The word “good” doesn’t mean “pleasant.” It’s not a synonym for “delicious” or “talented,” and should never be preceded by the words “really,” “pretty” or “super.” Commitment to an idea necessitates a complete grasp of that idea’s magnitude. But no one can fully comprehend a concept that is not communicated with precision. “Good” furnishes us with an excellent example of this principle.

I suppose I ought to pause and qualify my opening statement, because these days “good” actually has come to denote “pleasant,” “delicious” and “talented,” and can therefore be modified using words like “really.” But this nonchalance robs “good” of its richness, of its gravity, of the fullness of its implications. Everyone understands the casual “good” when it is reduced to “likeable” – a shallow, subjective term to apply to anything pleasing. Rarely, however, does “good” enter the conversation in terms of “the Good,” or to indicate conformity to an objective  standard of excellence. Let me illustrate the distinction.

When a carpenter considers his newest table, he doesn’t sit back and exclaim, “Hey, that’s pretty good!” This would smack of self-congratulation, and would do more to communicate his reaction rather than to describe his work. Rather, he  nods, gives it a thump, and says simply, “Good.” He can call it that not because it pleases him in some subjective way, but because the table has met an objective standard and therefore has goodness.

This begs the question, “What is goodness?” Our reason replies that this common noun refers to a certain desirable quality that every human person inherently understands. And then we immediately grasp the gravity of the situation. If to call something good is to say that it has goodness, which is to link it to an eternal transcendent principle, then we realize that this is not a word we may speak lightly. Certainly we can and ought to use it, but, realizing now what it means, we apply it with greater care because we can suddenly see its implications. These implications include the responsibility we have for the proper use of the word.

If what I have said is true, then it points to a broader principle of precision in language that carries with it an obligation. We are responsible for every word, for protecting from corruption these greatest products of our God-given reason. Imagine what might happen if we took responsibility for the word “liberal.” Reestablishing the fundamental meaning of this word (līberālis: of freedom), for example, would completely renovate our political landscape.

The bottom line is this: our ability to build a language allows us to build societies around a discussion about what it means to live well and to hold one another accountable within them. The development of the common noun means that we can share a conception of morality and reinforce it. Without language, this would be impossible. And it is my argument that to allow language to decay is to allow society and morality to decay.

Talk to Me: What do you think about the connection between language and morality? How do you perceive technology to play into the discussion?

There’s a bright spot of opportunity on the horizon, but how conservatives approach it will determine whether it turns out to be a supernova of social change or merely the mirage of what could have been. The 2012 presidential election draws steadily closer, cutting its way to the front of our minds through a frenzy of scandal, speculation and sensationalism. But while candidates and commentators scramble to keep up, Americans everywhere are still trying to break with  apathy.

The apathy epidemic is likely due to disillusionment with the current administration and ubiquitous bad news. It manifests itself in widespread, self-imposed ignorance of current events (“I never read the news — it’s too depressing”), politics (“I’m above politics,” or ” I just can’t stand those dirty politicians”), and individual responsibilities (“Doesn’t the mayor/pastor/neighbor take care of that? Leave it to him”). Responsibility to a society that exhausts, marginalizes or frustrates its members becomes a burden, and so citizens turn inwards to increasingly private, individualistic lifestyles. From here, the candidate that promises to shoulder this burden becomes increasingly attractive. And, lucky for him, you do not care to know what the negative consequences of his policies could be.

Conservatives, I am talking to you! Do not succumb to the temptation to give up that years-old debate with your left-leaning cousin, to sleep in on election day (especially local ones!), or to let your subscription to the Wall Street Journal expire. We need, as a friend blessedly reminded me, to view these distressing circumstances as motivation for action, rather than an excuse to go do other things. A presidential election provides us with the much-needed opportunity to refresh our dedication to our principles and to vault them to prominence as  the beautiful remedy for rampant radical egalitarianism’s destruction.

Let me encourage you the way my friend encouraged me. Our beliefs are convictions, but, more than that, they are truths. Whether inspired by Scripture, history, or econometric models, lovers of liberty champion freedom knowing that such freedom is the key to sustainable governance, and, moreover, that liberty is the only creed worthy of a human person. Humans have shown ourselves to be great, to be geniuses and heroes and true friends. We have shown ourselves to be capable of the responsibility which accompanies the liberty we surrender so easily today. Now, when the hallmarks of our humanity are dimmed by something that smacks very much of socialism, we cannot afford to turn down the path of least resistance.

You already know what to do: read the news, hold your representatives accountable, accept that government’s operations are enumerated and limited and behave (read: vote) accordingly. Go to church. Reflect on what it means to be a human person, a citizen, a member of a community. Be inspired. Get motivated. Help your neighbor. Help yourself, for that matter — do not give the government another excuse to step in. Then spread the good news! Cultures cannot change before people do, and people are more likely to change for someone they trust and respect. Unless you are completely satisfied with the state of the Union, there is nothing better you could be doing.

Talk to Me: Are you feeling apathetic? Why? What inspires you to snap out of it, and what will you change when you do?

This post is part of a new series which explores the freedom-loving mindset and the pursuit of a classically liberal lifestyle in Michigan. Comments are welcome.

I was greeted this morning by a CEI memo regarding individual liberty and National Donut Day … And now, happily sugar-buzzed, I have the energy to tackle an issue that’s at the heart of what The Good Life is about: living. And not just living, but living well. Living an examined life. Thriving. I’ve stacks of notes from  political philosophy classes in which everyone from Plato and  Xenophon to Hobbes,  Machiavelli and Bloom investigate what it takes to get there, but they all start from the same assumption; namely, that one has to have the will to undertake the necessary steps to begin to live well.

Continue reading →

This post is part of a new series which explores the freedom-loving mindset and the pursuit of a classically liberal lifestyle in Michigan. Comments are welcome.

“Government is not reason, is not eloquence – it is force.”

These words, usually attributed to George Washington, succinctly describe a libertarian attitude towards that entity whose use of coercion is legal and legitimate, but today, I’m thinking about them more in terms of how one might apply them to himself. Continue reading →