Well, you are undergoing what is conventionally referred to as "culture shock." The cumulative effect of a thousand small and unimportant things in your new host environment that are just "different" and sufficiently so to be upsetting to your sense of personal presence and self-command. The loss of what is most precious to men of the mind, i.e., the ability to be the arbiter of the "word fitly spoken" in any situation has been sunk by the alien lingua of your new environment. Your brain is in distress; for the illusion that you are the commander of your own soul is suddenly disputed by your experience and the consequent clash of expectation and reality renders you a lost man replete with indirection and retreat into the protective shell of reflection. Like some 21st century Descartes, you are ready to announce: "Cogito ergo sum," as a kind of battle cry in defense of your disappearing ego, but also as the herald of a new Michael Erickson which is metamorphising into . . . . into what? This is the value of living and functioning abroad, that it strips away those small pretensions that protect us against the miseries of those too revealing mirrors that life sometimes foists upon us. These are torturers, no doubt, but they bring the pain that heals and remind us of the truth of Nietzsche's claim that "Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker!" My advice is to just let it happen. Embrace it. It is God's work, making you a greater man. As for the Declaration of Independence, if the Bible is true, then the Declaration is true. If the Declaration is true then the nation that once embraced it has become apostate and is sinning against God's gift of wisdom and against His Commandments. Not me, not you, not anyone will ever escape God's judgment that as Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which He commanded they should not eat, so Adam and Eve and all of their progeny and subsequent generations shall likewise eat every day for all of their lives to the end of time of that selfsame fruit, namely, the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. All things men encounter shall be seen through the prism of an imperative morality, only partly comprehended, but pervasive in its demands on our minds, bodies, and souls. We shall hunger for the conundrums of moral confusion and find them wherever we look in every place. Thus shall we eat and not be satiated, but will pursue happiness in the knowledge of good, but shall also know evil which is the condition of our confusion. You have no choice but to see Mexico as a place of error and corruption, but that is because you may have hoped for some relief from that kind of discovery by leaving home. Well, no such luck. God's judgment upon Adam and Eve is upon you always, as it is on me and all mankind. So, once again, don't wail that you are disappointed and the end is near. It may be comforting to think it is all about to end, but it won't and you won't. You should be, in fact, elated! God is not a figment of your homey bro's. He is in every place and every time and clime! You cannot escape Him, because you seek Him, and he is near, very near! Sing a hallelujah! You have not found Him, but He has found you and reminds you of His presence by an occasional tweaking of your nose. You should not return from abroad before you can answer these questions: What is the virtue of Mexico that it persists in time? What is its way to place itself between Nature and God and make of itself a people and a nation? What will you regret leaving behind when you come home? What is it about the United States, and California that you will find unpleasant when you are back home? Yes, you will be a greater man for your experience abroad, but what will you surrender in the exchange? Nothing, after all, is free. If you think the above is not the truth, remember that since being raised in a trilingual environment as a child, living and working with Hmong people in Vietnam, a stint at the Defense Language Institute, 35 years of uniformed service, the bulk of which was deeply involved with foreign operations in political warfare in the theaters in Europe and the Pacific, and over the span of 30 years as Assistant Director, then Director of international operations for the California State University System (Office of the Chancellor), in student and faculty exchange, international research and development, and business-government partnerships, inter alia, I have spent the central years of my life in work in the field of international and intercultural education. See, my biggest culture shock was retiring, moving to Santa Rosa, and taking up an interest in Republican politics at the neighborhood, city and county levels. I went from not knowing the names of my neighbors in southern California and having my closest friends on four continents, to losing most of those contacts and friendships and adopting other friends and acquaintances in little Santa Rosa and rural Sonoma County. I could not tell you which setting was the most challenging or the most promising. Both have virtues and vices. What all of this taught me is that the differences among men are more appearance than truth. I am satisfied that Genesis is, in fact, the model for all of mankind and whether one dissolves in a universe of human types, or simply plumbs the narrow depths of a small town, like the expansiveness of the stars and the complexity of the atoms, God's mighty hand is in every place and in every heart and mind either in love or in fear, or mostly in both. " Don't think it is hopeless to proclaim for the Biblical Republic. Say with me: "In God is My Trust" and mean it. Have you learned any Spanish? In your second year there, you should be able to learn enough to carry on a conversation at the highschool level, perhaps better in your case. The only statesman I have ever personally known was Ernesto Zedillo. He was a fine and courageous man: Mexico's Ronald Reagan, but also a man of probing intelligence and reflective mind. The country that could produce such a man must have a salutary soul somewhere. I am pained most severely by Mexico's current travails and do think that the United States has a great deal to answer for in promiting those travails in illegal worker migration and the drug trade. Delve into this land and find its strengths and its vulnerabilities. It will be a rewarding experience. As for Europe, very little of it will be available to you. They have had their fill of Americans. Europeans aren't as open or as welcoming as the Mexicans. You can make a friend, or several friends in Mexico if you make yourself available, but you are not likely to make any friends of the Europeans in less than five to ten years, depending on the specific country. Poland might be an exception. They love Americans still. Europeans are a challenge all of their own and, perhaps, a subject for another time if you should actually decide to go live there for awhile. I know all of Western Europe reasonably well and have traveled in central and eastern Europe, too. At the height of the Cold War, I made a limited friendship with an East German Communist functionary with whom I shared a love for Wagnerian Opera. That we could both speak English and German was helpful. I met that guy through a mutual friend in Denmark. That is how you get to know Europeans. You must be introduced or rather, vetted. Write me back. It is good to vent your feelings and learn to observe yourself from a short distance away, if you know what I mean. Oh, and it is okay to miss home. When you have adapted to life in Mexico and have come to terms with its differences and demands upon you, you will have two homes. Now that is a really great gift!

I agree that there has been a creeping sense of "culture shock," one so subtle in its impact as to be nearly unrecognizable from an occasional, slight unease or, if viewed intellectually, a penchant for reasoned melancholy. There are enough diversions to keep these doldrums at bay most of the time; but the restlessness springs forth every now and then, inspiring in its own manner a spurt of theological or political thought, as if somehow "Americana" may be reclaimed just in the act of sputtering along such lines. This is most likely a blessing, or at the very least a possibility for a certain grace, which may not have been as forthcoming, if I had not undertaken the change in activity and locale. As happens for any sojourner, my temperament will change accordingly, though it is very likely that you and others from afar will be able to note the difference between the two "Michael Ericksons" well before I sense the evolution. Even the introspective man remains, in the end, more obtuse than insightful, even if his obtuseness is perhaps of a lighter shade of grey than that of his counterparts. The "culture shock" has been lessened somewhat by my forays into the Spanish language. I took Spanish and Latin throughout my high school and college years. I understand much more than I may say readily, but I am comfortable enough in my present day command of conversational Spanish to speak with vendors and to order at restaurants, which are in the end two of the more important elements of life in San Miguel de Allende. Life here is most centered on fiestas and restaurantes. There are over 200 official holidays each year and a varied assortment of unofficial ones - some traditionally Mexican and others inspired more recently by the influx of Gringos. An example of the latter is "Turkey Day," where many of the Mexicans walk about the Jardin dressed as seventeenth century pilgrims in Plymouth Rock, before finishing off with a fiesta of turkey, stuffing, and tortillas. As for the numerous restaurantes (most of which are "holes in the wall," but some of which are as luxurious as any to be found in the States) I am reminded here of the joke about the Jewish housewife whose idea of cooking is making reservations. That bit of conversational Spanish indeed is the first to be mastered upon arriving here for any length of time. On another topic, I have been watching the various Republican Presidential debates, as we have FOX News on our cable television service (one of the antidotes to the "culture shock" that invariably emerges over time). In the most recent one, Congressman Ron Paul made a strong pitch for "nullification," as if an inarticulate shade of Senator John Calhoun. We may laugh him off as a fool, except that his ramblings suggest a deeper, growing impulse within the American public against the Declaration of Independence. My fear is that he speaks for more than just the libertarian kooks. He is at present in second place in the polls in Iowa. I have no doubt that he will not come close to winning the nomination; but, if he does well in the Iowa caucus, then he and his minions will become what Pat Robertson and the religious right became within the GOP, after Mr. Robertson did much better than anticipated in Iowa in 1988. That is to say, the "nullifiers" - classical libertarians joining forces with what is left of the Christian Coalition and a certain segment of the Tea Party - will become the "populist wing" of the GOP, just as the religious right has been the "populist wing" of the GOP since the late 1980s. Perhaps this was inevitable, given the "Southern Strategy," orchestrated by Nixon in 1968 and enhanced by Reagan in 1980, which brought the Old Southern Democrat Party lock, stock, and barrel into our own; but while in the past the old Southern Democrats could be mollified with appeals to their social conservatism, it seems that now they will be ever more strident in demanding a return to their true gospel, which combines the principle of state nullification with the policy of devaluation of labor. Add a veneer of Ayn Rand ideas about "freedom," and this toxic mix of ideologies will spell the end of the Grand Old Party - or, at the very least, force the Whig contingency within the GOP to find a home elsewhere. I want to say more in this context, but time is now elusive. There is another dinner party to attend. Still, I welcome your comments, as I want to develop further this thought over time and, in particular, want to consider the ideal methodology for so doing. An essay or even a short book may emerge over time - perhaps along the lines of "the South has risen again," which of course is a play on the battle cry that "the South will rise again."

On the internet, please look up George Will's recent column calling for a reevaluation of the candidacies of Romney and Gingrich, the former being a "conservative of convenience" and the latter being an example of intellectual hubris most akin to Marx. He gravitates toward Perry and Huntsman. Huntsman's positions are the most conservative and best focussed of the entire field, though his diplomatic experience tends to color his foreign policy ideas in shades of gray. Perry is held by many to be an ideal President (including good, old Donald Trump), but one who struggles in debate. I fear he would look stupid in the inevitable debate(s) with Obama, though his positions would be the right ones, by and large. In the larger picture, what we are observing is the consequence of a completely ineffectual Republican Party. If the GOP goofs this one up, it will deserve the resignation of each and every sensible man in the land. Me included.

Thank you for the recommendation. I shall look for the Will editorial online and let you know in a subsequent email of my impressions. For now, I am inclined to say the following about each of the once and future candidates: Romney: I concur that he is a "conservative of convenience." I base my conclusion not so much on the positions which he took in Massachusetts and then abandoned on the national stage (since a tactical shift on positions is likely inevitable for any Republican wanting to do well in Massachusetts and then later become a national political figure); but rather, I base it on his strong, behind the scenes recruitment and support of Meg Whitman in California. The two have been personal friends for some time, so some amount of support in the end would be understandable. Nevertheless, he put his entire "machine" in the CRP behind her and, as it were, blessed her positions as his own. Indeed, the two are so close to the hip that I very often refer to Mitt Romney as "Meg Whitman in drag." They have a bias for Wall Street that makes them blind to the populist and small business considerations of Main Street, a clear inability to feel the "common man" point of views that made a politician like Ronald Reagan (who, we must recall, had his own baggage with which to contend) so capable in building his electoral and governing coalition. They are elitist managers, comfortable with the checkered pants crowd only; and, as we may discern from Presidential history, these types tend not to be effective Presidents (Hoover and Ford come to mind), in comparison to the visionaries in the mix (FDR and Reagan). Ironically, Romney is likely more of a social conservative in his own, private opinion, than he let on when running for office in Massachusetts (as evidenced in his family life and leadership within LDS); and he is likely more of a moderate on various other issues, like illegal immigration and trade with China, than he is masquerading now. As most Americans instinctively know him to be "inauthentic," my real sense is that, even if he wins in 2012, he will be an average to poor President, since he will have little of the popular, enthusiastic support needed to force Washington to make serious, structural changes - and, I suspect, he will not be inclined even to push for those reforms in the first place. Gingrich: As you may recall, in the mid 1990s I was a member of a cell of political, activist operatives - the first incarnation of Republicans for the National Interest - modeled in some manner after the old Conservative Coordinating Committees. We were focused against our own Republican House Speaker at the time, because we saw him as an ideological sell out (especially on those issues of most concern to us at that time, such as illegal immigration and international trade) and, even more so, as a man unable or unwilling to restrain his ego for the benefit of the greater cause. We viewed him as a man of intellectual, emotional, and behavioral excesses, which if allowed to remain Speaker for too long invariably would lead the GOP off of whatever cliff his own, fervid imagination would construct. Gingrich really is no more than a Robespierre who fashions himself to be a Socrates. We saw that then, and for that reason we worked behind the scenes with various CCCs to persuade Congressman Livingston to announce his candidacy for Speaker against Gingrich (since we figured rightly that Gingrich would resign his post only if and when another Republican announced against him). Gingrich has mellowed emotionally and behaviorally. I have no doubt that he will stay faithful to his current wife and wallow in his role as cherubic grandfather. Nevertheless, with respect to his intellectual predilections, he remains as full of himself as ever, a futurist who, notwithstanding his conversion to Catholicism, veers too close to being a gnostic visionary. In his own manner, he has as much a "messianic complex" as our current President; and, I would argue, his may be worse than the schmaltz peddled by Team Obama, since Gingrich is much brighter than Obama and thus more inclined to believe that he really is the "oracle" of his time. In the end, Gingrich does not have the personal charisma to become a Hitler or even a Robespierre; he will be just insufferable, the "know it all" without the charm to pull it off. As a side note, unlike Romney, I do not view Gingrich as a "flip flopper," since, for him, all issue positions are just the high minded ruminations of the moment. As he is the Oracle, after all, we should not be surprised that his ideas change with the tides of his Vision. Paul: He is the traitor to the Declaration of Independence, a modern day peddler of slavery and nullification, masquerading as a champion of freedom and constitutionalism. He is the fool who has found enough of a following among other fools to fashion himself an American demagogue. We may be thankful to the sustaining grace of Providence that he will not rise above the station of a Huey Long or a George Wallace, because he is too doddering to be a realistic "President" in the minds of most voters. My guess is that we shall need to contend with another traitorous John Calhoun in the near future, since a sizable minority of voters in every region of the nation is clamoring to the clarion call of nullification; but Paul will not be that man. At most, he will be the father of the latest "loony" faction of the Grand Old Party. Cain: I know that he is no longer a candidate, but I want to provide my private impressions of him. I was never a passenger on the "Cain Train," not because of his race or status as a political newcomer, but because his oratorical flourishes suggested the schmaltz of a slick salesman over the vision of a sound statesman. There is an element of sales, of course, in any capable politician; but Cain went so overboard with his approach, that I could not tell if he was running for President or peddling his book on a late night infomercial. His "999" was a gimmicky fiasco. If passed, then this would have introduced a national sales tax, while at the same time retaining the basic, income tax structure; and, in time, the Democrats would increase the rates of each in order to pay for their wealth redistribution schemes. He was in this manner opening the door to the kind of confiscatory tax policies that are rampant in the socialist nations of the European Union. With respect to the scandals, there is enough real, pungent smoke to suggest flames. Why would so many women just make up their stories? Did they conspire fifteen years before his Presidential run to derail his White House dream, all in the service of "establishment" types in both parties? Does a married man who is just "helping a friend" call or text that woman over six hundred times, even at times prior to the hour of the cock crowing? Whenever I think of these scandals, I cannot help but remember the theme song for "The Jeffersons," the 1970s sitcom about the middle aged black couple which is finally "movin on up," in virtue of their street smarts and hard work. Cain deserves a lot of credit for his personal "rags to riches" story. The sadness is that he allowed much of that to get to his head. He had been hand picked time and again to be a "black face" for corporate and financial giants, thus "movin on up" much higher and faster than frankly even his intelligence and hard work might have generated otherwise. The result was his towering hubris and sense of license to pursue the sexual peccadilloes of the moment. The scandals made clear that, if elected, then it would have been only a matter of time before we had our own "Monica Lewinsky" travail with which to contend - except this time the press would not have been running cover for the President, like they did for Clinton. We are blessed that the "Cain Train" derailed now rather than then. Perry: I concur that his instincts are basically conservative. Even on illegal immigration, he is less "soft" than his conservative detractors suggest. Frankly, given the growing Hispanic population in Texas, and historic ties between that State and Mexico, it is not possible for a Texas Governor to take the same kind of stance as taken by Governor Brewer in Arizona or even Governor Martinez in New Mexico. He is not at all serious, in an academic sense; and he will fumble the ball once or twice in any debate that he might have with Obama. Still, our own Presidential history demonstrates that the instinctual "C students" (FDR as an example of a "Gentleman C" student who went on to be the most effective President of the twentieth century) generally fare much better in the White House, than their "A student" counterparts (Hoover and Carter having been much more serious academically). I do not much care now for his gimmicky populist appeals, such as amending the Constitution to create a part time Congress; and my sense is that he has little, real grasp of the implications of his cherished Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, as a President, he would likely shelve the props and take on the real issues at hand with the same, sound instincts that he applied in Texas. He is no Ronald Reagan, but he would be better than George W. Bush, which in our time is perhaps the best for which we may hope. Bachmann: She is a "one note samba," whose fame as one of the two Darlings of the Tea Party (the other, of course, being Governor Palin) has catapulted her in recent months to a much higher position within the GOP than her experience would afford. To her credit, she is bright and serious minded; but her lack of experience on the national stage shows glaringly in her repeated gaffes. Even worse, she is a bit too much of a Sophist on the issues of the time. In her most recent debate appearance, she argued forcefully for a limited role for the federal government. Then, when pressed on her support for a federal tort reform bill, which would subsume all state tort reform laws into a one size fits all federal package, she came out swinging for the federal bill. Basically, like some of the other candidates who have been touting the Tenth Amendment of late, she is for "federalism" when it comes to federal laws that she does not like, but is for a "strong, federal approach" when it comes to federal laws that she does like. Having your cake and eating it too is not new in Washington, so perhaps I am more dismayed here than I should be. Nevertheless, I am inclined to see her as both not ready for prime time and, at times, intellectually disingenuous. Santorum: He is intelligent, capable legislatively, and principled in defense of conservative positions, not simply with respect to the so called "social issues," but on various economic and foreign policy matters as well. He never caught fire, because he had to contend for the same constituency of voters with Bachmann and Cain, who for obvious reasons have been able to inspire more interest in their candidacies than his. My guess is that he is positioning himself for the Vice Presidential slot, though for that to be a possibility he will need to win a few primaries outright (much like George H.W. Bush did in 1980, which solidified him as the head of a moderate faction that needed to be mollified for the general election). If he fails to win any caucus or primary states, then he will return to obscurity, as that Vice Presidential slot instead goes to a Chris Christie or a Marco Rubio. Huntsman: He is the most "Whig" of all of the candidates now running, which likely explains why the various "loony" factions within the GOP have ignored or outright opposed him. I am not bothered by his penchant for "shades of grey" on the foreign policy stage, since a more subtle approach tends in the long run to be more effective than the heavy handed, visionary stances of Presidents like George W. Bush. We do not need another President peddling his "freedom agenda," just as much as we need to get rid of the amateurism on display with our current President. Thus, I would be fine with a Huntsman Administration, at least from what I have learned about him at present; but I think that that is as likely now as a Ron Paul stint in the White House.