroyed them because they were full of arrogance, apathy toward the poor and ‘detestable things’; they were full of immorality unbecoming of God’s chosen people. These are things the culture-warrior Christians today are certainly guilty of in part, as opposed to the ones who spend their time feeding the homeless and visiting prisons and taking care of the sick. So that’s what the Old Testament has to say: No football or gay people. If that’s true, we might as well just appoint Xi Jinping the new President of the United States and the new President of China at the same time this fall, because there won’t be anyone left in America.

So we get to the New Testament where, after Jesus says nothing about homosexuality and then sacrifices himself to save the world, we have the tricky issues of Saint Paul. Romans 1 is generally taken as a blanket prohibition of homosexuality. Any contextual reading of it would tell you that it’s not and that the modern conception of homosexuality I described above is not the same thing as a man cheating on his wife with another man, which is what Paul was railing against. Also, Paul, who never once actually met Jesus, was in favor of slavery and so his moral authority is questionable at best. On top of that, his letters were included in the Bible by a very close vote three hundred years after they were written at the Council of Nicaea. Whatever your beliefs about how the current canon came into being, it was an incredibly political process.

My point? There is nothing in pure Christianity that condemns our modern conception of homosexuality. The Christian faith is about love. Genuine love. An all-accepting love. The love of Christ as the only being capable of salvation and a love of fellow man, in imitation of Christ, which is the only thing that can’t lead to one’s own salvation. Deus caritas est, God is Love, was the title of the first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI’s reign. Despite the fact that His Holiness has taken a very strong line against homosexuality, a stringency not shared by all Catholic bishops mind you, this first message of his to the world was about loving one another, and that “pure love which is not self-seeking but simply benevolent. The devotion of the faithful shows an infallible intuition of how such love is possible: it becomes so as a result of the most intimate union with God, through which the soul is totally pervaded by him—a condition which enables those who have drunk from the fountain of God’s love to become in their turn a fountain from which “flow rivers of living water (Jn 7:38).”

Now, when we reconcile the fact that there is no real scriptural basis for the condemnation of homosexuality, and the notion that the most important part of the Christian religion is love, there is no longer any rational or faith-based basis on which to hold the opinion that Ms. Miller holds, and this is what makes the position so offensive, especially to gay men and women of faith. This is why it’s not OK to say “I’m not against gay people, just gay marriage.” Because the argument used by Ms. Miller and millions of others is nothing more than a veil of false love covering a deep-seated prejudice against homosexuals. Instead of this, the Church should welcome homosexual expressions of monogamous love, and should be encouraging homosexuals to become people of faith, to raise children with the true values of the Christian faith and to work with all of us toward a better and more just world. It’s been oft-repeated by Christians who have no problem with homosexuality, “how many more gay people does God need to create before the rest of the world understands that he wants them here?”

But not only is it wrong that homosexuality is a sin, it is also wrong that this is what the focus of the Church has always been, “the protection of the family and traditional marriage”. Well, what is traditional marriage? Why is homosexuality all of a sudden a thing? Why haven’t there been widespread same-sex relationships before? Well, the answers to all of those questions lie in the same place: our own economic progress.

The idea that all of a sudden, about a hundred years ago, people started having feelings toward people of the same gender is ridiculous. As noted above, there have always been people with sexual desires for the same sex. But economic reality informed the religious and social values of cultures that preceded our own, not the other way around. For most of the last 1500 years, the family has been at the center of economics. Even the word economics comes from the Greek work οικoς, ‘oikos’, which means “house”.  This was the reality. People needed to have a lot of children in order to put them to work, especially when most people lived on farms. Having more kids was the only way a family could produce enough to survive. This meant that the only economically feasible social situation for most people was to be in a heterosexual marriage that produced lots of children. This in turn created the social norm about human sexuality in the Western World for a long time. Among the upper classes, too, marriage was not so much a ‘sacred institution’ as most Christians would have you believe it has always been, but a political tool. We all learn about how Henry VIII just killed his wives when he decided he didn’t want to be married to them anymore in sixth grade, but I don’t see Christians running around trying to force Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn out of the classroom as affronts to tradition marriage. On top of that, history is literally flooded with high-born men who slept with other men while marrying women strictly for their families’ political or business purposes, and later because that was the social norm, not because they were in love with these women (Cole Porter is a notable example of the latter). Then the modern world happened, and prosperity began to be spread around much more liberally and equitably. This, for the first time in world history, allowed people to be economically self-sufficient, to be able to provide for themselves without the need for a large family to bring in enough money to survive. This allowed people to begin exploring the idea of living in a relationship with a person of the same sex as something viable, which it never had before. Now, not until this started happening did churches have such a vocal problem with homosexuality. There is even a professor at Yale who has discovered in church archives across Europe rites to marry people of the same sex that date back to the Middle Ages.

The notion that homosexuality is a sin and un-Christian is one that is less than a hundred years old. It is wrong, and has no basis in scriptural or historical reality. Christians want to be relevant to the debates going on in our country and around the world. They should be. But they should be vocal about the atrocities going on in Syria, the way the Chinese treat human beings as pawns in their game of social perfection, the widening gap between rich and poor in our own country, the homeless, the starving, the destitute, the afflicted, the imprisoned, in short, all people who truly do need saving. There are many Christians who do focus on these things and they should be commended, for they are truly the saints of our time. But those who use corrupted doctrines to demean others and justify their own prejudices? I believe that Dante described their place in quite vivid detail.

As the tumultuous 2011 comes down to its final day, this column could contain an obnoxious summary of the year’s extraordinary events. Rather than once again discussing the protests around the world, the death of Osama Bin Laden, Fukushima, America’s political ineptitude, Europe’s demise or the increasingly frightful weather patterns, here I attempt to predict what 2012 holds in store.

In Europe, a sovereign debt crisis has put the laudable cross-national attempt at economic unity in peril. A system in which Germany and France bolster the international economies of countries like Greece and Spain, can only exist if the countries unite their economies fully. The debt crisis has proven that systems similar to the Articles of Confederation, with a shared currency, but few other shared fiscal responsibilities for a weak central government, ultimately fail. The Euro cannot remain in its present economic structure; it either must fall, allowing each country to coin its own currency, or it must become more centralized, allowing the EU government more control over the economic decisions of each member country. Recent decisions by the member countries, including tighter central fiscal controls and cheap money available for loan from the European Central Bank, indicate that many of the EU member countries desire to move in the latter direction. Europe’s countries have already come together on social issues, such as health care policy and immigration, which suggests that the next step is economics. Once united, it’s hard for countries, especially the fiscally weaker ones, to want to devolve the Euro and step out on their own without the protection that comes from the still-strong Euro. Although they will continue to resist further centralization, I would be surprised if the European leaders decided to allow the Euro to die.

Turning from Europe to America, 2011 finished with an economy that showed signs of improvement. Unemployment has declined steadily since the summer. Though the economy has failed to add enough jobs at a fast enough pace, 2012 looks bright. The housing market has shown faint signs of light. Business confidence is slightly up and the GDP grew at a faster than expected rate this quarter. No, these indications do not mean that America’s economy is steady, settled or recovered, but they demonstrate that 2012 could finally be the year of economic resurgence. There could be hope yet across the American horizon.

Unfortunately, the political stalemate of 2011 slowed the actual and potential economic growth of America. Partisan fighting prevented a major jobs-bill, a true compromise on the debt ceiling, and real cuts in non-discretionary spending or proper investment in America’s future. Instead, Congress continually passed short-term “solutions,” which only put off the tough problems for future (read our) generations. With the presidential election in 2012, there is little hope that Congressional Republicans will be willing to succumb to Barack Obama’s intelligent economic ideas. Their strategy of making Obama lose at any cost has threatened the American economy for the past couple of years and no one should assume they will stop. Especially in an election year, Republicans will not want to deliver Obama any legislative victories. The coming year, then, will involve worse partisan stalemate and no real legislative action on a recovering economy.

The presidential election will be an ugly one. The invention of Super PACs has already allowed candidates, such as Mitt Romney, to run negative campaign ads without technically authorizing them. Today, the Times ran an article describing one of Romney’s Super PACs, Restore Our Future, which has spent $2.9 million attacking Newt Gingrich in Iowa. While the people who run Restore Our Future are technically independent of Romney, there is no denying the personal connection and intimate involvement with the Romney campaign. The misguided decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United worsened the political inequality in America by granting the wealthy an avenue by which to influence elections uninhibitedly. While each citizen technically has one vote, the voices of the rich continuously ring louder than the average American. Campaigns cost incredible amounts of money and candidates need to rely on America’s richest citizens and companies to pay for those costs. The political wishes of America’s wealthiest gain the ears of politicians, while the rest remain locked out of the political system. In 2012, the presidential election will fully demonstrate the ever-increasing political and economic gap between the most and least affluent Americans.

The Occupy Wall Street protests will likely continue to embolden President Obama’s rhetoric about economic inequality. More importantly, I would hope that the protests force the issue to come to the forefront of politics and make politicians finally respond with equalizing policies. If Obama and the Democrats successfully grab this message as their own, and build upon it with legislative proposals, then the Democrats could more strongly fight Republican gains in the 2012 election. For most of 2011, pundits rightfully expressed a view that Democrats would face potential losses with the struggling economy. With a rebounding economy, and grabbing this populist message, I believe that President Obama could once again win over the minds of the young and independent voters who bolstered his victory in 2008. Until recently, I had predicted that President Obama would narrowly retain victory, while the Republicans would win the Senate and hold the House. If that were the case, 2012 would be the beginning of terrible partisan bickering and four years of valueless political action. Now, though, I am more hopeful that the Democrats will retain the Senate and perhaps lessen the Republican hold on the House. The Tea Party has lost its popularity and Congressional Republicans have abysmal approval ratings. Democratic prospects look hopeful for the first time since 2009.

While the Occupy Wall Street protests have activated America’s new call for equality, the Arab Spring continued throughout 2011. Protests demanding greater political freedom rock Syria, which threatens to fall into civil war, and Egypt, which languishes under a military dictatorship despite democratic elections. The Arab Spring has been anything but predictable, and therefore I cannot pretend to know what will happen in 2012. Certainly, though, Egypt’s military will either have to allow the democratically elected government to take power, or clamp its iron fist on a restless country. Even though the popularly elected government contained many religious elements, Egypt should be allowed to follow its path of democracy. Syria, and some of the Arab countries like Bahrain face the similar challenge of autocratic leaders who refuse to loosen their hold on power. In Syria, at least, it seems that the people have finally had enough. They defied President Bashar al-Assad in the city of Homs, taking to streets. As had happened in Libya, some members of the Syrian military have defected to the side of the protestors. An internal military clash appears inevitable, especially if Arab Union countries continue to refuse to intervene. Tragically, 2012 has the potential to be another bloody year of democratic uprisings.

Besides these manmade dilemmas, the environment, and environmental catastrophes, will continue in 2012. Already the Northeastern United States is experiencing an unseasonably warm winter and the ice caps are melting faster than ever. Saharan Africa, especially in Somalia, is withering under a brutal draught, which has caused a disastrous famine. Whether or not a person professes to “believe in” global warming, he should want to protect the natural heaven with which humanity has been blessed. Why should we want to pollute it and waste its valuable resources?  People need to realize that mankind cannot survive without a healthy environment. Sadly, it might take a natural disaster of unimaginable size to force people, especially Americans, to act unilaterally in favor of environmental protection. If the Republicans were to win in 2012, it would spell years of environmental deregulation, which would derail any progress that could be made to help save the environment.

So, 2012 will undoubtedly be an interesting year. It could be wonderful or it could be devastating, but like every year it will be a mixture of both.. Either way, the world will continue. There will be new problems and old ones. There will be solutions and there will be stalemate. All we can hope for is that 2012 is better than 2011 because every year should improve upon the last one. Happy New Year everyone!

For one of the first times in his tenure as Speaker, John Boehner has made a statement with which every American, Republican or Democrat, should fully agree; the two-month Senate bipartisan extension of the payroll tax cut fails to fix the nation’s problems sufficiently. Providing a short-term band-aid to a long-term dilemma contradicts what a responsible government should accomplish, but fits the pattern of contemporary American politicking. During this Congress especially, legislators have continuously relied on “answers” that only prevent imminent catastrophe, but neglect to negotiate solutions that address the less-immediate problems. Think of the budget “deal” this summer with the “super committee.” That agreement kept the government solvent for a short while by appropriating the necessary funds without fundamentally altering the culture of Washington. This, then, led to three times over the course of 2011 when Congress came close to shutting down government, because of the partisan stalemate that occurs whenever legislators need to appropriate federal money.

So, although Mr. Boehner has been no enemy to the short-term solutions, he is right to call for an end to the “kicking the can down the road,” which Congress continues to favor. However, House GOP members’ reasons for blocking the two-month extension, which remains ultimately beneficial for the country due to the  impossibility of a one-year compromise extension, actually appear quite ideological. Sadly, the House GOP has decided to play partisan games with the extension.

Despite the laudable rhetoric of wanting long-term solutions that actually address America’s myriad of problems, Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans have mistakenly attempted to use the blocked extension as a way to embarrass President Obama and the Democrats. As the party of tax cuts, the GOP would seem hypocritical if they rejected this middle-class tax cut, while defending millionaires from having to pay higher taxes. The House GOP’s real reason for disapproving of this compromise bill lies in its spending provisions. The GOP do not want any more government spending, and the House believes that the two-month extension leaves too many victories for the Democrats. The House caucus wants to limit the unemployment benefits available for American citizens so that the maximum weeks a person could receive this unemployment lifeline would be 59 weeks. They also seek to weaken President Obama’s health care bill by using some of its appropriated funds to pay for the payroll tax cut. They desire additional spending cuts and even hope to insert environmental clauses that would prevent the EPA from monitoring and regulating pollutants like Mercury in the air. It does not appear that the House GOP hates the idea of a tax cut for the middle class, but that they do not want to hand the Democrats this political victory.

The Republicans’ rhetoric attempts to protect their “anti-tax” image by accusing the Democrats of putting short-term solutions ahead of the interest of Americans. They argue that by blocking the bill, the GOP House would prevent further harm to the economy. The temporary compromise would cause future political arguments and economic woe in two months, when the parties have to address the issue once more. Boehner’s speeches portrayed a desire to prevent these battles, which is laudable, but failing to enact the two month extension will hurt the economy and Americans. Thus, he attempts to blame Democrats for not passing a one-year extension and hopes to make them appear to be the party that caused any future economic problems.

Such a strategy, though, oversteps the line of an intelligent oppositionist. Republicans already won a Democratic concession that the extension would contain a provision calling on President Obama to make a decision about the Keystone XL pipeline within the next 60 days. Also, Republican intransigence concerning increased taxes, stopped the Senate from paying for the middle class tax cut through a millionaires’ tax. Senate Republicans, as shown by their overwhelming support for the two month extension, which passed 89-10, believed that they had done very well. By passing the bill, they avoided the label of increasing taxes for the average American and managed to maintain their traditional conservative arguments of business trumping environment and the rich deserving more protections than the poor.

House Republicans are trying to shift the blame to the Democrats and the Senate. They are arguing that a two-month extension will do nothing but create uncertainty for job creators. While this argument holds a lot of truth, they will not be able to make the Democrats take the blame for this failure. Regardless of the stupidity of passing a two-month extension, it still benefits the economy and the American citizen much more than allowing the payroll tax cut to expire. Holding up the extension for its own political gains will only make the House GOP look worse. On this issue, one which splits Senate Republicans and House Republicans, the Democrats finally have found success. The Senate Democrats are holding firm to their statement that they will not come back to pass another bill; the ball is entirely in the court of the House GOP, which means that they will take the blame for the increased burden on the middle class American.

Wanting longer-term solutions is a justifiable and laudable desire, but using this benign wish to cover partisan demands wipes away the impressiveness of the GOP claim. If they really preferred a full year compromise bill, Republicans would actually have to compromise with the Democrats. If they actually hoped for long-term solutions instead of short-term patches, they would have to drop some of their extremist demands and move towards the center of the political spectrum. Their true reasons for blocking the two-month extension show that the House GOP has not learned this lesson. They still think compromise only involves Democrats conceding their legislative wishes. No amount of calling for a long-term solution can cover up their intransigence.

As the term “flip-flopper” enters the American political lexicon as a legitimate term of discourse and accusation, it has become helpful to examine the role of ideological consistency, and inconsistency, particularly in regards to the current field of Republican candidates for President.  Mitt Romney is a serial flip-flopper, Newt Gingrich is a mere flip-flopper and Ron Paul doesn’t know how to flip-flop any more than a newborn child knows how to walk.  Or at least that’s what we’re led to believe.

My goal isn’t so much to detail alleged flip-flopping or a lack of it, but rather to investigate what expectations we should have of our public officials: when is it legitimate to accuse them of being unprincipled, and when is it legitimate for them to change their position on a particular issue?

Let us start by understanding the concept of epistemic humility, which has become a cornerstone of my own political and philosophical development.  “Epistemic” is a derivative of the term epistemology, which is essentially the study of how we know what we know (apologies to my fellow eternal students of philosophy for such radical simplification).  Humility, of course, is having a modest opinion of one’s self, beliefs, etc.  And so epistemic humility is to be modest in what one espouses.  It is to say, “Even though I strongly believe A, I am willing to admit I am wrong if I am proven incorrect.”

Humans are fallible creatures, meaning we are apt to be wrong, and the history of humanity has proven the dangers of epistemic pride.  See: American slavery.  History has also proven that humans are too often anxious to act on that pride.  See: Hitler.  But not every person guilty of epistemic pride (“I’m right and I know I’m right”) is also guilty of crimes against humanity.  The guilty number your office manager, who absolutely knows that nothing good can come of social networking, even if you prove how it will help the company’s bottom line; or the six year old who believes 2+2=5, even if their fingers tell them otherwise.

Now what if we were to apply epistemic humility to our own lives, especially over the course of several decades?  What would be the result?  If we are truly epistemologically humble, we will have developed a number of different positions that often contradict each other.  The epistemologically humble parent rightly believes that severe punishment works for their first child.  When the child misbehaves and then receives a spanking, bad behavior turns good.  And so they apply the same theory to their second child, but spanking makes bad behavior worse in this case.  Realizing this, the parent changes course, and rather than using spanking as a means to change their second child’s behavior, they sit them down and have a frank conversation about what good behavior is and why the child should act in a different manner.  “Hypocrite!  Flip-flopper!” cries out their Republican mother-in-law.  “You used to support spanking and now you’re against it!”

But who would be the fool in this case?  The parent isn’t a hypocrite.  They aren’t a flip-flopper.  In fact they are incredibly principled, but the principle has nothing to do with spanking or not spanking.  The overriding issue in this example is rearing children who behave well, and spanking (or not) is really quite beside the point.  If the parent had continued to spank their second child for misbehaving, or spanked more often, they would be guilty of a foolish consistency, or consistency for consistency’s sake, which is the product of epistemic pride.  The result is a child who continues to misbehave and a parent who is increasingly frustrated because they’re absolutely convinced that their belief in spanking in infallible.

The point being in all of this that over the course of our lifetimes, no matter what lot we hold or what we do, that if we adhere to a principle of epistemic humility, that we very well may- in fact, we must- contradict ourselves on certain issues in life.  And if this holds true for parenting, or business, or our studies, it must also hold true for our public officials.

But already you’re likely objecting that there is something different about politicians who change their views.  Somehow they’re guilty of hypocrisy in their lives but if we private citizens change our views on something we have simply gained in wisdom.  This is not completely untrue, but the future of our republic demands a more nuanced approach.

Let me say this now, before I continue, that Mitt Romney is guilty of serial hypocrisy, Newt Gingrich is guilty of being a public intellectual constantly scrutinized by the media and others, and Ron Paul never ceases to remind me about one of my favorite quotes from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Essays: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

To flip flop is to be a hypocrite.  In the political realm, it is to say one thing at one point to win an election and another thing at a different point to win a different election.  It is devoid of epistemic humility because it is devoid of intelligence.  The hypocrite says or does this thing or another for self preservation, not because they have awoken to some new truth as they see it.  So when Mitt Romney said he was in favor of abortion when he was running for the US Senate against Ted Kennedy and is now against abortion because he is running for President- and this second position is more popular with Republican primary voters- we can without reservation label him a flip-flopper, or a hypocrite, because his change in political positions is not the result of epistemic humility (receiving new, better information) but a reaction to the changing circumstances of political opportunity.

But can the same be said about Newt Gingrich?  The former Speaker has been accused of flip flopping, but never to the degree or with the zeal that the public has accused Mitt Romney of the same.  This is for a very important reason: the public intuitively understands that Gingrich is a restless student of history, politics and world affairs, and is constantly learning through reading, conversation and study.  He is the eternal student, who writes and speaks on a vast array of issues at a dizzying pace.  Newt is the model of epistemic humility we should seek in our leaders.  If you studied and expounded upon politics as much as Gingrich has, wouldn’t you have contradicted yourself on a few issues as well?

And we should hope you would have changed your opinion on at least a couple of things!  Nobody can be right all the time, although of course, you could believe you are right all of the time.  Enter Ron Paul.  His supporters and even the liberal media have made much out of his consistency over his several decades in politics (isn’t “several decades” sort of the definition of a Washington insider?  But I digress).  I have never once seen it pointed out where this man has changed his opinion on anything, or even hinted at potential compromise.  He just knows he’s that right on everything that he needn’t budge even an inch and sure as hell won’t change a position, no matter what new information becomes available.

Ron Paul is perhaps the guiltiest politician in American history of having a foolish consistency.  Maybe he was right about adopting a non-interventionist approach to Iraq several years ago, but he becomes an irresponsible leader when he applies the same approach to Iran, which is by every objective standard far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.  Ron Paul is so obsessed with ideological purity and political consistency that he has two things to show for it: 1. vast amounts of young and extremely loyal supporters who are eerily reminiscent of those who supported Barack Obama four years ago and 2. zero accomplishments.  Zero.  Accomplishments.  For thirty years Ron Paul has been talking about auditing and ending the Fed.  Has it been audited?  Has it been ended?  Of course not.  In fact, the Fed is bigger and more powerful than it has ever been.  That’s not exactly a great record when it appears your sole mission in life has been to accomplish those two things and you’ve been given a national and even international platform to get it done.  In fact, in politics, it’s the definition of failure.

So we see three models of intellectual engagement by public officials in the same number of candidates: genuine flip-flopping (hypocrisy), epistemic humility and foolish consistency.  The middle way, the moderate way, is obviously epistemic humility, which permits our leaders to change their positions as reality necessitates.  Let us not settle for a mediocre candidate who will take any position or only one position.  A little contradiction over the course of one’s career is helpful, and evidence of contemplation and wisdom.  I will leave you with this from the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard: “One must not think ill of the paradox, for the paradox is the passion of thought, and the thinker without paradox is like the lover without passion: a mediocre fellow.”

Jon Huntsman did not participate in the CNN Debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday night.  Short of his family and small (and getting smaller) campaign staff, no one really noticed.  In a bizarre and counterproductive effort toimpress New Hampshire voters Huntsman skipped the debate to protest Nevada moving its caucus ahead of New Hampshire’s, which has always been the nation’s first primary.  It’s bizarre because no one else skipped the debate.  It’s counterproductive because right now, Jon Huntsman is polling 6% in New Hampshire.  94% of the Republican primary voters in New Hampshire think someone else would be a better President.  To change their minds and prove that he’s the best candidate, Huntsman decided to skip an opportunity to debate his opponents.  Still, unless you were on the lookout for awkward jokes or obscure cultural references, you probably didn’t miss Huntsman at the debate.  And that’s why his presidential campaign has been such a letdown.

The Jon Huntsman 2012 Presidential campaign was never going to be conventional.  As President Obama’s Ambassador to China, Huntsman knew it would be an interesting sell.  To win, he’d have to convince the far-right Republican primary electorate that he was conservative enough, even though he worked for Obama, and he’d have to convince the general electorate that he was the stronger candidate then President Obama, his former boss.  For this reason, his path to victory was never quite clear.  And after formally announcing, his chances only worsened.  One botched roll out, a campaign shakeup, and a Hail-Mary strategy later, the Huntsman campaign is almost out of money and nearly out of time.  The reason is clear; he never explained why he was running in the first place.

In this ever increasing sound bite political climate, candidates (deservingly or not) get put into buckets.  The good ones take advantage of it: Romney is the jobs candidate, Cain is the outsider candidate, and Obama was the change candidate.  The bad ones get trapped in it: Bachmann is crazy, Pawlenty was boring, and McCain was out of touch.  For better or for worse, this is the narrative; it’s up to the campaigns to embrace it or to change it.  This raises the fundamental question about Jon Huntsman’s campaign; who is he?  On which topic is he running on?  He seems completely unable to articulate his message, and when he does seem to change the electoral momentum, he is completely unable to capitalize.

Competing in a primary during the Arab Spring, the European debt crisis, and an increasingly competitive China, how did Huntsman not run on foreign policy?  He was the Ambassador to Singapore, Deputy Trade Representative, and Ambassador to China.  He is fluent in Mandarin, while Rick Perry is barely fluent in English.  In a race filled with foreign policy lightweights (Romney) and foreign policy lighter weights (Cain), the fact that Huntsman has not made the race about his one overwhelming strength is mystifying.

He also seemed to be flirting with above-the-fray elder statesman candidate.  His campaign had its best news day when he went on Twitter to criticize his opponentswhoquestion global warming.  It was a brilliant tactical move; he seemed reasonable and funny, and they seemed ridiculous and outside the mainstream.  Then he went practically went dark, and has failed to capture that sort of excitement since.  It’s no secret that Huntsman finds himself to the left of his fellow candidates; on issues such as immigration, gay marriage, and defense, Huntsman is admittedly moderate.  In a campaign season with seemingly countless debates, Huntsman has barely mentioned his decidedly moderate views.  Certainly there’s some political risk there as being pro civil union isn’t exactly a winner in Iowa or South Carolina.  But what’s the purpose of a debate if not for the candidate to distinguish himself?

See, Huntsman had to know that his candidacy was a long shot.  He was running from the left of a party that is moving forcefully to the right.  Why didn’t do he do a better job of fighting for the center?  Better yet, why didn’t he do a better job of fighting at all?  Huntsman was absent in body from the Las Vegas debate on Saturday.  But he’s been absent in message for the entire race, and that’s why he’s going to lose.

Associate Editor

For the past month a movement with the potential to grab at the core of America’s problems has grown out of Zuccoti Park in New York. “We are the 99%” is not simply a catchy phrase used by frustrated jobless Americans , but a commentary on the disgraceful economic inequality that has arisen in the United States since the 1970s. After WWII, and until the 1970s, economic growth benefited the rich, the middle class and the poor relatively equally. In fact, the middle class’ income grew at a faster rate than that of the rich. Since the 70s, however, the trend has reversed; the wealth of the rich exploded while everyone else has seen stagnant or negative growth. Sadly, the wealth gap has grown to the point that the top 400 families have a greater net worth than that of the bottom 150 million people. A society with this kind of stratification, especially one in which government policy only acts to exasperate this inequality, cannot function well as a democracy.

Politicians since Reagan undeniably have enacted economic policies tilted in favor of the rich. Reagan’s political victory over New Deal liberalism, coupled with the fall of the Soviet Union, deified the idea of free market economics while delegitimizing regulation and New Deal checks of capitalism.

Even Democrats, supposedly the party of the commoner, worked with Republicans to enact economic policies favoring the rich. Under Clinton they deregulated the financial industry, holding a belief in the magic infallibility of Wall Street. The current economic situation proves the fallacy of that ideology. Barack Obama came to the presidency in a “referendum” against free-market ideology, but his solutions to the economic crisis have greatly benefited the banks, corporations and wealthiest few. The rest of America, the 99%, have watched bankers receive bonuses after a bailout, corporations sit on record amounts of cash, Wall Street recover and the richest few Americans continue to profit. Unfortunately, these “99%’ers” have simultaneously lived through a housing bubble, high and unrelenting unemployment, stagnant wages and increasing college tuition costs; this dichotomy strikes most people as unfair.

In fact, it is unfair. Government exists to ameliorate society’s inequalities, not worsen them. Government relies on a majority to legitimize its rule. If a certain faction of people were to gain a disproportionate amount of power over everyone else, a democratic government would want to lessen that inequality in order to pacify those outside of that faction. Today, the small portion of society with a disproportionate amount of power is the richest few Americans who pay historically low amounts of taxes, yet continue to receive outlandish benefits from governmental policies.

America’s democratic government has not done its duty to limit the might of the powerful over the few. Tax cuts and business deregulations favor the wealthy, and both have been championed since Reagan. Obama’s economic policies have done little to change the behavior or practices of Wall Street, even though he claims a goal of returning prosperity to the middle class. Similarly, Democrats have failed, along with Republicans, to provide adequate economical help for the average American. Instead of acting in the best interest of the majority of citizens, Washington has continuously responded to the needs and desires of America’s smallest, and least needy population segment; the wealthy.

This is the point of Occupy Wall Street. Americans have finally become fed up with the inaction, or actions, of politicians who claim to represent them. They are disgusted with the relentless greed (both perceived and real) of America’s wealthiest few citizens who continue to receive tax breaks and economic policies that they don’t need.

It’s not as if every rich person in America even believes that he needs the special treatment, but those who speak loudest in politics are those after a particular goal. The mere mention of a tax increase sends business groups and conservatives heavily lobbying to convince politicians of the “social benefits” of low taxes. The disgusting amount of money that organizations and interest groups can spend for candidates all-but-assures that their pro-wealthy desires are nurtured. Politicians are greedy for power. To gain power they need lots of money. Thus they look to America’s big donors, Wall Street, interest groups and corporations. These groups are greedy for beneficial legislation, which in the case of any “conservative” or “pro-business” group means an anti-tax and anti-regulation stance. Who speaks for the everyday American? No one.

OK, greed certainly may not be the only reason that conservatives support pro-wealthy economic policies. Some conservatives may actually believe, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, that “supply-side” or “trickle-down” economics actually improves society because the rich people will invest their savings back into society.Perhaps this was actually true in the past when wealthy people could only multiply their money through investments in industry and innovation. Those investments do improve society because they directly create jobs and spread prosperity. In this case, I can understand how tax cuts for the wealthy could benefit the public, but unfortunately we do not live in such a world. Today, the best way for the wealthy to increase their money is by investing in the financial industry; something that does not widely benefit society but only bloats the investors’ bank accounts.

In today’s economy this theory simply does not work to improve the economy, yet the modern conservative movement has accepted it as dogma. Whether they actually believe they are helping the country or not, the simple fact remains that Republicans openly support policies aimed directly at benefiting the rich. Thus, it is hard for the populace not to decry these politicians as acting at the behest of greedy campaign donors. While Democrats are certainly not guilt-free (their leadership, especially including Senator Schumer of New York, panders endlessly to big interests), Republican’s open acknowledgment that their policies benefit the wealthy (see Rick Perry’s comments) make them more culpable and disgraceful. It is impossible for a Republican representative to even mention a word against tax cuts or economic deregulation because otherwise he will have to face the wrath of the Tea Party. At least with Democrats there is the ability to support economically equalizing policies.

Still, the ability to back equalizing legislation and the actual sponsorship of that legislation are entirely different. The structure of today’s electoral world, especially following Citizens United, has made enormous amounts of money necessary to win an election. While Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, have developed vast networks of small-donors through the internet, these donations simply cannot compare to the donating power of large interest groups and businesses; the biggest of which dwell in the financial world. Thus Democrats have been forced to shed much of their regulatory and progressive taxation policies in order to compete with Republicans for the monetary support of firms like Goldman Sachs. The need for money leaves Democrats incapable to defy the wishes of their biggest donors. If they were not to court this money, Republicans would dominate elections with nearly limitless campaign contributions from the corporate world.

In the end, Occupy Wall Street is fed up with both parties because economic inequality has gotten out of hand. Worst of all, even Democrats, the supposed party of the commoner, have succumbed to the power of money. The protestors want someone, some group, or some policy, to stick up for them. They are hoping to spark that change through democracy to remind politicians that every citizen has a voice that matters.

Barack Obama has begun to catch onto these populist sentiments in his campaign and policy messages. What remains to be seen, however, is whether he will follow up on this talk with a renewed focus on reducing economic inequality and disentangling Washington from the stranglehold of America’s wealthiest. American democracy depends on a relatively equal voice for each citizen. When the rich are able to dominate public policy to the detriment of everyone else, it seems that the basic premise of American democracy, politically equal citizens, has been broken.

During a recent interview on NPR’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Justice Stephen Breyer repeatedly denied the claim that contemporary Supreme Court Justices act as an almost “super legislature” that supersedes either Congress or the President. He maintained the traditional view of a justice; he or she does not act politically, but only interprets the Constitution. While much of what the Justice says is correct and his work on the Court extraordinarily admirable, it is hard to succumb to his argument. Regardless of whether Justice Breyer wants to admit it (at least publicly), the Court has certainly become more politicized over the past 50-60 years than originally planned in the Constitution. The Court’s decisions, as is the case for landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, often act in place of legislation. Besides the decisions, the justices themselves have become political tools of widening ideological differences between the two parties. With this kind of politicized Court, the question becomes, what will happen to the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare?”

As the role of the federal government expanded starting in the 1960s, the role of the federal courts also began to expand. With government policies touching upon many more aspects of life, the Supreme Court necessarily had to address questions addressed entire parts of society, rather than the traditional litigation of one party against another. In this class litigation, a judge’s ruling must be broad enough to encompass all those affected and all of those potentially affected in the future. For example, by proclaiming an affirmative action policy constitutional, the Court basically invented legal justification for a program outlawed by a Congressional statute (Section 703j of Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids preferential hiring of any kind).  Thus the Court, by taking on broader questions of constitutionality that affect entire classes of people, became another arena of policy-making. If the Court decides something, such as education, is a constitutional right then it automatically overturns any legislation preventing children from receiving an education. Similarly, it mandates that all governments provide said education; a demand that resembles the responsibility of the legislature.

In general I do not think this is a terrible thing. The Supreme Court Justices are nine of America’s most intelligent people who have historically acted with prudence and foresight (with a few very notable exceptions). Unfortunately, the independence of the Court, protected by appointments based less on ideology than on intelligence, has disintegrated somewhat in recent years. Yes the Supreme Court still acts completely independently of a president or Congress, but the ideological divide has come to mirror that of America’s polarized parties. As the parties started the drive to their present polarized point in the early 70s, presidents realized that in order to protect the interests of their party they would have to select judges more for their ideological views than for their judicial record.

With the last 40 years of politics neither dominated by Republicans or Democrats, the appointment of judges has left the Court divided into camps: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and 1 “swing” vote. As such, the Court now better reflects the partisan divides of American politics than it does an intellectual debate among scholars deciding on whether or not an issue is constitutional. The ideologies of the justices are so clear that one can predict Justice Thomas’ vote against the health care bill with the precision of declaring that Washington D.C. will vote for Democrats.

It is troubling that some of the justices seem to have already declared their support for certain cases that are to come before the court. Justice Breyer sidestepped a question about whether or not Justices Thomas or Alito make up their minds for those cases that are obvious fights between differing ideologies, even before they read or hear one argument in the case. Justice Thomas, with his disdain for asking questions during testimony and his wife’s involvement with the Tea Party (not to mention his personal friendship with a major benefactor of the Tea Party), raises many questions about the integrity of certain members of the bench. Do the justices actually address the issues at hand or merely couch their ideologies within veiled explanations of constitutionality?

The Obama Administration’s push to have the Supreme Court rule on the new health care law in its upcoming term, which would provide the country with a ruling of constitutionality before the November elections, is puzzling. If it goes down in defeat, the hallmark legislation of Obama’s first term, something on which he could at least hang a piece of his liberal hat, disappears. If it survives the battle there will undoubtedly be a renewed effort to overturn the bill. As what happened with abortion, a Supreme Court decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act might inflame those already opposed to the bill, driving up Republican participation in the 2012 election.

Democrats sorely need something to energize their base, but a Supreme Court ruling justifying the health care bill will not likely provide that boost. It is already fairly unpopular with many Democrats, either for being too liberal or being too conservative, which means that its vindication in the Court would inspire little emotion from the base. It has already passed, so those who approve of it would feel nothing new, and if it were to fail it would likely only inspire the limited number of Democrats who support it to go to the polls. And honestly, these people are ardent followers of President Obama who will almost definitely vote for him as is.

Perhaps President Obama is confident enough in the constitutional merits of his health care plan that he would like to have the mattered settled once and for all as he did with the hoopla surrounding his birth certificate. Unfortunately, there is good reason to worry that at least 4 members of the Court will vote to overturn the plan’s mandate clause. With four liberals all but assuredly voting in favor of the mandate Justice Kennedy is left with the consequential vote. If he were to vote against the mandate, then the entire Obama plan might as well be eliminated. In any case, whatever ruling the Court has will be extraordinarily political. The Court, for all intents and purposes, has become conservative versus liberal, just like America, which does not bode well for the country. Intelligence, logic and prudence should define the Court’s rulings, not ideology.

Midtown East was packed last week with dignitaries and leaders from countries near and far, all of whom are in town for the UN General Assembly. And while most New Yorkers could do without the endless gridlock and heightened security that accompanies this event each year, there is a bright side to all the mayhem—this week proves that amidst the faltering economy and political uncertainty, the United States is still the greatest country in the world.

There is tremendous amount at stake this week, with the safety and security of one of our closest allies hanging in the balance, the future of the Middle East in limbo, and the state of the global economy seemingly futile. Yet in the midst of all of these problems, hundreds of world leaders have invaded New York City this week — staying at the chicest hotels in Manhattan, and frequenting some of the best shopping and dining the City has to offer.

A recent New York Post article, “UN Diplos Go Wild in NYC,” highlighted the extra-circulars that the myriad of hard working UN diplomats have engaged in. According to the Post, Rwandan President Paul Kagame is living the life of luxury in a $16,000/night suite at Mandarin Oriental. The Saudis are enjoying the amenities of The Plaza, while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas resides at the slightly less extravagant, but all the while lavish, $3,000/night suite at the UN Millennium. Life’s rough.

In between lectures about global poverty and world peace, our honored guests have found time for some retail therapy in the Manhattan’s most exclusive shops. UN General Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser and his posse are said to have ordered custom made suits from the posh Domenico Vacca, with a reported bill totaling over six figures. Moving on to footwear, Argentinean president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, dropped $100,000+ on 20 pairs of Christian Louboutins. Here’s to hoping she brought an extra suitcase.

New York eateries have done a fantastic job of satisfying their global guests. Middle Eastern leaders, including Israeli and Saudi officials, enjoyed a meal at Nello on Madison Avenue, where German dignitaries were also spotted enjoying “a lavish lunch” the following day. Food was on the mind of Moroccan Minister Taieb Fassi Fihri, who dined alongside Nigerian leaders at Harry Cipriani.

Let’s face it: there is no other city in the world that can provide what New York provides—a rich array of cultures expressed in food, art, apparel and more. How often is the US criticized for the very things these dignitaries from around the globe have been capitalizing on all week? This annual UN rendezvous is nothing more than an opportunity for foreign leaders to come enjoy all that New York, and more generally the United States, has to offer. Regardless of how bad things may be, this week proves that the United States has a culture that is both envied and unparalleled.

Hubert Humphrey said, “What we need are critical lovers of America – patriots who express their faith in their country by working to improve it.” At this point, we are beating ourselves at our own game—losing confidence in our capabilities and allowing political fissures to rule us. Yet the situation, though dire, is only as crippling as we allow it to be.

It won’t be easy, and we have a lot of work to do, but it’s about time we remembered our country’s greatness. It’s about time we stop feeling sorry for ourselves. And it’s about time we prove to the world once again that we are, without question, the greatest country in the world.

On Thursday, September 8, President Obama delivered a forceful speech that outlined his broad program to bring America back to work. While the speech did not deliver the full combination of stimulus and tax increases for which the liberal base had hoped, President Obama finally came out punching against the oppositionist Republicans who had done everything in their power to frustrate the President’s legislative agenda. Obama’s supporters and America in general, badly needed to hear from their Commander in Chief. With citizens’ trust in Washington approaching zero and fears of a double dip recession increasing, Obama had to demonstrate a serious, robust and, most of all, politically feasible strategy for creating jobs. And it did precisely that.

His combination of tax cuts, something which Republicans should love, incentives for companies to hire, infrastructure spending and money to keep teachers in jobs, provides the proper combination of stimulus and tax breaks to boost the economy in the short term. Although it costs $447 billion, President Obama vowed to pay for it by cutting an equal amount from the deficit, thereby playing by Republican demands that every dollar spent have an equal dollar cut.  Thus the plan satisfies many economists’ desires of immediate spending, regardless of how it affects the deficit, combined with longer term cuts to entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid (Obama has signaled a willingness to restructure both), that will eventually drive America to bankruptcy without drastic policy changes.

By taking the centrist position Obama dared, not only figuratively but literally throughout his speech, the G.O.P to defy his wishes. He repeatedly pointed out that these policies were ones Republicans had traditionally supported, such as payroll tax cuts, and that there should be no reason that they should now withhold support for these logical moves. Indeed, in a logical world President Obama would be correct, but today’s political world flouts logic in favor of partisan banter and today’s Republican Party bears little resemblance to its saner ancestor. Despite Obama’s tactful maneuver leaving Republicans painted into a corner, the Party’s steadfast desire to ruin the President could lead its members to ignore his reasonable jobs creation act. Most likely some members, if not all, will resort to scare tactics and other rhetoric to try to turn the populace against this intelligent plan, rather than be seen agreeing with President Obama by their constituents.

The art of political rhetoric orbits around the notion that one person can convince the voters that his ideas are correct, while discrediting the opposition’s beliefs. Unfortunately, this extremist use of rhetoric to win votes does not usually lead to much political cooperation. One of the major ways in which the parties stoop to this partisan rancor is by claiming that their party and not the other knows precisely what is best for America. While it is almost impossible, usually, to say what is objectively best for the country, President Obama used the strategy of picking ideas from both parties. By combining those ideas he forced each party, specifically Republicans, to acquiesce to his ideas, or fear being pinned as oppositionists to American progress. In other words, his plan takes each party’s view of what is “best” for America and puts them together, in a hopefully inseparable web. Therefore opponents cannot despise one part of the plan without simultaneously arguing against an idea for which they had previously supported.

And with the President’s proposal likely representing the best option for creating jobs with today’s political realities, Republicans will have a hard time arguing that their continued opposition to his ideas are at all for the country’s benefit. Republicans have played a savvy, well-coordinated and disciplined game of frustrating any progress by Obama and Democrats. Their oppositionist ways, in tandem with Democrats’ apparent cowardice, has seemed to give them an edge in the political arena.

But with Americans desperate for relief from an economy that steadfastly refuses to improve, Republicans can no longer afford to exist simply to oppose Obama. Now, they must act in the best interests of the American people, and not only of the Republican Party. It is time for them to make good on their political claims to be the Party for the “real” American, because Obama’s plan will most likely actually help the “real” American. The fact that the proposal comes from a Democratic President should not prevent them from realizing its potential to improve the economy.

Finally, Obama’s speech has called out the Republicans and will force their hand. With this bill they must show, once and for all, whether they are out to help Americans, or if they are out for political gains. Quite simply Obama has arranged his plan so that Republicans will have a difficult task of opposing it without appearing hypocritical. Sadly, the goal of these Republicans is to make Obama a “one term president,” regardless of how it affects America. They might be willing to appear hypocritical to stymy this plan, which, assuming the economy continued to worsen without action, would be blamed on Obama. The truth of the modern G.O.P will be revealed in the coming weeks: are they for the betterment of all citizens, or are they for the betterment of themselves at the expense of Obama?

As if 3,650 days – ten years – is some sort of nationally accepted mourning period, a whole host of folks have come out with an array of columns and commentary suggesting it’s simply time to get over 9/11, to move on, to exist in a new era, and so on. In the style of calm intellectuals who have reasonably removed themselves from the passion of 2001, they say that two wars, a dead bin Laden, and a decade later, it’s time to stop letting 9/11 define us.

I’d love to. I’d love to forget the television screen. I’d love to act as if my heart doesn’t sink when the New York skyline peaks into view as I drive home. I’d love to forget the chaos of that school day. I’d love to forget Saturday night mass on September 15th, 2001, and with it, I so badly wish to forget crowds around widowed women and stone-faced children, hanging onto the pews for strength, praying that their husbands and fathers would come home despite all earthly odds.

If we could have gotten over it, if we could forget, if we could move on, we would have done so by now.

Demanding that the people of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, DC, Maryland, Virginia, and with them, the rest of the United States and our policies, simply just move on is not a mark of intellectualism deserving of a front page column. It is a mark of the worst form of feigned contrarianism.

To ask that we move on from the New York City Fire Department’s public display of one of the most courageous acts modern man has ever seen is not the sign of a reasoned policymaker — it’s what happens when people simply forget.

It’s what happens when we presume time can erase what was done. To forget the day evil men bested us is to forget that there is evil out there at all. To presume that it is over because we killed the man that did it, forgets that there are thousands more who wish to be him.

To excuse their evil acts because of their economic situation, certain US policies or an excuse by any other name, is to surrender the concept of good. September 11th is remarkable not just for the severity of the pain and tragedy inflicted, but also for the clarity of the moral contrast on display.

From the instant that these evil men struck the United States, good men – firemen, police, other first responders — struck back, and struck back hard. They declared our victory over terrorism, immediately. On display to the entire world was the fact that the United States of America is not a nation of fearful surrender, it is a nation built on the shoulders of men who sacrificed their own lives to save the innocent, not die to kill them. We watched as men who pray as they rush fires to save lives became the first punch back to blasphemous men who pray as they kill. As if I was watching a modern crucifixion unfold before my eyes, good men died at the hands of evil so that others could live. No American generation should ever be allowed to forget that.

There is no grand catharsis coming – no more than already did on May 2nd. There is no emotion that may arise in the 11^th year that has not presented itself by the 10^th. If we have not yet moved on, we will not.

Truly, I’d love to move on from missing posters, the images of the Towers on fire, and the darkened sky – but I never want to move on from the response. I do not want to forget my friend’s retired father who resumed his duties as a fireman the next day. I do not want to forget the children running lemonade stands on the various corners of my hometown saying simply “For New York.” I do not want to leave behind the standing ovation at church in the aftermath when our priest reminded us to be slow to anger, and quick to charity. I will not leave behind the contrast displayed that day – the first time in my lifetime that good men triumphed so publicly over evil. It was the day nuance died. We were the force for good, nearly brought to our knees, but we refused. First our firemen, then Flight 93, followed by the whole of the nation. We rebuilt our nation on the backs of those firemen – children dressed up like them for Halloween that October, my friends have since joined their ranks, and adults remain inspired by the FDNY’s unimaginable courage. If we strive as a nation not to move on from them, but instead to be more like them, like the spirit of that day, our nation would be better for it.

We should not move on from it, because events like September 11^th are not meant to be forgotten no more than one’s own name. We are given our names, we do not choose them, and over time, though we may redefine them; we never lose them.

Do not forget September 11^th; do not forget the 343 men who died so others could survive. Do not move on, double-down – so that we may try to be a nation that lives up to the undeniable honor those 343 performed.

We were not defined by terrorists —  we defined ourselves in spite of them.