Reaganomics

It is ironic that Steven F. Hayward caricatures my book Morning in America as an attempt to "keep [my] faculty club membership in good standing," then proceeds to impose his own rigid test of conservative political correctness ("Reagan in Retrospect," May 23). Historians are supposed to balance competing data, even contradictory pieces of information--a skill often lacking among professorial ideologues on the left and think-tank warriors on the right.

Hayward misleads readers by segueing into my book after invoking the stereotypical liberal rhetoric about the 1980s as the "decade of greed" and the 1990s as "'the fortunate decade,' since their guy was in power." I repudiate that caricature in a section titled "The 1990s: What the Critics Feared the 1980s Would Be?" I write, "Compared to Clinton's nineties, Reagan's eighties appeared more tempered, guilt-ridden, politically engaging and equitable."

Hayward also misleads readers by claiming I bash Reagan's "celebrity presidency." Noting that many historians who applaud John F. Kennedy's symbolic leadership also mock Reagan's, I reject the "liberal caricature of Reagan as a snake-oil salesman." Reagan reminded Americans that the bully pulpit is important. Less churlish conservatives would agree that "tone counts."

Readers can decide whether Morning in America is, as Hayward puts it, "contradictory" (and yet, paradoxically, also "churlish"), or rather "nuanced," as other reviewers concluded. But I stand by my contention that to understand Reagan and the 1980s we need more balanced views mixing criticism and praise rather than applying simplistic ideological tests.

And if Hayward thinks writing a book that acknowledges any Reagan strengths will pass muster in faculty lounges, he is more out of touch than critics thought Reagan was. Writing about Reagan is neither for the fainthearted nor the untenured, because too many academics dismiss any praise of Reagan, just as some conservatives cannot tolerate any Reagan criticism.

My title Morning in America focuses on Reagan's signal political and cultural achievement: restoring American optimism during the 1980s. But just as honest liberals should acknowledge that Reagan was a more agile, effective, and inspiring leader than partisan caricatures suggest, true conservatives should examine some of the toxic cultural and social effects of Reaganite individualism and materialism. Patriotism--even presidential boosterism--should not require intellectual Stalinism, left or right.

Gil Troy
Montreal, Canada

Steven F. Hayward responds: Rolling out the popgun of "Stalinism" in the face of criticism is altogether typical of the intellectual laziness found at the core of Morning in America, but further comment from me would merely be piling on.

That Shipley Has Sailed

I love The Scrapbook, but you have blown it big time about New York Times op-ed page editor David Shipley ("Physician, Shrink Thyself," May 23). He has delivered the fresh op-ed page he promised, which means that occasionally he publishes a piece that you can mock.

On the other hand, it was Shipley who, when the Times was printing PC nonsense about the Larry Summers case in its news sections, used Sunday's showcase op-ed page to print two pieces on the same day that both came down on the sex-differences-are-real side. And it was Shipley who a few weeks later printed a race-is-not-a-social-construct piece that no major op-ed page in the country (maybe excepting the Wall Street Journal's) would have had the nerve to run.

The wisecracks in The Scrapbook are especially irritating because they are so at odds with the person, as anyone who has ever worked with Shipley will tell you--a sweetheart, modest, utterly fair-minded, and a brilliant editor. He's the best thing to happen to the Times in years.

(Full disclosure: One of the two pieces on Summers was by me, and Shipley edited my books In Pursuit and Apollo. Brilliantly.)

Charles Murray
Burkittsville, MD

A Team Effort

While I appreciate Ron Capshaw's fine review of our new book Red Star Over Hollywood ("Tales of the Left Coast," May 23), Capshaw frequently implies it was my book alone, and praises only me for not absorbing our "subjects' either/or mentality."

I assure readers of The Weekly Standard that whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the book, they are those of myself and my wife, Allis Radosh, who in all senses of the word is the book's coauthor.

Ronald Radosh
Brookeville, MD

Biblical Ignorance

As a college history professor, I can vouch for the truth of David Gelernter's observation of Biblical ignorance among Americans in general and young people in particular ("Bible Illiteracy in America," May 23). In my world history class, I cover all the major religions and am always astounded by the Biblical ignorance even of the ostensibly religious students.

For example, one of my frequent extra credit questions is to identify the sources of the names of my boys, Thaddeus and Matthias. I can count on one hand the number of students who have gotten the answer (that they were both apostles--Thaddeus was one of the Twelve; Matthias was chosen to replace Judas).

Which brings me to two criticisms of Gelernter's otherwise excellent article. First, his analysis is rather heavily skewed toward the influence of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament in American history (it features nine Old Testament citations, and only two New Testament ones). Does that accurately reflect the relative influence of the two testaments on American history, even allowing for the importance (as Gelernter rightly points out) of the American identification with ancient Israel?

Second, it's true, but incomplete, to assert that the Protestant Reformation's "central idea was that Scripture and not human theological doctrine must be decisive for Christianity." This sola scriptura is only half of Luther's theological revolution; the other, more important half was sola fide--salvation by faith, in the death and resurrection of Jesus, alone.

Timothy R. Furnish
Alpharetta, GA

In David Gelernter's "Bible Illiteracy in America," he cites Fania Oz-Salzberger's contention that the theocracy of the ancient Hebrews from the period of Exodus to the coronation of Saul was in fact "a nearly perfect republic" and "precisely because of its transcendent origin, it was an exemplary state of law and a society dedicated to social justice and republican liberty."

I do not presume Gelernter shares this highly selective reading of the Old Testament, which inelegantly exalts a culture that brutalized neighboring tribes, annexed their territory, and committed horrific atrocities against its inhabitants. Decorum inhibits me from expounding the details of these acts on this page, but for your curious readers apt descriptions are found in Numbers 31:13, Judges 18:17, and Joshua 15:63, to name only a few passages.

I do not cite these passages to unfairly single out the Hebrews. Murder, rapine, and conquest were more or less standard practice in antiquity. My purpose is to debunk the notion that our modern sentiments of liberty and moral justice have an intellectual basis in the butcheries of ancient and barbarous nations.

David Kimweli
Lexington, KY

If David Gelernter thinks the woeful state of Bible illiteracy is serious as we approach adult culture, he should try discussing Biblically influenced children's literature with college students.

Take Katherine Paterson's Jacob Have I Loved. Twin sisters battle in Cain-and-Abel fashion against the background of Pearl Harbor and the early 1940s. Hatred and jealousy are the book's chief themes, as the sisters torment a family forced to choose sides. It is, to be sure, a 20th-century novel--and yet absolutely dependent on its Biblical framework of Jacob and Esau, Rachel and Leah.

Year after year, I find students almost universally unable to deal with the religious frame and allusions. Old and New Testaments are unknown territory for many, and only quite explicit essays and commentaries on Paterson's work enable students to see what she was really up to.

Many of these students are future teachers. Most will be parents. And yet learning how the Bible can create quality literature is a revelation to them, so little have they experienced it before.

Mark Bernheim
Oxford, OH

Sex Ed

Thank you for Hadley Arkes's "Sex and the County" (May 23). As Arkes noted, the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) is one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

The Montgomery County School Board approved resources that recommended gay-affirming religions and organizations such as the Rainbow Baptists, yet rejected one brochure PFOX submitted because it listed the websites of a few ex-gay ministries.

The school board approved materials published by gay advocacy groups that positively portray homosexuality while making negative references to ex-gays by attempting to discredit our experiences and choices. The board also inserted in the curriculum the terms "homosexual," "lesbian," "bisexual," "transgender," "questioning," "intersexed," and "coming out," but refused to insert "ex-gay" as we requested.

Little wonder the district judge ruled in our favor and for the Constitution.

Regina Griggs
Executive Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays
Fort Belvoir, VA

Great White Where?

I thoroughly enjoyed Matt Labash's "Welcome to Canada" (March 21). Being a Red Stater (residing in Al Gore's adopted home state of Tennessee), I couldn't help but wonder, as I finished the article, Where the heck is Canada?

Chris Kitterman
Franklin, TN