It is not merely that puritans are mistaken (which they are),rnor that they dehberately and perversely misinterpret Scripturern(which they do), but that they set themselves up as self-maderngods in opposition to the moral freedom we enjoy as followersrnof Christ and members of His Church. If they do not wish torndrink wine (except, of course, in communion, where it is requiredrnof all Christians), no one will force them, but their desirernto regulate other people’s conduct and other people’s childrenrnreminds me of the little girl in the children’s story: She layrnavvake every Christmas Eve, frustrated because none of thernchurch clocks in her town struck midnight at the right time —rnthat is, when her bedside clock chimed 12.rnOf course, there is a moral law that society is supposed to enforce,rnand that moral law may quite justly include prohibitionsrnon adultery, on seduction of the innocent, on pornographic displays,rnand on public drimkenness, and it is not quite true to sayrnthat society’s interest in morals stops at the threshold of a privaternhome. If my neighbor spends his life watching films that celebraternthe rape and murder of little girls, the fathers in the neighborhoodrn(or, in a civilized society, the “forces of public order”)rnmay well decide to drive him out of town. And if my neighborrndecides to practice polygamy, against the laws of Cod and thernstate of Illinois, he should not be surprised if the men whosernwives, sisters, and daughters he is preying upon make a vigorousrnattempt to enforce the moral law.rnBut wine (and the occasional dry martini, preferably with ginrnstraight up and served perhaps, if you are hungr)-, with a cheesestuffedrnolive) is neither a crime nor a vice. As the Greeks haverntold us, wine encourages truth, warms our friendship, and, asrnHomer says, “lifts up the courage of a man wearied from battle.”rnIt is a normal part of our Western experience, celebrated in ourrnliterature and art, integrated into the rituals of our religion, andrnintimately bound up with the lesser rituals of wedding partiesrnand wakes, birthdays and Christmas dinners, and my upcomingrn30th anniversary when I intend to break my personal rulernagainst drinking champagne.rnOur pernicious obsession with regulating other people’srnprivate lives stems, in part, from what Edgar Lee Mastersrncalled our “Hebraic Puritanism,” but it is even more the productrnof the bad moral philosophies of John Locke and ImmanuelrnKant, who emphasized rationality and duty at the expense ofrnpersonal attachment and sound character. F’or liberal philosophersrnof nearly every school, morality is reduced to abstract calculationsrnof right and wrong, carried out by human beings whorndeny their own inclinations in order to do what they know isrnright.rnThis theory, which is contradicted as much by our intuitionrnas by the observable facts of human life, has led to perniciousrnconsequences. Duty and reason, obviously, play a part in thernmoral life of men and women, but so do non-rahonal affechonsrnsuch as friendship, love, respect, personal honor, loyalty, andrnpatriotism. If the security’ of our lives and property dependedrnupon our neighbor’s grasp of the Categorical Imperahve, wernmight just as well live in New York City.rnThe Hebrew Scriptures nowhere teach the abstract and meddlesomernmorality of modern puritans who presume to knowrnhow to rear other people’s children. Jewish tradition, as muchrnas the Greek, Roman, and Christian traditions, teaches respectrnfor the family and for the community. In fact, ever)’ sensiblernperson in all the traditions that converge upon tire West understoodrnthat the family was the nurser)- both of personal moralityrnand of the civic-mindedness on which the institutions of ourrncommon life depend.rnIt is, after all, within the family home that children learn to berngood, not simply by listening to parental admonitions or byrnreading the Ten Commandments on a refrigerator magnet.rnGood character is the result of good habits, and good habits—rnfor most of us—depend upon the hypocrisy of pretending to berngood by doing good things—in other words, on manners. “Politeness,”rnwrote Thomas Jefferson to a young kinsman, “is artificialrngood humor; it covers the natural want of it, and ends byrnrendering habitual a substitute equivalent to the real virtue.”rn”Would you like some more mashed rutabaga?” asks the fatherrnwho has read his Jefferson. “No,” replies the sulky childrnwho has not. “No, what?” demands the father. “No, thankrnyou,” the sulky child hisses between his teeth. “No, thank yournwhat?” insists the obstinate parent. “No, thank von, sir,” declaresrnthe little victim of this lesson in deportnrent, wonderingrnto himself, “Why won’t they leave me alone to be myself?”rnWhat the father does not tell the child until he is much older isrnthat “being yourself means remaining not merely an animal,rnbut a feral beast, an animal supposed to be domesticated but allowedrnto run wild and become a plague to the human beings hernis supposed to serve.rnThe problem with the President’s charming daughters is notrnthat they drink or lack discretion, but that they seem to care sornlittle for their father’s happiness. The irrepressible Vlad Zhirinovsky,rnhardly a model gentieman, wrote the girls to tell ftiemrnto behave tiiemselves and not add to their father’s burdens. It isrngood advice from an unlikely source, but even a Zhirinovskyrnseems to grasp the obvious connection between morals andrnmanners.rnFine manners are an aristocratic accomplishment, but peasantsrnand merchants also used to live b}’ complex codes of behaviorrnthat take some of the sting out of the everyday life inrnwhich our sensibilities are buffeted and pummelcd by friendsrnand family (to sav nothing of strangers and enemies) until wernbegin to envy hermits. A pleasantly spoken “excuse me” orrn”you’re welcome” sugarcoats the bitter pill of life, and “yes, sir,”rnuttered by a son or junior colleague is a reassurance (probablyrnfalse) that the old man has not lived entirely in vain.rnUltimately, all forms of courtesy are an implied recognitionrnthat other people exist, that they may even be doing the bestrnthey can in making their wa’ through the world. Bad mannersrn(or, what is most common in America, no manners at all) are arnway of telling people, “Watch out, world; here I come, and ifrnyou know what’s good for you, you’ll get out of the way.” If arngentleman never unintentionally gives offense, what word canrnwe use for people who act as if the world belonged to tiiem andrnthey did not care how they abvised their own properh? They arernnot ladies and gentlemen, certainlv, but neither are they peasantsrnor bourgeois or even workers. They arc, I suppose, merernproletarians, human bodies used to fulfill purposes about whichrnthey have no clue. This is the real effect of socialism in America,rnnot the distortions of tiie market or even the intrusion of governmentrninto private life. Marx, whose bad manners matchedrnhis moralit)’, is probably looking up at America from his comerrnof Hell at this ver’ moment, pleased with what he and his liberalrnand socialist allies have made out of the once-decent Americanrnpeasantiy. If prohibitionism is un-Christian, the least werncan say of American manners, since the socialist revolutions ofrnthe 1930’s and 1960’s, is that they are increasingly inhuman.rnAUGUST 2001/nrnrnrn