THE SERVILE STATErnAccording to the best evidence I am able to collect, there arernStreetniks only in the central cities of the four largest metropolitanrnareas [of Tennessee]. Why, for example, aren’t there streetrnpeople in Murfreesboro? Murfreesboro is one tenth the size ofrnNashville. It should have one tenth the number of homeless—rnif Nashville has 2,000, that would be 200. If Nashville has 900,rnthat would be 90. Yet Murfreesboro has none. Neither do anyrnof the other medium-size and small towns in Tennessee. Thernanswer is simple: There are no services for the homeless inrnMurfreesboro. As soon as services are established, there will bernstreet people. It’s called “symbiotic relationship” by communityrnecologists.rnIt is the “critical mass” concept. Already there are peoplernbarely hanging on . . . but they are hanging on. With the establishmentrnof street services, social fusion would occur, pullingrnthe weakest loose from the fabric of the community onto thernpavement. The stage is set for growth of the street persons to thernlimit imposed by the community. The greater the services, thernlarger the number.rn— Dan McMurray, “Hard Living on Easy Street,” August 1988rnTRADITION AND VIRTUErnBoth liberals—who dream of the “universal nation,” that towerrnof Babel united only through a common hatred of the West andrndisdain for standards—and “conservatives”—who idealize thernpolitics of “development” and “growth” and see Americans asrnunited only by a love of material gratification—are . . . helpingrnto hasten the extinction of men like my father, and with them,rnthe America both of Washington and Jefferson and of Boone,rnCrockett, and Houston. They swear that the wet-backed invadersrnshare our “American values” and that the ponytailedrntrash, men who have not taken the time to master their trade,rnarc doing all of us a service. That is the way these folks, the liberalsrnand conservatives who grow increasingly indistinguishablernfrom one another, think: They think that foreigners who tellrnpolltakers that they “believe in” abstractions like “democracy”rnor “capitalism” have as much claim on this country as Americanrncitizens, that building “housing units” is the same as buildingrna home, and that being an American is like being a memberrnof a club that anybody can join. To these “mainstream” liberalsrnand conseratives, “culture” means ideological adherence to abstractions;rnnational character is defined by shopping habits andrnnot by all the things that are lost when men like my father arernrun out of business and become extinct, when a way of life thatrnincludes the look of a people, the way they carry themselves, thernclothes they wear, the foods they eat, and the way they speak isrnforgotten.rn—from Wayne Allensworth, “The Vanishing Craftsman:rnA Cultural Barometer,” February J994rnOne of the characteristic losses of our age has been in the reductionrnof hope, along with faith and love, to mere feeling, anrnevent of “body chemistry.” We seem to have mostly forgottenrnthat these were once thought of as paramount virtues, requiringrnpractice. It is nevertheless true that hope, if it is to be authenticrnand if it is to last, must find its work, and this must be doablernwork, work that one can reasonably expect to accomplish.rnThis way of thinking, which may be necessary to our survivalrnas human beings, goes directly against the current of our publicrneducation and public ambition, which never contemplate thernpropriety or the desirability or the pleasure of work on a smallrnscale. We do not want to find small answers to small problems,rnor partial answers to parts of problems; we want to find heroicrnanswers, global answers to global problems. We tell our children,rn”You can be everything you want to be,” which is, in everyrncase, a lie. We believe that we are entitled to large, spectacular,rnperfect solutions invented by scientists or politicians. We believernthat we all ought to work in an office and receive a largernsalary.rnThe result, altogether expectable, is work done poorly by peoplernwho think themselves too good to do it. The result is disappointment,rncynicism, bitterness, boredom, contempt for ordinaryrnlife and ordinary pleasures —a state of mind that hasrnafflicted both life and art.rn—from Wendell Berry, “The Country Writer,”rnJune J 995rnTo reject all tradifion because it is handed down from the pastrnis to cut oneself off from the past. This is an impossibility for anyrnform of Christianity, even more so than for Judaism, for thernChristian faith is based on the historical reality of very significantrndivine inten’entions: the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, thernResurrection and .scension of Jesus. Traditional obser’ances,rnwhether truly religious (such as the Communion liturgy) orrnmore folkloric (such as the Christmas tree), help bond membersrnof the rising generations to the past on which their faith depends.rnThis is one reason that the banning of all tradifionalrnChrisfian symbols from public schools and facilifies is sociallyrndestructive even in our “pluralistic” secular societ’; It promotesrnthe severance of children from their cultural past and contributesrnto the breakdown of—dare we say it—traditional morality.rnWithout tradition, we rapidly lose touch with our ancestors,rnwith our fathers and mothers in faith, and soon with our ownrnparents.rnThe opposition to tradifion in religion once centered on RomanrnCatholic tradifion, but today it extends to all Chrisfianit)’.rnIt stems from the convicfion, often a simple presupposifion, thatrnthe past is bad, the present better, and the future best of all.rnFrom this perspective, all that has been handed down from thernpast is undesirable and should be dismissed, the Mass in Lafinrnas well as the Christmas tree in schools. Forgotten are thosernwords of Jeremiah . . . “Stand ye in the old ways, and see, andrnask for the old paths, wherein is the good way, and walk therein,rnand ye shall find rest for your souls.” The verse confinues withrnwhat seems to be the war cry of much of the current society:rn”But they said, We will not walk therein” (Jeremiah 6:16).rn—from Harold O.J. Brown, “Tradition, Old and New,”rnDecember 2000rnlULY 2001/63rnrnrn