IN ADAM’S FALL

In Adam’s Fall

We Sinned All

            These are the words that begin the New England Primer, written in the late 17^th century. This is the book that taught children their ABCs. It is at the same time a statement about human nature. We were all born in sin, and sinfulness is our natural state.

            We can find a lot in our own experience to support that view of humanity. We don’t need to reach very far to the great evil doers of history, the Hitlers and the Stalins. We can find examples in our own lives. Even the best of us sometimes fail to live up to our own ideals. We have all done things that we knew were wrong, wrong by our own standards. We knew this even as we committed these wrongful acts, yet we went ahead and committed these sins. All of us have indulged in at least some of the Seven Deadly Sins.  

            Did those old New England Puritans have something? Is human nature depraved to the core? Are we at best, at least some of us, kept to the relatively straight and narrow because of the strictures of society? Do we obey the rules of society mainly because we fear the punishment of disobeying?

Trailing Clouds of Glory

            While human imperfection is undeniable, not everyone believes that we born in sin, that our very nature is sinful. The English poet William Wordsworth believed that each of us had an existence before our birth. He wrote about this belief in “Ode: Intimations of Immortality.”

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

            In this view we are not born in sin. On the contrary, we are born trailing clouds of glory, from God.

            If we are not born in sin, how does one account for our many failures as human beings? How do you explain the difference between our lofty aims and our ineffective accomplishments? Where do those clouds of glory go? How does the innocent child become a despot, a murderer, an egomaniac? What has corrupted this child?

            According to the Romantic poets like Wordsworth, society is the corrupter. Society with its artificial rules takes the child molds him into something that is unnatural. The further we get away from nature, the more imperfect we become.

            These two views of human nature mark the fundamental difference between the political views of conservatives and liberals.

            We no longer use things like The New England Primer to teach young children that we are born in sin. How, then, do people acquire a sense of the quality of human nature? How do they decide whether people are fundamental good or basically bad? We derive these opinions inductively from our experiences. We all have had experiences where other people treated us badly. We have also witnessed many acts of goodness from our fellow human beings. The way we encounter these actions determine the way they shape our outlook. 

            Our opinions on human nature are not derived as conclusions based on logical considerations. Rather they are attitudes that we are barely aware of having considered, but they are attitudes that influence our thinking most of the things we do.

            Few, if any, people think of themselves as evil. Or their close family members or best friends. If the people they know best seem like decent human beings, how can they think of the vast majority of people as being fundamentally bad? Most people follow most of the rules most of the time. But we weren’t born following the rules. In so many ways society teaches us the rules. In effect it civilizes us. We learn the Golden Rule. We learn the ways we are dependent upon one another.

            We learn that if we apply ourselves in school as children, we will be able to get into college and learn a career that will help us succeed as adults. These opportunities are available to everyone. Of course we can’t deny that opportunities are more readily available to some than to others, but we can all think of members of minorities who have made great successes of their lives.

            It is virtually impossible for someone who violates too many of the rules to succeed. If a young woman has several children, all by different fathers, she is going to be unable to be a fully functioning member of society. If a young man drops out of school before graduating and joins a gang rather than take a minimum wage job, he is unlikely to ever hold a “good” job. While people like these clearly do not have the opportunities that most of us have, they do have some opportunities.

            We may not be born in sin, but we are born as little narcissists. As we grow, we have a responsibility take advantage of whatever opportunities are available to us and allow society to civilize us. That is the bad that some see as infecting large numbers of humanity. It’s not that that we are born in sin. The bad is the failure of some people, not just members of minorities, to make the effort required to become functioning, productive members of society.

            If some people are too lazy to follow the rules and take care of themselves, the conservative asks, why should I donate some of my hard-earned money through taxes to take care of such people?

            Some people have a more sanguine view of human nature. Most people, they believe, are basically good. Obviously there are some bad actors among us, some truly vile human beings. If we are born fundamentally good, how do so many of us turn out to be less than sterling characters?

            Conservatives may feel that we need society to civilize us and make us conform to appropriate patterns of behavior. Liberals, on the other hand, may feel that society itself is the culprit. Society might corrupt the innocent soul and force it to be an unthinking conformist.

            Two iconic books, both published in the 1950s, illustrate these two views of human nature. In Lord of the Flies a group of English schoolboys are stranded on a desert island. Without the guidance of adults to civilize them, the boys descend into savagery.

            In Catcher in the Rye, the main character, Holden Caulfield, is not sure what the phrase “coming through the rye” means. He envisions innocent children playing in a field, and someone is there, a catcher in the rye, to catch them if they fall off. Playing in the field is innocence. Falling off is losing that innocence, becoming phony, like most adults in Holden’s view. Adults, society destroy the innocence that we are born with.

            There is more to this question than the view of humanity of liberals and conservatives. For example, one wonders why so many evangelical Christians embrace a man as morally deficient as Donald Trump. We also wonder why Republicans are more likely to ignored the science in issues like climate change and the coronavirus.  We will look at these questions in later writings.

           

WELL, SHUT MY MOUTH!

What a shame! Ann Coulter had a bad fall last month and fractured her jaw. Now her jaw is wired shut. Does that mean we aren’t going to be able to hear her tell how liberals are conspiring to turn the country over to terrorists? That Democrats are trying to undermine the moral character of the country? That progressives are planning to sell out the nation? Who is going to tell us that we are going to hell in a hand basket now that the Democrats are going to gain power in Washington? Is this the end?

I almost forgot. We still have Sarah. Yes, Sarah Palin can tell the country that the president-elect pals around with terrorists. That when the Ruskies attack, they will hit Alaska first. That she needs some more clothes from Saks Fifth Avenue. That she is prepared to be president in 2012. Thank God. For a minute I thought the country would be in trouble without Ann warning us against the danger from liberals.

WHY DOESN’T BUSH WANT GENERAL PETRAEUS TO TESTIFY IN PUBLIC BEFORE CONGRESS?

We have our own sources in the White House who gave us the inside story on this issue. We cannot reveal his identity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, especially the alternative press, especially this blog.

In his own words:

“The reason we can’t let Congress loose on General Petraeus is that they’re a bunch of nosey parkers. They’re always trying to find out stuff that is none of their beeswax. It’s hard enough to run the country without a bunch of liberals criticizing everything the president does.

“It goes back to the vice president's advisory committee on energy policy. Before we knew it, Congress was nosing around, trying to find out who was on the committee. What a nerve! They were digging around trying to get all that personal information.

“The next thing you know, they’re trying to find out who was behind firing all those closet-Democrat federal attorneys. I mean they've subpoenaed everyone from Karl Rove and Harriet Meiers to the White House cook. They’ll stop at nothing!

“So there’s no way we’re going to let those vultures at General Petraeus. They’ll be trying to weasel out all kinds of information we don’t want them to know. Instead we’ll let them talk to the secretaries of defense and state. They know how to handle those liberals. Also for the written report, we’re going to get the information from the general and write it ourselves. That way we can put the right slant on it, just the way we do with scientific reports.”