Blessing the abstract unseen

Over at Opinion Journal dot com, James Taranto has a piece on the reading of the US Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives--actually, it's a piece on the liberal reaction to the reading of the Constitution.

The headline of [Ezra] Klein's follow-up essay was more defensive than it needed to be. It was clear from the video that it was the House's reading of the Constitution, not the document itself, that had "no binding power" according to Klein. But he did say the Constitution was "confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago." Maybe he was thinking of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."

If Klein isn't intellectual enough to appreciate the Constitution, his colleague E.J. Dionne takes a downright anti-intellectual approach. He complains that many House Republicans "behave as professors in thrall to a few thrilling ideas"--ideas, that is, about limitations on the power of government:

"Their rhetoric is nearly devoid of talk about solving practical problems--how to improve our health care, education and transportation systems, or how to create more middle-class jobs.

"Instead, we hear about things we can't touch or see or feel, and about highly general principles divorced from their impact on everyday life. . . ."

Now, it was this last sentence that grabbed my attention. Why is it problematic to discuss things that are abstract? I would have thought that for those who style themselves as intellectuals, keeping abstract, non-tangible concepts in mind would not be an issue.

Perhaps, however, that is precisely the problem. This is not a new conflict--between those who maintain a fiduciary responsibility to unseen concepts and those who simply cannot understand such phenomena. In fact, the entire issue about reading a document based on "things" that are extrasensory reminded me of an exchange recorded in the Talmud from the third century of the common era between a secular Sadducee and Rabbi Sheshet, a leading member of the Babylonian Jewish community.

R. Shesheth was blind. Once all the people went out to see the king, and R. Shesheth arose and went with them. A certain Sadducean came across him and said to him: "The whole pitchers go to the river, but where do the broken ones go to?" He replied: I will show you that I know more than you. The first troop passed by and a shout arose. Said the Sadducean: "The king is coming." "He is not coming," replied R. Shesheth.

A second troop passed by and when a shout arose, the Sadducean said: "Now the king is coming." R. Shesheth replied: "The king is not coming."

A third troop passed by and there was silence. Said R. Shesheth: "Now indeed the king is coming.
The Sadducean said to him: "How did you know this?" He replied: "Because the earthly royalty is like the heavenly. For it is written: 'Go forth and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And behold, the Lord passed by and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.' [1 Kings 21:11]"

When the king came, R. Shesheth said the blessing over him. The Sadducean said to him: "You! You say a blessing for one whom you do not see?"

Well, Dah. This is the problem.