Only twice in my life have I ever burst into tears when first sighting a front-page New York Times obituary. The first time was when I was at Grace Church. I walked into the front door and there was a copy of the paper lying on the bench by the reception desk. It announced the death of George Balanchine, and I burst into spontaneous floods. The dances of this incomparably great choreographer had been at the center of my life for more than forty years. His ballets have not survived well, alas--and I suppose I surmised, even then, that without his coaching they could not.

The second time was today. Here is the link to the obituary--a full page, plus the first page photo and introduction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/arts/music/dietrich-fischer-dieskau-german-baritone-dies-at-86.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Scroll down to the 1970 photo to see what Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau looked like in his prime. (He must have had a fat stage, but it was short-lived.)

I only heard him live once, in a program of lieder with Dame Janet Baker, but I have numerous recordings which I play over and over. He is best known for lieder and art song, but I cherish most his roles in opera and oratorio. There has never been (to my knowledge) a Gunther (Götterdämmerung) or a Papageno (Magic Flute) to match his. I adore his Don Giovanni, though I suppose it is idiosyncratic. He is matchless in Bach's cantatas. But for me, most unforgettable of all is his interpretaton of Handel's Saul. His English is flawless and unaccented, but more important still is his interpretation of the tortured Biblical king. (And it's a great work by Handel, too.)

The obituary ends with this:

It is very annoying constantly to hear the term "conservative" used by people who don't really care to parse the subtleties of someone's thinking. Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to take a couple of leading examples, were both radical theologians but are constantly being reduced and tamed by being called conservatives. Similarly, the Founding Fathers (and mothers) are appropriated by the Christian Right with very little reference to the actual complexity of their thinking. (I was taken to lunch at Pat Robertson's Regent University once and was shocked to see larger-than-lifesize full-length paintings of various Founders dominating the huge entrance hall.)  

It is quite possible to be conservative in social and cultural matters while being liberal or, better, radical in politics and theology. The real question is about foundational beliefs. One belief that does indeed lie at the heart of Christian theology and the best political conservatism has to do with the nature of humankind. David Brooks represents this, much of the time. In his column today he quotes James Madison:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind, which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualitites in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence."

Depravity! Isn't that what the much-maligned John Calvin called it? But was Calvin a "conservative"? Yes and no!

In any case, David Brooks concludes his column in his usual measured and balanced way, saying this:

"People used to believe that human depravity was self-evident and democratic self-government was fragile. Now they think depravity is non-existent and they take self-government for granted."

Those are two superb sentences! And Brooks finishes:

"Neither the United States nor the European model will work again until we rediscover and acknowledge our own natural weaknesses and learn to police rather than lionize our impulses."

    

As I write, I am listening to an impressive interview on WNYC (NPR) with Paul Chappell, the author of a new book, Peaceful Revolution. Captain Chappell is a West Point graduate, an Iraq War veteran, a student of military history, and an extraordinarily articulate exponent of the idea that war can be abolished before the end of this century. This is a notion that, frankly, never occurred to me (I would have said "the warlike you have always with you"). This interview is having an effect on me.

Chappell is the son of a Korean mother and a father who was half-white and half-black. When he was growing up in Alabama, his parents drilled into him that if he wanted to get ahead, he should go into the Army, since there were so few opportunities for "a black man who looks Asian." Hence his decision to go to West Point. Part of his intellectual and moral development has been his experience of the tremendous changes, in a relatively short time, in attitudes to slavery and race.

Brian Lehrer, who is a brilliant talk-show host interviewer, is a major figure in NYC and its environs. He is conducting a series, "End of War." You can find him, and the Chappell interview, at
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/

Paul K. Chappell is not to be confused with Baptist minister Paul Chappell who is probably foaming at the mouth at this point from the competition. Captain Chappell who wrote Peaceful Revolution is at this site:
http://www.paulkchappell.com/

No matter what your attitude toward all things military, you will find this young man very compelling.

P.S. It is amusing to see, at the bottom of Chappell's website page describing his book, these words in small type: "The views presented here do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense." Indeed.