The Political Mind
The science and psychology of politics
Navigation
  • About
  • Mind&Politics
  • G Scott Blakley
  • I. A. Grea
You are here: Home › Commentary › The Truth Behind the Curtain: Ken Ham, Antonin Scalia, and Milton Friedman find it
← “I Support Trump”

The Truth Behind the Curtain: Ken Ham, Antonin Scalia, and Milton Friedman find it

February 20, 2017 | Filed under: Commentary and tagged with: Antonin Scalia, Aristotle, Arthur Herman, constitution, Creation Museum, Donald Luskin, Federal Reserve, Georgia Purdom, Janet Yellen, Ken Ham, Milton Friedman, Plato

Ken Ham is right. In his reading of Genesis, the earth is 6000 years old, humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and the creation and flood accounts in Genesis are literally and historically true. As Ham declares, “when you take away the foundation of the absolute authority of the word of God, then anything goes. . . . In other words: Who draws the line?”

Who draws the line, indeed. There are essentially two ways to decide, sit down in a room with your fellow humans and hash it out, or reference some set of rules which tell you what to do. Ken Ham chooses the latter, in a logically consistent manner. At the Creation Museum, Georgia Purdom illuminates the danger of scrutiny of the Bible, that it leads to a skepticism which threatens faith and the faithful. Better to adhere to eternal verities than engage with one’s fellows about the matter.

Antonin Scalia is known as a proponent of originalism. As he described it:

“The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.”

In Scala’s world, while judges may have to site down in a room with their fellow judges and hash out what it means, in the end the text decides, not the judges. (With Scalia, though, there is deference to the democratic process, where citizens sit down with each other and by activism and suffrage, determine the course of their government.) If considering the Constitution a ‘living document’ means sitting around with one’s fellow judges to hash it out, Scalia’s view instead is one of adherence to a rule.

In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Donald Luskin weighs in on how rules-based policy at the Federal Reserve will improve its management of the economy. He chastises Janet Yellen and her “make-it-up-as-you-go” approach as having been ineffective in dealing with the aftermath of the Great Recession and as having failed to achieve the central bank’s inflation target. Luskin cites 19th century Swedish economist Knut Wicksell and his imagined ‘natural interest rate’, an interest rate that the economy would settle at if there were no central banks setting it. Determining this rate requires nothing more than observing the rate of inflation. (Luskin notes that Yellen’s observations on the ‘neutral rate’ mirrors this thinking, but uses mechanisms to determine it which are too complex.)

Milton Friedman similarly argues for the Federal Reserve to manage itself more via rules than human decision making. He notes that the Great Depression was made far worse by the actions which members of the Fed took, and suggests that giving much power to individuals or institutions is dangerous. The rule he proposes to limit the ability of members of the Fed from causing too much damage is to make their decisions contingent on money supply. Friedman recognizes that humans make mistakes, and giving too much power to a small group of them generates great risks. He prefers creating institutions which force adherence to rules, instead.

Arthur Herman writes a fascinating account in The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization. In it he traces the ebbing and flowing of the influence of Plato, then Aristotle, throughout the history of western thought. If I can way over simplify, for Plato, behind the curtain lives the real world, and our job is to discover it and adhere to it. For Aristotle, the facts on the ground are all we have, and we need to engage with them. It seems that Ham and Purdom would have us cleave to the Bible behind the curtain, Scalia to the Constitution there, and Luskin and Friedman to the economic orthodoxy behind the curtain.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!

Tweet

Written by Jacob Jefferson Jakes

← “I Support Trump”

RSS Jonathan Haidt

  • Why The Righteous Mind may be the best common reading for incoming college students February 19, 2017 Jonathan Haidt

RSS George Lakoff

RSS Corey Robin

Jacob Jefferson Jakes

The Political Mind

  • View Jacob-Jefferson-Jakes-127488407357719’s profile on Facebook
  • View JacobJJakes’s profile on Twitter
  • View 118350928673473455810’s profile on Google+

Mind&Politics

  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Facebook
  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Twitter
  • View 107647165319384338834’s profile on Google+

Recent Posts

  • The Truth Behind the Curtain: Ken Ham, Antonin Scalia, and Milton Friedman find it February 20, 2017
  • “I Support Trump” July 31, 2016
  • GOP Media Warfare, Hierarchy, and Agriculture November 28, 2015
  • To the Heart of an Idea, Conservative and Liberal October 25, 2015
  • State Sovereignty and Constitutionally-limited Government September 7, 2015
  • “…of the United States…”: Creating a Nation July 27, 2014
  • I Would Not Throw the Fat Man Off the Bridge and onto the Trolley Tracks July 13, 2014
  • Shit Happens and Big Data July 12, 2014
  • Wittgenstein, Identity-Protection Cognition, and Understanding Rather than Persuading June 1, 2014
  • What if Piketty is Right? April 27, 2014

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

    Categories

    Tags

    1% abortion ACA Adam Smith anti-federalist Articles of Confederation Avi Tuschman conservatism conservative conservative enthusiasm conservative mind constitution critical thinking Daniel Kahneman David Brooks democracy Edmund Burke Elvin Lim federalist federal taxes George Lakoff hobby lobby income inequality Jonathan Haidt Joshua Greene karma liberal mind libertarians Mitt Romney moral politics Moral Tribes natural law neoconservatives Newt GIngrich Occupy Wall Street Patrick Allitt pro-life racism robert reich Steven Pinker strict father model tax policy Tea Party The Lovers Quarrel Thomas Pangle

    © 2025 The Political Mind

    Powered by Esplanade Theme by One Designs and WordPress