Sunday, March 6, 2016

Edna Lewis and the Black Roots of American Cooking

Edna Lewis and the Black Roots of American Cooking

The air around Bethel Baptist Church in Unionville, Va., is sweet with pine and moss. From the road, Bethel seems like any other small-town white clapboard church, though a closer look shows some wear: a few holes in the windows, spidery cracks in the vinyl siding, a plastic Christmas tree tossed into the woods behind its gravel lot, sun-bleached to a shade of blue God never intended. But the church was built to last, and it’s still solid at nearly 125 years old. It sits at the corner of Marquis and Independence Roads: nobility and freedom, a fitting location for a place founded by black people who decided they weren’t going to worship at the back of white churches anymore.

One of those founders was Chester Lewis, an angular man with wide, piercing eyes who spent much of his life enslaved a couple of miles down Marquis Road. After emancipation, he built a house and planted orchards with a few other families on a plot of land his former master ceded to him. He and his wife, Lucinda, were illiterate, but they welcomed Isabella Lightfoot, a black graduate of Oberlin College, to use a part of their home as a school for the fledgling community’s children. They farmed, fished and foraged all their food, threshing their own wheat, raising their own animals and walking over to Jackson’s General Store for salt, spices, vanilla and Valentine’s Day presents. They struggled but were self-reliant, relishing their freedom, and they named their settlement Freetown.

In Freetown, the people lived close to the land, cooking their harvest in wood stoves, using wells and streams to keep food cool. And they lived close to one another. Chester and Lucinda’s granddaughter Edna Lewis remembered food as the center of its culture of work and community. In 1984, she told Phil Audibert, a documentarian: ‘‘If someone borrowed one cup of sugar, they would return two. If someone fell ill, the neighbors would go in and milk the cows, feed the chickens, clean the house, cook the food and come and sit with whoever was sick. I guess rural life conditioned people to cooperate with their neighbors.’’ Their conversation was recorded a half-century after Lewis moved away, but the impression her community made on her was still profound.

Her father died in 1928, and the rest of the family, which included six children who survived into adulthood, struggled during the Depression. Lewis left Freetown by herself as a teenager, joining the Great Migration north. Eventually, the rest of the community left, too. Today, Freetown is just a stand of fruit trees, and Jackson’s store has become someone’s rickety machine shop, its porch greening with vines of Virginia creeper crawling through the floorboards. But nearby, there are a few gravestones behind a white fence. I read the epitaphs when I visited, arriving at the grave I had come to pay my respects to: ‘‘Dr. Edna Lewis, April 13, 1916–February 13, 2006, Grande Dame of Southern Cooking.’’ I reached out to touch it, but then pulled back my hand; I remembered that I had the scent of cheap fried chicken on my fingers, fried chicken that I am sure Miss Lewis, as she was always known, would not have approved of.

It was tasty, that chicken, in the way that pre-fried chicken plucked out from a pile under heatlamps can be tasty: salty and greasy, slicking the lips with bird fat. But Lewis, who placed Southern cooking in the pantheon of great cuisines, respected fried chicken as a special-occasion food. She made hers not by punishing it in a pot of hot grease, but by patiently turning it in a shallow pan, crisping it over time in a blend of lard, butter and country ham, a technique that reflects something greater than the flavor of conjoined fats. When Lewis was growing up in Freetown, she learned that there was a season truly perfect for frying chickens — late spring to early summer, when the birds were the right size and had the right feed — just as there was a season for peaches and a season for blackberries. Foods, Lewis argued, are always temporal, so all good tastes are special. And when you have only a few chances every year to make something, you make it well. You use home-rendered lard to cook the bird. You brown the breasts first, then lay them on top of the sizzling legs so that they finish cooking gently in the heat above the pan. You slip in a slice of country ham to season the fat. That’s how you give thanks for it.

Along the way, fried chicken has become a fraught food, somehow both universally beloved and also used in ugly stereotypes of black people. But Lewis treated all the food she prepared, perhaps all things she did, with dignity and sensitivity. You get this sense in photos of her: She always stood tall, often dressed in clothes made of African fabrics, her white hair crowning her head. Almost everyone who met her describes her as ‘‘regal.’’ It’s almost as if her parents knew, when they gave her the middle name Regina.

Lewis went on from Freetown to become a revered chef and cookbook author, a friend to literati and movie stars and the winner of nearly every award our culinary institutions had to give. Today, her name is revered among food-world cognoscenti but less well known than your average Food Network star, and yet her championing of Southern food, and cooking it close to the land, is more relevant than ever. ‘‘We weren’t ready for her then,’’ one of her acolytes, Alice Waters, says. ‘‘Now we are.’’

‘‘Our mother was an excellent cook,’’ Lewis’s younger sister, Ruth Lewis Smith, told me recently. ‘‘Our Aunt Jennie was an excellent cook. A lot of our family went to Washington, D.C., to work as cooks. When they came home, they all learned from each other.’’ The elite homes of Virginia, going back to the days when the Colonial elite socialized with French politicians and generals during the Revolutionary War, dined on a cuisine inspired by France. It was built on local ingredients — many originally shared by Native Americans or brought by slaves from Africa — and developed by enslaved black chefs like James Hemings, who cooked for Thomas Jefferson at Monticello. Because this aristocratic strain of Southern cuisine was provisioned and cooked largely by black people, it came into their communities as well, including Freetown. Smith is 91 and still raises chickens; a cage of quail coo in her kitchen. When I called her, she asked me to call back later because her apple butter had been on the stove for two days, and it was ready for canning.

As a girl, Lewis busied herself with gathering berries, sewing and other home-taught skills. She watched the older women intently, learning to cook alongside them. After leaving Freetown, she made her way to New York City, where she took a job at a laundry and was fired three hours later: She’d never ironed before. She became a Communist and bristled at having to enter employers’ buildings through the back door but nonetheless worked for a time as a domestic, helping to put her baby sister Naomi through art school. At one point, she became a sought-after seamstress, making dresses for Doe Avedon and Marilyn Monroe, and dressing windows for the high-end department store Bonwit Teller. Surrounded by bohemians and fashion figures, she gave dinner parties for her friends, channeling her memories of her mother and aunt at the stove.

In 1948, Johnny Nicholson, a regular at Lewis’s table, was getting ready to open a cafe on the Upper East Side. As Nicholson used to tell it, Lewis walked by, about to take another job as a domestic, when she looked into her friend’s place and said it would make a terrific restaurant. A week later, Lewis was cooking lunch at Cafe Nicholson. She offered a tidy menu: herbed roast chicken, filet mignon, a piece of fish, some cake, a chocolate soufflé. The restaurant was a smash. It had a dining room like a fabulist’s dream: floral displays and soaring palm fronds dipping down to kiss the heads of guests like Paul Robeson, Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal. Truman Capote would come into the kitchen, purring at his new friend Edna for a fix of biscuits. William Faulkner once flattered Lewis by asking if she had studied cooking in Paris. But no, her sister Ruth Lewis Smith told me: She learned to make soufflés from their mother, back in Virginia. Smith, in fact, often made them herself, after the restaurant took off and she came to help out.

The restaurant critic Clementine Paddleford reviewed the restaurant in 1951 in The New York Herald Tribune, calling that soufflé ‘‘light as a dandelion seed in a wind’’ and noting a sense of pride in the chef: ‘‘We saw Edna peering in from the kitchen, just to see the effect on the guests and hear the echoes of praise.’’ But Lewis wasn’t just the chef. With Jim Crow in full effect and de facto segregation the reality in most of the North, this granddaughter of slaves had become a partner in a business that counted Eleanor Roosevelt among its favorite customers.

In 1961, Judith Jones, an editor at Knopf, ushered in an era of fascination with French cuisine by publishing an intensely detailed cookbook called ‘‘Mastering the Art of French Cooking,’’ written in part by a tall, warbling woman named Julia Child. A decade later, Jones was looking for someone to help America turn its sights to the glories of its own tables. One day, the chief executive of Random House, Knopf’s parent company, asked Jones if she would meet his friend, a socialite named Evangeline Peterson. Peterson had taken a liking to a wonderful caterer and wanted to write down her recipes. Unsure of what the meeting would yield, Jones agreed to it. ‘‘But when Edna swept into my office, in this beautiful garb, her hair piled up, she was just such a presence that you were a little awed by her,’’ she says.

After leaving Cafe Nicholson in the mid-1950s, Lewis had continued her cinematically eclectic life. She and her husband, a Communist activist named Steve Kingston, spent time as pheasant farmers in New Jersey, until all the birds died overnight from a mysterious disease. She opened and closed her own restaurant. She began catering and teaching cooking classes and took a job as a docent in the Hall of African Peoples in the American Museum of Natural History. A slip on a snowy night broke her ankle and, bored during her recovery, she accepted Peterson’s invitation to write together.

They had essentially finished writing a book, ‘‘The Edna Lewis Cookbook,’’ that Jones thought was fashionable but characterless. But when Lewis started talking, recalling scenes of growing up in Freetown and the foods they had gathered, grown, harvested, shot, hooked and cooked, Jones lit up. ‘‘I knew this was a voice that could teach us,’’ she said. This was the story of American food that she had wanted to hear. Peterson graciously went home, Jones asked questions, Lewis wrote answers on yellow legal pads and the seeds of her classic, ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking,’’ were sown. Lewis would go on to write more books and to hold chef posts at esteemed landmarks like Middleton Place in South Carolina and Gage & Tollner in New York. But she will be forever remembered for writing the book that started with that meeting.

‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking,’’ published in 1976, is revered for the way it shows the simple beauty of food honestly made in the rhythm of the seasons — the now common but at the time nearly forgotten ethos of eating farm-to-table — and for the way it gave a view of Southern food that was refined and nuanced, going beyond grease, greens and grits. ‘‘Until recently, we Southerners were very apologetic about our food,’’ Lewis’s friend, collaborator and eventual caretaker Scott Peacock told me. ‘‘But she wrote about it with such reverence.’’ She inspired generations of Southern cooks to honor their own roots. Alice Waters, who is usually credited for sparking the American organic-and-local movement at Chez Panisse in California, says: ‘‘It was certainly revolutionary at that point. I was such a Francophile, but when I discovered her cookbook, it felt like a terribly good friend. By then, we were already in a fast-food world, and she showed the deep roots of gastronomy in the United States and that they were really in the South, where we grew for flavor and cooked with sophistication. I had never really considered Southern food before, but I learned from her that it’s completely connected to nature, totally in time and place.’’

The book is, in one sense, a country manual, with instructions on picking wild mushrooms and the best way to turn dandelions into wine. (It tastes like Drambuie, Lewis offers helpfully.) It’s also a cookbook, because there are teaspoons and tablespoons and ‘‘cook uncovered for 10 minutes.’’ But perhaps the truest way to describe the book is as a memoir told in recipes, where every menu, dish and ingredient speaks to her childhood in rural Virginia and how her community made a life from the land, taking pleasure in the doing of many things.

It stands as an exemplar of American food writing, a complex, multilayered, artistic and even subtly subversive document. And it stands on the other side of a cruel tradition in cookbooks from the first half of the 20th century, one in which black domestic cooks often had their recipes recorded and written by their white employers, who tended not to flatter the help in the process. Toni Tipton-Martin’s 2015 book ‘‘The Jemima Code,’’ a bibliography of African-American cookbooks, collects some examples of this, including one from 1937 called ‘‘Emma Jane’s Souvenir Cookbook,’’ by Blanche Elbert Moncure. In the equivalent of blackface dialect, a servant cook, Emma Jane, ostensibly says, ‘‘I ain’t no fancy cake maker but here is a re-ceet dat ‘Ole Miss’ taught me,’’ then goes on to give the cake a name involving both a racial slur and an insult to her own intelligence.

Lewis is a sensitive, even-toned renderer of beauty. Her small stories in ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking’’ gently urge the reader toward a life of mindfulness, a life of learning to see the details. Early in the book, she describes a spring morning: ‘‘A stream, filled from the melted snows of winter, would flow quietly by us, gurgling softly and gently pulling the leaf of a fern that hung lazily from the side of its bank. After moments of complete exhilaration we would return joyfully to the house for breakfast.’’ As Jones once said on a panel, ‘‘You felt all through her writing that she was giving thanks for something precious.’’

In a passage called ‘‘Hog Killing,’’ Lewis recalls the day each fall when her family would turn pigs into pork. It’s not gruesome, but it is earthy. Today, at a time when the phrase ‘‘rock-star butchers’’ has occasion to exist, making us reckon with the mortal reality of meat isn’t so shocking. But it’s still grounding to read these lines: ‘‘My father would remove the liver and the bladder, which he would present to us. We would blow the bladders up with straws cut from reeds and hang them in the house to dry. By Christmas they would have turned transparent like beautiful balloons.’’ Can you imagine being so intimately connected to the guts of life that you could look at a bladder, just separated from its pig, and see a balloon for your Christmas tree? Can you imagine seeing so much to love around you?

But those same hogs also point toward deeper meaning in the text. The next paragraph reads: ‘‘The following morning my brothers and sisters and I would rush out before breakfast to see the hogs hanging from the scaffolds like giant statues. The hogs looked beautiful. They were glistening white inside with their lining of fat, and their skin was almost translucent.’’

In November 1918, two years after Lewis was born, a black man, Charles Allie Thompson was lynched in Culpeper, a nearby town. A mob hung him from a tree after claims that he raped a white woman. He had been seen asking her to help with butchering, at hog-killing time. It’s not clear whether Lewis knew this story. But she was not naïve. ‘‘She could see the ugly in the world,’’ Peacock says. ‘‘This is someone who had street smarts.’’ She wrote ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking’’ while in her 50s, in the 1970s, after years as a political radical, after the civil rights movement, after marching for the Scottsboro Boys, nine black teenagers accused of raping two white women, who escaped being lynched in Alabama in 1931 only to be railroaded into shoddy convictions. (They were all eventually pardoned or had their convictions overturned, some posthumously.) Whether Lewis intended to imbue her hog-killing scene with such references, it became impossible for me to read ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking’’ without a sense of the wider setting of her story and how she chose to tell it without terror, how she refused to let the past, her past, be defined by anyone else but her.

If someone handed you a book about a settlement of freed slaves trying to live off the land, what would you expect? A story of struggle, at least. Privation and desperation, probably. But in Lewis’s telling, it is a story of peace and celebration, of receiving the gifts of the earth and hard work. The children sing at concerts in this story. The recipes are arranged by menus with formal titles as literally quotidian as ‘‘A Late Spring Dinner’’ or ‘‘A Cool-Evening Supper,’’ because the very acts of cooking and serving and eating food are worthy of occasion. It is a story of refinement, not in the fine-china sense but in the sense of being meticulous and careful about the way the people of Freetown raised and grew and trapped and foraged and prepared their food, because their lives were worth that. The pleasure of that was due them.

Lewis took the story of rural black people, formerly enslaved black people, and owned it as a story of confidence and beauty. She didn’t have an easy life, even in her Freetown years. Her family suffered through two stillborn children and two more who died young of pneumonia. But she chose to see, and to show us, beauty; and under the shadow of oppression and slavery, that is a political act. I spoke with Lewis’s niece, her youngest sister Naomi’s daughter, Nina Williams-Mbengue, who, at age 12, took her aunt’s handwritten sheets of yellow legal-pad paper and typed the manuscript for ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking.’’ Her aunt never said her book was meant to be political. But she often spoke of being inspired by the people and the humane, communal spirit of Freetown. Williams-Mbengue said: ‘‘She just didn’t have any notion that these people were less-than because they were poor farming people. She wanted to make their lives count.’’ And then she added: ‘‘Imagine being enslaved, then rising above that to build your own town. Aunt Edna was always amazed that one of the first things they did was to plant orchards, so that their children would see the fruit of their efforts. How could those communities have such a gift? Was it that the future had to be so bright because they knew the past that they were coming out of?’’

One of the most quietly devastating passages in American literature is the opening of ‘‘Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave’’: ‘‘I was born in Tuckahoe, near Hillsborough, and about twelve miles from Easton, in Talbot county, Maryland. I have no accurate knowledge of my age, never having seen any authentic record containing it.’’ Here we find so many of slavery’s psychological horrors in Douglass’s two simple, measured, masterful sentences: I can tell you, in great detail, about the location of my body. But I can’t tell you how long I have been here, because the system that made my body someone else’s property keeps the most basic, most intimate fact of my own life away from me.

It’s possible to hear the echoes of Douglass’s sentences in the first lines of ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking’’: ‘‘I grew up in Freetown, Virginia, a community of farming people. It wasn’t really a town. The name was adopted because the first residents had all been freed from chattel slavery and they wanted to be known as a town of Free People.’’ You can hear the echoes in the even tone, in facts, plainly stated, that have to say no more to say so much. The message here is empowered, almost fierce: Our town may not have been a town, according to the people who draw the maps and place the post offices. But it was a town, a whole world, because we, and I, say so.

‘‘The book was this coming out,’’ Jones says. ‘‘But she felt able and entitled to it. She was very strong in her beliefs.’’ When they were working on the book together, Jones noticed that there wasn’t a menu for Thanksgiving. She asked Lewis about it, who said, quietly: ‘‘We didn’t celebrate Thanksgiving. We celebrated Emancipation Day.’’ And so she wrote a menu for that, leaving it to the reader to figure out why.

Nearly every year, Lewis went back to Virginia, often visiting the site where Freetown had stood, even when all that remained was a stone chimney and a few houses, sagging as if molten. But she would delight in feeling the soil under her feet with her older sister Jenny, who still lived nearby. ‘‘I remember trailing along behind them, picking blackberries, the brambles getting caught in my pants and my hair,’’ Williams-Mbengue says. ‘‘And they would be giggling, picking berries and wild greens for salads.’’ While she was writing ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking,’’ Lewis cooked with Jenny to refresh her memory of the techniques and the flavor and often called her from New York while testing the recipes. She read historic cookbooks to learn more about the cooking done by blacks in the past, how Native Americans ate, what French influences Thomas Jefferson brought to her home region. She spoke of the creativity of black women in the kitchen; how that represented some measure of freedom when they otherwise had none. ‘‘She always talked about how, in spite of these people being slaves, they created a cuisine that would become world-renowned,’’ Williams-Mbengue says.

Lewis stood as the ambassador of that cuisine, who announced the universality of its appeal and importance and who wrote, in part, to preserve it. She feared that the departure of people from the land, and the rise of fast food and convenience foods, would change the culture of cooking. ‘‘Southern cooking is about to become extinct,’’ she said to The New York Times Magazine in 1992. And she feared, too, that people would lose sight of who should be credited for that cooking. ‘‘It’s mostly black,’’ she said, more forceful in her later years, because blacks ‘‘did most of the cooking in private homes, hotels and on the railroads.’’ She began work on, but never finished, a book about the significance of black cooks in Southern food.

Southern food has had its ups and downs in the national consciousness. In 1962, Eugene Walter of Mobile, Ala., wrote of his culinary homesickness while traveling for Gourmet magazine: ‘‘It’s interesting that in New York one can find authentic food of every country on earth, save of the South. What is advertised as Southern fried chicken is usually an ancient fowl encased in a cement mixture and tormented in hot grease for an eternity. Southern biscuits à la New York are pure cannon wadding. Gumbo they’ve not even heard of.’’ But for the last nine years, by my calculations, two-thirds of the nominees for the James Beard Foundation’s annual award for the best book on American cooking have been on the subject of Southern food. Southern books have won the award all of those years but one. Yet none of those Beard award winners, or nominees, were black.

Leni Sorensen is a Virginia historian of African-American cooks. ‘‘Many black people have not heard of Edna Lewis because they’re urban and raised in schools to learn that farming is dirty and slavery was awful, so let’s not talk about it,’’ she told me. ‘‘There is a feeling: ‘Oh, hell no, we just got off the farm.’ And for many black people, to see any activities done under slavery now as professional is just too painful.’’ Joe Randall, a chef of five decades and a friend of Lewis’s, says: ‘‘Cooking was relegated to black folk, and when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, a lot of civil rights leaders said, ‘We don’t have to work in your restaurants anymore.’ ’’ Randall taught hospitality management at universities and says, ‘‘A lot of my students’ grandparents said, ‘I didn’t send my baby to college to be no cook.’ ’’

Once cooking became a profession with cultural cachet — Randall attributes this rise to the moment in 1977 when the Department of Labor began classifying chefs not as ‘‘domestics’’ but as ‘‘professionals’’ — many black chefs then became pigeonholed as ‘‘soul-food cooks.’’ In her 2011 book ‘‘High on the Hog,’’ the culinary scholar Jessica B. Harris writes that in the 1960s ‘‘soul food was as much an affirmation as a diet. Eating neckbones and chitterlings, turnip greens and fried chicken became a political statement for many.’’ But Lewis publicly distanced herself from soul food, once saying to Southern Living magazine, ‘‘That’s hard-times food in Harlem, not true Southern food.’’ Adrian Miller, who wrote a book called ‘‘Soul Food,’’ says he understands where Lewis was coming from: ‘‘This is the food of black migrants, who were transplanting a cuisine to where they couldn’t always find what they had before. So they had to find substitutes, like canned and processed ingredients. I think Lewis thought it just was something different than the scratch cooking that she made.’’ Lewis came directly from slaves and from the land and the food that they grew and prepared for themselves. Her food wasn’t a remix of food that they got from the elite; it was the same food as the elites ate, only they owned it themselves. She had no truck with the belittling mainstream idea of soul food — cheap and greasy — as the totality of black cooking, but it’s easy to see how her words would fall hard on ears that still hear pride in the term.

It has been almost 10 years since Lewis died, 40 since she published ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking.’’ Who carries her torch? There are many calling for seasonal, organic eating, but who else has been afforded the iconic position Lewis held, to keep showing us the rich history and influences that black cooks have had on American food? Jones found Lewis by chance. Is America looking hard enough for the next Edna Lewis?

It’s a question that has weighed on Tipton-Martin for years, as she pored over hundreds of African-American cookbooks to write ‘‘The Jemima Code.’’ She got to speak to Lewis at a food writer’s event and, while still in awe of her, steeled herself to tell her that she was not the only one. ‘‘I told her that I wanted to tell the world that there were more women like her than just her,’’ she said. A while later, Lewis sent her a letter, written on the same kind of yellow legal pad that she used to write ‘‘The Taste of Country Cooking.’’ ‘‘Leave no stone unturned to prove this point,’’ she wrote. ‘‘Make sure that you do.’’

Recipes: Spiced Pears | Corn Muffins | Smothered Rabbit | Biscuits | Garden Strawberry Preserves



Sent from my iPhone

Cooking up a legacy: the story of famed chef Edna Lewis

Cooking up a legacy: the story of famed chef Edna Lewis

Greens, grits, cheese soufflé — and, of course, fried chicken. You can’t forget the fried chicken. For many in the South, these foods are a taste of normalcy. But the rest of the country can rightfully thank the first noted African-American chef and celebrated cookbook author, Edna Lewis, for elevating Southern vittles to an American dining favorite.

In 1916, Edna Lewis was born in Freetown — a tiny place founded by her grandfather, an illiterate freed slave. She learned some of her most poignant culinary lessons in the small Virginia settlement from family members who worked as cooks in Washington, D.C., and returned home to Virginia.

She eventually moved to New York, where Lewis met her husband, a Communist, and John Nicholson, an antiques dealer who in 1949 opened a restaurant, Café Nicholson, on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. One of New York’s most influential citizens, Nicholson was a regular at Lewis’ dining table at home, and he made Lewis the café’s first chef and co-owner. Her simple, Southern-inspired menu included roast chicken, filet mignon, fish, cake and a chocolate soufflé that established Café Nicholson as a famous dining spot for society’s elite, including playwright Tennessee Williams, famed American novelist and poet William Faulkner and first lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

Lewis left Café Nicholson in the mid-1950s but continued a burgeoning culinary life. Book editor Judith Jones prodded Lewis — who was unable to cook because of a broken ankle — to write a cookbook that chronicled the style of Southern American cuisine. Her book editor, Jones, was also the editor of Julia Child.

First came “The Edna Lewis Cookbook.” Then in 1976 Lewis wrote a culinary classic, “The Taste of Country Cooking.” Two other cookbooks followed: “In Pursuit of Flavor” (1988) and “The Gift of Southern Cooking” (2003).

Later in her career, Lewis returned to the restaurant life, most notably as the chef of Brooklyn’s Gage & Tollner. And it’s not surprising the bona fide celebrity chef received many honors, such as her induction into the KitchenAid Cookbook Hall of Fame. In 2006, Lewis died in her Decatur home at 89, leaving a succulent legacy for Southern cuisine.



Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, March 5, 2016

An Unjust Law Is No Law at All

An Unjust Law Is No Law at All

Each week, Mr. [Lawrence W.] Reed will relate the stories of people whose choices and actions make them heroes. See the table of contents for previous installments.


To write about a man known chiefly as a theologian — a bishop in the early Catholic Church, no less — might suggest at first a discourse on religious issues. Augustine of Hippo (later canonized as “St. Augustine”) was unquestionably a giant of Christian thought and teaching at the time he wrote in the early fifth century AD. He remains so to this day, among Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox Christians as well. On matters of salvation, grace, free will, original sin, and “just war,” his brilliant observations continue to spark lively debate throughout Christendom and beyond. He could be regarded as a hero for those contributions alone, but those are largely matters for readers to explore and evaluate on their own.

Augustine was a hero because he took charge of his troubled, wayward life and transformed it. Then, once committed to the highest standards of personal conduct and scholarly inquiry, he offered pioneering insights on liberty critical to the development of Western philosophy. One does not have to be a person of any particular faith to learn a great deal from this man who lived over 16 centuries ago. The Roman province of Africa produced a no more consequential figure than Augustine, born in 354 AD in Thagaste, now called Souk Ahras, in modern-day Algeria.

It was a momentous time to be alive. By the fourth century, the old Roman Republic and its liberties had been snuffed out for 400 years, succeeded by the increasingly corrupt, tyrannical, and dysfunctional welfare/warfare state that we know as the Roman Empire. It survived barely another century after Augustine’s birth. He would live to see the Visigoths sack the “Eternal City” of Rome itself in the year 410. Twenty years later, as the Vandals laid siege to Augustine’s own city of Hippo in North Africa, he died at age 75. His life was proof that even as the world you know crumbles into dust, you can still make a difference for the betterment of humanity’s future.

Augustine’s youth was hedonistic and self-centered, in spite of the earnest prayers and intense counseling of his devoutly Christian mother, Monica. His father, a volatile and angry tax collector who converted to Christianity on his death bed, died when his son was a teenager. Augustine’s voracious sexual appetite led him into numerous affairs, which he regretted in later life.

Though a bright student with remarkable rhetorical skills, he found plenty of time to get into trouble. Years later in his magnificent autobiography, The Confessions, he recalled with analytic introspection an incident in which he and some young friends stole pears from a man’s orchard. He did not steal the fruit because he was hungry, he wrote, but purely because “it was not permitted.” Noting this as evidence of his flawed character, he explained, “It was foul, and I loved it. I loved my own error — not that for which I erred, but for the error itself.”

In his twenties, Augustine bought into the cult of Manichaeism, a strange concoction of Christian, Buddhist, Gnostic, astrological, and pagan elements. He also flirted with Neo-Platonism, a school of philosophy drawing heavily from Plato and from one of Plato’s later followers, Plotinus. While Augustine’s mother Monica despaired at her son’s shifting fancies, two encounters — one with a book and one with a man — would ultimately fulfill her hopes and change his life.

The book was Hortensius by the great Roman republican, Marcus Tullius Cicero. Though the text was eventually lost to history, scholars have reconstructed its core message through citations by contemporaries and Augustine himself. According to Robin Lane Fox’s magisterial biography, Augustine: Conversions to Confessions, “Cicero defined philosophy as the ‘love of wisdom’ (philo-sophia), words which struck home to his young reader.” It ignited what Augustine termed “an incredible blaze” in his heart for truth and a disdain for pseudo-philosophers, hypocrites, and deceivers. Cicero’s emphasis on acquiring knowledge would play a key role even in Augustine’s sexual life. He concluded that the passions of the flesh were a distraction from his growing love of wisdom, though this was a transition that took a little time. Before becoming a celibate priest in his early thirties, he famously asked God, “Give me chastity … but not yet.”

The other life-altering encounter was with Ambrose, the bishop of Milan who was considered one of the greatest orators in the Roman world. Reflecting on Ambrose’s influence, Augustine credited the bishop as the decisive factor in his own conversion to Christianity. That conversion would dominate his every waking moment in the second half of his life. Before his 40th birthday, it was apparent to contemporaries that, thanks to Cicero and Ambrose and, secondarily, his mother Monica, Augustine had developed a remarkable, searching intellect combined with a deeply Christian conscience. His account of his conversion in The Confessions is a classic of Christian theology and a seminal text in the history of autobiography. It’s been described as “an outpouring of thanksgiving and penitence” and includes observations about the nature of time, causality, free will, and other central topics in philosophy.

Augustine was as prolific and eloquent in his writing as he was in his verbal rhetoric. The Confessions is highly regarded and widely read today, but so is his City of God. He wrote the latter as an encouragement to his fellow Christians in an increasingly violent world. It was a ringing defense of Christianity in the face of erroneous claims that Roman abandonment of the old pagan “gods” was the reason for Rome’s decline. Of special interest to me is that in both books, as well as other writings and sermons, Augustine says things that resonate with lovers of liberty.

Augustine was more than a little skeptical of earthly political power. “The dominion of bad men is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule,” he said,

for they destroy their own souls by greater license in wickedness; while those who are put under them in service are not hurt except by their own iniquity. For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but — what is worse — the slave of as many masters as he has vices.

He did not subscribe to any sort of “divine right” of rulers. Nor did he believe that legislation or decrees should pass unquestioned. “An unjust law is no law at all,” he maintained. To Augustine, government was at best a necessary evil that could only grow more evil the bigger it becomes. In this passage from City of God, he questioned the legitimacy of government itself:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who doest it with a great fleet art styled an emperor.”

Writing for the blog Discourses on Liberty, Will Harvard notes, “the fact that man has dominion over other men is not a product of God’s intended world, but rather the result of sin.”

Augustine argued that a rational creature made in God’s image was meant to have dominion over nature, not over fellow men. At a time when slavery was common and widely viewed as acceptable, declaring it unequivocally sinful was positively bold and refreshing. He even used church funds to purchase the freedom of individual slaves. The scholar from Thagaste also railed against torture and capital punishment. And theft, in his view, was “absolute wickedness” because it violated something sacred: “the law written in our hearts.”

Rome had its own immorality to blame for its decline and vulnerability to invasion, Augustine thundered. He argued that the old pagan gods imparted no morality to their followers in either Rome or Greece. Romans had allowed their personal and civic virtues to erode. If legionnaires failed to prevent the assaults they had once repulsed, it was because Rome was rotten at its core. Lust for power and ill-gotten gain had come to plague a people who once rose to greatness because of honesty, self-discipline, mutual respect, and responsibility. The welfare/warfare state of the late empire was a den of iniquity presided over by a nest of vipers. Why should decline come as a surprise?

Henry Chadwick in Augustine: A Very Short Introduction observes,

With remarkable prescience of what was to come in the West within a generation of his death, Augustine suggested that the world would be a happier place if the great and proud empire were succeeded by a number of smaller states. The kingdom of God had as much room for Goths as for Romans.

Augustine’s language angered imperialist patriots. He was aware that empires come and go. He did not think the Roman empire was doomed, as some contemporary pessimists were saying. Rome would collapse only if the Romans did. People cursed the times they lived in; but (in Augustine’s words) “whether times are good or bad depends on the moral quality of individual and social life, and is up to us.” Each generation, he remarked, thinks its own times uniquely awful, that morality and religion have never been more threatened. He thought it his duty to attack fatalism and to arouse people to a sense of being responsible if things went wrong. They could have a say in what happened next.

Augustine was a man of peace. He urged Christians in particular to engage only in voluntary interactions with themselves and others unless and until a grave wrong required violence to be stopped. His was, in effect, an early defense of self-defense and of a concept now known in libertarian circles as the nonaggression principle.

Of all the virtues of personal character, Augustine reserved the highest praise for one that’s often overlooked in our times, as it may have been in his as well. “Humility,” he asserted, “is the foundation of all the other virtues; hence, in the soul in which this virtue does not exist there cannot be any other virtue except in mere appearance.” Was he overrating humility? I don’t think so.

Until the 20th century, most cultures held that having too high an opinion of oneself was the root of most of the world’s troubles. Misbehavior — from drug addiction to cruelty to wars — resulted from hubris or pride, a haughtiness of spirit that needed to be deterred or disciplined. The idea that you were bigger or better, or more self-righteous, or somehow immune from the rules that govern others — the absence of humility, in other words, gave you license to do unto others what you would never allow them to do unto you.

These days, however, it’s a different story. Being humble rubs against what millions have been taught under the banner of “self-esteem.” Even as our schools fail to teach us elemental facts and skills, they teach us to feel good in our ignorance. We explain away bad behavior as the result of the guilty feeling bad about themselves. We manufacture excuses for them, form support groups for them, and resist making moral judgments, lest we hurt their feelings. We don’t demand repentance and self-discipline as much as we pump up their egos.

In an extraordinary 2002 article in the New York Times, “The Trouble With Self-Esteem,” psychologist Lauren Slater concluded that “people with high self-esteem pose a greater threat to those around them than people with low self-esteem, and feeling bad about yourself is not the cause of our country’s biggest, most expensive social problems.”

Augustine, who was quite familiar with the bloviating demagogues of the late Roman Empire, would surely agree.

In the second half of his life, Augustine was keenly focused on truth and wisdom. He knew that a humble person is a teachable person because he’s not so puffed up that his mind is closed. A humble person reforms himself before he attempts to reform the world. A humble person treats others with respect, and that includes other people’s lives, rights, and property. A humble person takes criticism or adversity as an opportunity to grow, to build character. A humble person knows that graduation from formal schooling is not the end of learning but only a noteworthy start of what ought to be a lifelong adventure. Augustine regarded the power-seeking know-it-alls of his day the same way that the Austrian economist and Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek saw “central planners” more than 15 centuries later: as dangerous fools armed with a “pretense of knowledge.”

Augustine deeply influenced leading figures in the world for centuries: men and women such as Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Soren Kierkegaard, Russell Kirk, Hannah Arendt, and a long list of popes, preachers, philosophers, and politicians.

But even in his day, Augustine inspired appreciation from unlikely quarters. Within weeks of his death in 430, the Vandals lifted their siege of Hippo but returned shortly thereafter to burn the city to the ground. They spared only two buildings: Augustine’s cathedral and his library.

For further information, see:



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, February 22, 2016

New Study: Parenting More Effective than Ritalin for ADHD

New Study: Parenting More Effective than Ritalin for ADHD

Do you believe that kids today are overmedicated for issues like ADHD? If so, a new study out of the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology may lend credibility to your belief.

According to The New York Times:

“The study enrolled 146 children with an A.D.H.D. diagnosis from ages 5 to 12 and randomly assigned half on a low dose of generic Ritalin. The other half received no medication, but their parents began attending group meetings to learn behavior-modification techniques.

Behavior modification for A.D.H.D. is based on a fairly simple system of rewards and consequences. Parents reward the good or cooperative acts they see; subtle things, like paying attention for a few moments, can earn a pat on the back or a ‘good boy.’ Completing homework without complaint might earn time on a smartphone. Parents withhold privileges, like playtime or video games, or enforce a ‘time out’ in response to defiance and other misbehavior.”

The results? Children who had behavior therapy from their parents “had an average of four fewer rules violations an hour at school than the medication-first group.”

After a few months, the study decided to see if more medication would be beneficial to children in both groups. Fully one-third of the children who had behavioral therapy did not need medication at all! Those who did need to add medication to their behavior modification regimen still saw better results than the children who had never been given behavioral therapy.

When trying to explain the differences between the two groups, researchers hinted that parents played an important role. Those not conditioned to go through the challenging work of behavioral therapy with their child from the beginning were much more content to rely on the pill.

Image Credit: Eric Peacock http://bit.ly/1hYHpKw

As the chart above shows, the number of ADHD diagnoses has seen a rapid increase since 2003. Undoubtedly, some of these ADHD cases may genuinely require medication for resolution.

But if over a third of ADHD diagnoses in this study could be resolved without medication, are we putting many children on drugs without a cause? And if behavioral modification is so effective, is Dr. Leonard Sax correct in saying that the ADHD explosion is the result of today’s poor parenting?



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, February 21, 2016

The Tide Is Turning: High School Is Coming Back

The Tide Is Turning: High School Is Coming Back

Sometimes changing one thing in a culture changes everything. That is what more than 50 college and university deans of admission, college presidents, and university chancellors, in addition to representatives from public and independent schools, are hoping for. Their one thing to change is the process of applying to college.

Educators on both the high school and college side of the college admissions process have been looking with dismay at what adolescence has become for many students due to the pressure to succeed in high school in order to gain college acceptance. They are concerned that those pressures have been harmful to the students’ well being and have influenced them to be overly self-absorbed. That group, with representatives from the most prestigious colleges and universities, recently released a report through the Harvard School of Education, entitled Turning the Tidewhich details proposed changes in the college application process. All of those deans of admission endorsed the changes and will put them into effect so that high school students will enlarge their view of what success means and make huge changes in how they go through their high school years.

The report points out that the college application process itself sends the message to young people that their individual success, rather than concern for others and the common good, is paramount. The report calls for specific changes that will improve the emotional and psychological health of adolescents, increase opportunities for a broader range of students, and contribute to shaping a national culture different from the one we now have. The new application will redefine the roles of AP courses, extracurricular activities, standardized tests, and community service in admission decisions.

Currently, many students take as many AP courses as possible because they have been told that will impress colleges. The original intent of AP courses was to provide post high school experience for those who benefit from the challenge of college work in a specific area while in high school; now a schedule dominated by four or five AP courses a year has become high school for many students. The report notes that the achievement pressure resulting from that kind of schedule contributes to “high rates of depression, delinquency, substance abuse, and anxiety” in adolescents.

Many years ago, a student came to me, as English curriculum leader, and asked for permission to take a junior English honors course and a senior AP Literature and Composition course at the same time in her junior year because she would be studying abroad for her senior year. I explained to her that it would not be wise because each of those courses had hefty time commitments and required a prodigious amount of reading and writing. As I listed the specific books and writing assignments, she looked me in the eye and said, “ I hear what you’re saying, but for me that’s a party.” I didn’t give that student permission to double-up because of the amount of work and the availability of an AP English course at her international school although it would not have the particular challenge and the particular teacher she wanted. However, after that, when students or their parents asked for my advice about taking an AP course, I would use her word “party” and tell them that if the student thought that the course, in some intellectual way, would be a party, then he or she should take it. It has been my experience that two “parties”, two AP courses a year, is a maximum for high school students.

Turning the Tide doesn’t use the term “party” but endorses that concept. The new application process will state clearly that “a large number of AP or IB courses per year are often not as valuable as sustained achievement in a limited number of areas”. The report recommends that the college application process identify students who are passionate about an area of study, students who find intellectual engagement in that area, not the ones who “game the system” with a long list of AP courses.

According to Turning the Tide, students similarly try to “game the system” with a long list of extra-curricular activities. Admissions officers are dismissive of the “brag lists” of a large number of activities in which they suspect students may have minimal commitment and surface involvement.

Their suspicions are correct. I recall a faculty meeting at which the advisor to the National Honor Society recommended that guidance counselors advise 8th graders about how to plan for their upcoming high school years. They were to be told that in high school they should play at least one sport, join one music group, join one academically oriented club, and do a community service project so that they would qualify for National Honor Society as seniors and get into a good college. I objected, saying that students had a lifetime to become neurotic and questioned why we should make it happen when they are fourteen.

Turning the Tide throws that whole idea of resume building for 14 year olds out the window and encourages meaningful engagement in extracurricular activities. Applications will ask students to report only two or three activities and to explain in narrative form how the activities are meaningful for them.

Turning the Tide just about throws the SAT out the window too. Time has changed the purpose of the SAT. Originally, the SAT was put in place to ascertain a student’s aptitude for college, but, starting in March 2016, the SAT will be used as an achievement test to determine how well students have mastered the Common Core curriculum, how high schools will be ranked, and how teachers will be evaluated. Even when the SAT was considered a test of aptitude, it didn’t function well. The scores always correlated with the income of the students’ parents. The SAT didn’t measure student aptitude as much as it measured student affluence.

The report recommends that colleges and universities make the SAT optional. Already more than 850 colleges and universities do not use the SAT or ACT to admit substantial numbers of bachelor degree students and more than 200 top tier colleges and universities deemphasize the SAT and ACT in making admissions decisions. It may take a while for all colleges and universities to do that. Recently, when commenting on Turning the Tide, the president of a highly regarded university told me that within 10 years, standardized testing for college admission will be gone because all colleges recognize it is high school grades that predict success in college, not standardized tests.

Turning the Tide also addresses the common practice of students listing a number of community service endeavors even if their participation is minimal and does not have a deep impact on their lives. The new college application will ask students only about community service in which they have been involved for at least a year, about which they feel passionate, and from which they have learned and grown. The definition of community service is also expanded to “substantial and sustained contributions to one’s family”, such as working outside the home to provide needed income or caring for siblings or other family members. Doing that honors the service of less affluent students who give time to their families and do not have time for other kinds of service to others.

Big changes.

How will high school students be affected?

  1. It will open up possibilities for higher education for students of poverty and reduced income who have fewer advantages and more responsibilities than their peers.
  1. It will give adolescents a greater chance for emotional and psychological health.
  1. It will allow adolescents to experience high school for its own opportunities for intellectual growth and social development and not only as a pathway to college acceptance.
  1. It will give students more authentic learning experiences as the pressure of the SAT goes away and the incentive to teach the deeply flawed Common Core, which the SAT assesses, is reduced.
  1. It invites students to follow their own intellectual passions and to relate to their community in authentic and caring ways.
  1. It increases the chance that students will live their adult lives in a more compassionate world.

Thank you, Harvard. Thank you, Yale. Thank you, University of North Carolina. Thank you, M.I.T.. Thank you, Holy Cross. Thank you, Connecticut College. Thank you, Trinity. Thanks to all the other 44 colleges and universities who have endorsed these changes in the college application process.

ALSO SEE: 

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Networking 101: The Art of Working the Room

Networking 101: The Art of Working the Room

Video: Why Networking Still Matters to Get a Job

In the age of Facebook, you might think networking is a thing of the past. It's not. Hiring managers explain why networking is as important today as ever before.


networking while unemployed

Growing your contacts and staying engaged are two keys to landing that next job. — Getty Images

While plenty of job search maneuvers can be conducted by computer or phone, nothing beats connecting with someone new face-to-face.

Whether you're mingling at a networking event for job seekers or attending an industry lecture followed by schmooze time, you're at a gathering that's hardwired for meeting people who can open doors for you. But you have to know how to work the room.

Subscribe to the AARP Money Newsletter for more on work, retirement, and finances

Here are six ways to mix with a purpose.

1. Tweak your attitude. View each networking event as a chance to expand whom you know and what you know. When you're positive and engaged, your whole posture changes, and you project an energetic vibe that people find appealing. They gravitate toward you.

One way to psych yourself up is to keep in mind that the best job opportunities often go unposted on job boards, so the more people you connect with, the greater your odds of hearing about an opening.

Plus, it's a two-way street: You can share tips on jobs that you know about but are not up your alley. Helping out a fellow job hunter simply feels good. At the very least, you can get on that person's radar for future possibilities, while increasing your network — the quintessential ingredient in landing a job.

2. Make room in your schedule. Don't race in, grab a drink and race out. Successful networking requires time and planning. If possible, review the RSVP list to see if you know anyone attending, or if there's someone you want to be sure to meet. Then do a quick review of his or her LinkedIn profile to gather background for questions.

Often the roster is available on the sponsoring group's website. If it's an open event, you might consider inviting a fellow job seeker or two. Going with someone you know takes the bite out of being in a room full of strangers and can put you in a more relaxed mood.

Make certain your online accounts at LinkedInFacebook and Twitter tell the same story about you as your résumé does. Check that job titles and other personal information match and that you use the same name at each site. Also, take down any embarrassing photos or posts that are open for public viewing.

See also: Looking for a job? Why you need to go social

If you're in full job-hunting mode, rehearse your "elevator speech" of who you are, what you're doing right now and what kind of position you're seeking. If you're looking more to scope what's out there and expand your professional network for the future, you can simply use this time to learn more about people you're meeting.

People do judge a book by its cover, so dress appropriately for the event, and don't forget to polish those shoes, too. It's never wrong to dress professionally and wear something that makes you feel confident.

Carry business cards to dole out at the end of a conversation, provided it's to someone you truly want to connect with. If you're currently out of work, or don't want your employer to know you're trolling for a new position, create a simple business card that has just your name and contact information.

3. Set goals. Make a pact with yourself that at each gathering you'll meet three or four new people and get their contact information. Afterward, jot down notes on the back of their business cards to remind you of where you met and what you talked about. You'll need this to jog your memory if you follow up with them at a later time.

Having a strategy like this for your time keeps you fully engaged at the event — not simply meandering around the room ricocheting from person to person, or retreating to a corner table alone to nibble on appetizers and sip club soda.

See also: The perfect time for a brand new start

4. Arrive early. The best time for bantering is before the room gets crowded. This can be a little uncomfortable if you're shy, but with fewer people around, you have no choice but to stick out your hand and smile. Plus the low noise level in the room will be more conducive to conversation.

Look for someone standing alone, or sidle up to a small group of people and introduce yourself. Offer a brief but firm handshake while making eye contact, smiling and saying your first and last name. Then, listen vigilantly for the person's name.

5. Be curious and listen. Ask questions to get people to talk about themselves. It's subliminal, but this approach will build a positive memory of you, because who doesn't like talking about what they do? Spend at least twice as much time listening as you do talking.

If possible, be the one to toss out the first question. The person who answers will be more apt to relax and listen more carefully to what you have to say when it's your turn, since the ice has been broken, so to speak.

It helps to have your basic questions and comments committed to memory. Begin with the same kind of small talk that you might have at a purely social gathering. Comment casually on the food, perhaps, or an interesting article of clothing that someone is wearing. Then you can ask about what he or she does for a living, or background.

It's an old trick, but try to use the other person's name once or twice during your conversation. People like to hear their names and at the same time it will help you remember it.

6. Follow up. Send a note to your new connections the next day and tell them how much you appreciated meeting them and propose a future date to get together casually. Or mention a book, an upcoming event or even a movie they might enjoy — based on what you learned in your conversation. Email works fine for this, but if you've got a personal note card to send, that never goes out of fashion.

You might also consider following the people on Twitter, if they have accounts, and sending invitations to connect on LinkedIn. Don't use the generic invite, but type in your own personal one with a reference to where you met.

See also: Create your personal business brand

This kind of after-event repartee is the core of smart networking, and that's what can ultimately lead to a job. It's typically an organic evolution that develops over time, with occasional emails containing links to interesting articles, moving on to suggestions for lunch or a coffee date.

But the starting block is: Be proactive and learn to glad-hand like a pro. Networking, after all, is just one letter away from not working.

Kerry Hannonis a career transition expert and an award-winning author.  Her latest book is Getting the Job You Want After 50 for Dummies. She has also written Love Your Job: The New Rules for Career Happiness and Great Jobs for Everyone 50+: Finding Work That Keeps You Happy and Healthy…and Pays the Bills. Find more from Kerry at Kerryhannon.com.



Sent from my iPhone

The Wisdom of Antonin Scalia

The Wisdom of Antonin Scalia

by Newt Gingrich and Vince Haley
Originally published at the Washington Times

The Wisdom of Antonin Scalia

“I hope to impart to you the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity.”

For decades, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia shared some form of this message with countless audiences.

One might think that these words of encouragement were meant for the ears of young Federalist Society lawyers engaged in the ongoing battle to defend the Constitution.

But in fact, Justice Scalia directed these words not at fellow lawyers, but at fellow Christians. 

Said Scalia at one such gathering, “surely those who adhere to all or most […] traditional Christian beliefs are regarded in the educated circles that you and I travel in as, well, simple-minded.”

As an example, he noted a recent story in the Washington Post that called Christian fundamentalists “poorly educated and easily led.” 

Scalia urged that, rather than retreat, Christians confront such contempt head-on, and be willing, in the words of Saint Paul, to be seen as “fools” for their belief in God. 

Scalia surely saw the obvious parallel to his day job. Just as our cultural elites look down on the Christian faithful as ignorant simpletons, so too our political elites look with scorn at Americans who believe we should remain faithful to the Constitution. 

Justice Scalia proved beyond doubt that those who believe in the Constitution are no fools—and that when his opponents regarded the Founders’ wisdom as stupidity, they did so at their own peril. Time and again, he bested them in his arguments from the bench and in his written opinions, even—perhaps especially—when writing in dissent.

In the process, Scalia became one of the most consequential defenders of our constitutional order in the history of the Supreme Court.

Scalia usually had one simple question for constitutional matters that came before the Supreme Court: Who decides? 

In determining the answer, he employed originalism, a mode of constitutional analysis that interprets the Constitution according to the meaning of the text as it was understood at the time it was established. Originalism rejects the idea of a judges substituting their own views about the meaning of the Constitution. Instead, he argued, judges should use the original meaning of the Constitution to guide them in their decision making.

In his recent dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia succinctly stated the stakes involved when judges substitute their own views about the meaning of the Constitution:

This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. 

The ongoing struggle to protect the freedom of Americans to govern themselves was at the heart of Scalia’s approach to judging during his long tenure on the Supreme Court. 

Self-governance is also at the heart of the choice to replace Scalia on the Court.

If you are a constitutional conservative in the mold of Antonin Scalia, you view the role of the judge as one of self-restraint. You are guided by the meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders. You defer to the political branches and to the people to make judgments about important matters the Constitution says nothing about. You do not pretend to know what is best for America in the abstract and you certainly don’t claim the power to create new law, even if it may be popular to do so. 

If you are an adherent of progressive legal theories, you are guided in your rulings by what you see as best for the country. You do not consider yourself limited by the original meaning of the Constitution. You believe the Constitution is a “living” document, such that new realities may require new laws in the form of Supreme Court decisions “interpreting” the Constitution. You are limited only by what the constituency you are a part of thinks it can get away with politically and by the plausibility of your interpretive justification. Both limitations are rather low thresholds. Since one political party believes as you do, and the other party is supremely reluctant to take on the executive branch let alone the judicial branch, there is much to get away with. 

Our founding fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers.

But this is not true today. Over the last half century, the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed judges have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution and assigned to themselves the last word in the American political process. Under this new all-powerful model of judicial supremacy, federal judges have been able to redefine the Constitution and the law unchecked by the other two co-equal branches of government. 

If you are wondering why there is so much upheaval about the choice to replace Justice Scalia, it is because of the all powerful model of today’s Supreme Court. 

In a Republic like ours based on the rule of law and the principle that we the people govern, rights like religious freedom and the right to bear arms should not hinge on who becomes the next justice. Until we bring the courts back under the Constitution, however, they very well might. 

Fortunately, in this newest battle to protect self-government, we have a model to follow. For 29 years, Antonin Scalia showed us how to defend freedom. Again and again, he reminded us of the wisdom of the Constitution—its deference to the people, its system of checks and balances.

President Obama has every right to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia, and surely he will. But the Senate has an equal Constitutional role to play—and perhaps a greater claim to representing the will of the people. The Senators are under no obligation to confirm the President’s choice, especially when they have good reason to expect that such a nominee would do harm to our system of government and the rule of law.

That’s not stupidity. It’s a certain kind of wisdom—even if our elites refuse to regard it as such. Justice Scalia would have been pleased.

Your Friend, Newt

P.S. Callista's and my new documentary film, Divine Mercy: The Canonization of John Paul II is now available at the Gingrich Productions store. The film celebrates one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century and is a vivid reminder of the holy and heroic life of Saint John Paul II, who changed the course of history.
Click here to watch the trailer and order now>>



Sent from my iPhone