View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by David Yerushalmi |
December 19th, 2006
The evidence suggests that President Bush has been overwhelmed by the notion that democracy and its methods trump all the uncertainties left over from science.
It is time to say out loud the ugly truth. President Bush and his administration have been gambling irrationally with our lives, our soldiers’ lives, and our treasure. There is no longer any excuse for this irresponsible behavior and there is no longer any rational basis to suggest that President Bush is anything more than a decent enough man who has no business to be President of the United States.
Gambling against all odds and common sense that democracy will take root in an area of the world and among a people and a religion that have rejected democracy in practice and in theory is simply inexcusable. Early on, many of us gave the President the benefit of the doubt precisely because of the Bush War Doctrine, which put America’s preservation ahead of modern “just war” doctrines drafted by fools or knaves. We speak of course of the parties born long after Thomas Aquinas. The fools and knaves we speak of have tended to hang out in the Hague and in Geneva. The Bush War Doctrine, which became known as the Pre-emptive War Doctrine, was the beginning of the re-articulation of America’s national existence.
At that moment Bush became a man of great consequence. A leader of a great nation and people.
And, then, quite simply, he blew it. Utterly. Once the famous “Mission Accomplished” sound bite and headline shot around the globe, the President drifted away from his pledge to protect this nation first and began to plan how to save the world. He was already planning Democracy. A theory of man that reduces human existence to nothingness.
The Arabs and the Muslims long ago rejected democratic nothingness for their own form of human annihilation, and will continue to do so. Theirs is a murderous ideology that submits all of human existence to a maniacal psychopathic law that knows no bounds.
Like the Democracy-lovers, Islam hates discrimination and political order. Democrats resolve their issue with political order by reducing everything, every truth to method or a vote. The truth we get from today’s vote can be undone and reversed tomorrow. In this milieu, national existence and Peoplehood are necessarily reduced to voting slogans on the way to the World State. There simply can be no justification for a nation in a democracy. America at its founding and as set out in the original Constitution was no Open Society democracy.
But Islam denies political order no less. For Mohammad and his crew, human existence is not real. Men don’t exist in nations. While Arabs historically, long before Islam and the Quran came into the picture, lived for family, clan, and tribe, Mohammad put in place a contrary political ideology precisely because he sought the destruction of these things. He certainly sought the destruction of peoplehood as political order and desired to replace it with the world-wide Ummah which knew no boundaries or nationalities. Heaven on Earth in the here and now even if that meant murdering every man, woman and child who opposed him.
That Bush ignored all of these plain and obvious facts, that he sought to solve the Middle East problem, meaning the Arab and Islamic threat to the US and the West, with an ideology devoid of real meaning – democracy – was not simply an inconsequential gamble. It was sadly enough fatal.
When a man gambles irrationally and his conduct results in death, the matter must come before a tribunal – even if only the court of Reason. The question before us is what level of homicide? Certainly it was negligent homicide. The question at bar is whether this disaster arises to the level of reckless homicide or even intentional murder.
From our vantage, we reject any notion that the President had sufficient mens rea to have reached the higher felony charge. The evidence suggests to us that President Bush, even as a good enough Christian and man of faith, has been overwhelmed by the notion that democracy and its methods trump all the uncertainties left over from science. While this might argue for a defense of diminished capacity, we look at the man and his demeanor and conclude he stands well enough in the dock of the accused to have made better choices had he chosen better advisors. A man, and certainly a leader, is held to know when he must rely upon wiser men.
When the Democrats have taken the White House and we have cut and run from our enemies in the Middle East, we will find that the Pat Buchanan-Jimmy Carter-James Baker notions of dealing with Islam (and they are all different even if they share some fundamental assumptions) have simply brought the marauding masses to our door. And, then we will wake up and realize that our enemies are already standing inside the threshold. They have been here some time waiting for their cue.
dyerushalmi@saneworks.us
Visit their website at: http://www.saneworks.us
Responses to "Enough With "Democracy""
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So what is the point? We can't stay…we can't go…Bush is wrong…but so is everyone else…we must confront Islam….we must leave Iraq. Is there a solution here? Because the old adage is true "Pointing out a problem isn't helpful unless one has a solution."
Your rantings on Islam have me scratching my head. Islam rejects discrimination? What in God's name are you talking about? Islam is built on discrimination. There are the chosen and the infidel. There are those who are muslim, those who are dhimmi and those who are enemy. So too does it not hate political order, because it is inherently a political order itself.
Muhammid wanted a world wide order that belonged to him and worshipped him. This is no different than what every murdering dictator has ever wanted. It's the same thing we saw from Communism and Nazi socialism.
I'm sorry, but how do we figure that the Iraqis DON'T want democracy? They're just risking their lives at the polls to vote for show? That's nonsense. Even if every single Sunni doesn't want democracy…so what? The sunnis are 15-20% of the population. The Iraqi police forces are getting bigger and better. The Iraqis very much want democracy, and they want to chart their own course.
The President has made a failing (though it's simply bunk to suggest that his failing is criminal), but it's not in pushing Democracy. His failure is in fighting a PR battle instead of a war. His failing is in stopping the momentum that was slowly stabilizing the Middle East, and retreating back into a position of weakness that is emboldening our enemies. And his failing is in spending all our time and effort in Iraq…to stabilize it…when the only way to stabilize Iraq is to topple either Iran or Syria, or perhaps both.
Comment by WolvenBear | December 19, 2006
WolvenBear:
First, I have certainly written here and elsewhere on the solution. Fight the war as if it were a war. But know the enemy. (That is a hint relating to a long book review of a book by that title that gets at this in detail.)
Second, "discrimination" in the sense you use the term is based upon modern rights theory. I use the term in its ontological sense. Given your consternation, I understand that difference might be lost on you, and I observe that not in a perjorative way. Islam doesn't "discriminate" between peoples. It demands that all be part of the Umma or and live within dar al-Islam (the land of submission to Allah). Jews and Christians may, at the Caliphate's option, live as dhimmis. But that means the WHOLE world is Islamic. Further, no one, not even a Muslim has an individual self; all is subsumed in the Umma. That is precisely not "discrimination" in the classic sense of Political Order.
The discrimination to which I refer is the establishment of Political Order based upon an ontological ranking or odering between things, primarily between the Society or People and others. Islam subsumes and consumes everything so there is no other.
Survery after survey and poll after poll and all the evidence, including that in Iraq shows that a substantial majority of Muslims desire that Sharia or the Islamic "way" based upon Islamic law govern their societies. Purple fingers or not, the "democracy" you think of is not what they think of.
Finally, why would that be a good thing? Let's suppose they chart their own course? What course do you think faithful Muslims will chart?
Comment by David Yerushalmi | December 19, 2006
I think the point is: "a vote in the hand of savages is simply a vote for savagery."
Dean
Comment by Dean | December 20, 2006
…and any of our 'weed league' graduates such our Prez should have been able to understand that.
Comment by Dean | December 20, 2006
David,
While I agree Islam does not discriminate between peoples theoretically, it does so pragmatically. The history of Islam is replete with the same kind of discrimination (largely predates the notorious discrimination of the West, and continues today). Not all Muslims are treated equal, and sections of Koranic scripture are cited in justification. Black-skinned Africans, in particular, have long been treated as an exploitable race and debased in status relative to Arabs, Turks, and Persians, and their assimilation resisted. Muslims to the east of Persia are adapted to the caste system and subscribe to their own pecking order in places like Pakistan and northwest India where they are dominant. The slavery of which the West is excoriated was begun by Muslim raiders in sub-Saharan Africa exploiting captives taken (just as they first enslave everyone they defeat). The argument supporting Islam as free of the racial-intolerance found in other religions is therefore exaggerated at best and outright propaganda at worst.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 21, 2006
David,
As a fellow Jew, I am shocked you'd believe Islam and/or Muslims free of bigotry (or am I missing something in your remarks?). We have had centuries of anti-Jewish rhetoric, much of it undeniably steeped in racial hatred. Anti-semitism in the Muslim world predates the antisemitism of Europe (and may well be its source). Many people seem to think this bigotry began only with the Jewish return to Israel and establishment of a Jewish state, but it has always been there and only ramped up in reaction to the effrontry of Jews establishing ourselves outside the pale of dhimmitude.
As the following shows, Muslim bigotry is no more universal than any other bigotry in an illiberal society (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0709/p09s02-coop.htm). Nor do I think Muslim denunciations of racism and antisemitism insincere (though they rarely go far enough and make excuses). Yet, it would be easy to mistake these liberal declamation as mainstream when they are not. Muslims, particularly those in third world countries hear and accept racially loaded denunciations of Jews preached from their pulpits and media on a regular basis (e.g., http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480×360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null).
Here's a Muslim discussing the bigotry common amongst fellow Muslims (http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~jrlaw/islam/racism_in_muslim_culture.htm).
While I agree there is no more within Islam theoretically to make it a religion of racial bigotry, the emphasis of Islam on subjection and long practice of enslaving those subjected has created an environment in which those practicing enslavement find sufficient rationale within scripture to support their practice of it. In so doing, they must debase the object of abuse in exactly the same manner 19th century Americans debased slaves. Any time slaves are of a different race, there will be resistance to assimilation that can only result in convictions of inferiority. Muslims have been practicing slavery and dhimmitude for nearly 14 centuries, far longer than slavery prevailed in the West.
The bigotry against Jews and Hindus is more a political and historical matter, though the status of dhimmitude also contributes to Muslim attitudes in much the same way slavery does.
further readings:
http://www.anti-caste.org/muslim_question/caste/caste_one.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3538
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1074
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/history_of_Muslim_antisemitism_and_anti-Zionism.htm
The Mufti of Jerusalem and his support of Nazi holocaust:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/bosnia.html
Recent anti-semitism: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=1035
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 21, 2006
Dear Mr. Stapler:
You've missed my point but it seems you leave that possibility open. Re-read my essay and my comment in this thread. Just as importantly, re-read some of my other essays posted here or at http://www.saneworks.us. In this essay I am talking about discrimination at an ontological level.
At that level, discrimination is absolutely essential or you don't have "self" and you don't have "society" you just have World. The World State. Islam in principle rejects discrimination because except for the limited distinction between Muslims and the Peoples of the Book (Jews and Christians) who are permitted to live within the dhimmi-status, Islam subsumes all. This is a deadly criticism because it is the animus that drives its hatred of the West.
Let's examine Judaism and Christianity at these levels. Judaism discriminates quite clearly. It is a faith pertaining to a particular people confined to a particular land. Converts are not sought. And, even within Judaism, there is discriminancy between the priestly caste (Cohanim and Leviim have preference over the other Israelite tribes in many matters of Jewish law) and the others. There are legal benefits accorded "wise" men over unlearned men. There are legal distinctions between men and women. But these "discriminations" are only the manifest results of a religion based intimately on an ontological distinction. That distinction, based in the Divine ground of Being, discriminates between the Holy and the Profane. Everything else is, as they say, mere commentary.
While Christianity eliminated the notion of a People or nation it most certainly kept the discrimination between believers and non-believers. And, because there is no notion of forced conversion or even death for non-belief, Christianity maintains the quite essential distinctions between Selves. The individual or soul is not subsumed within the people. He must choose freely to be "saved" or not. That is an ontological choice.
Christianity also adopted many notions (i.e., that which is left to Caesar) which left a man's political fidelity to his society intact leaving that distinction — between a Christian's political nation and another's — intact. In other words, Christianity allows a man to be faithful to his nation and not seek a One World Christian State.
Now, of course you are correct in saying that Arabs in particular and indeed all Muslims discriminate socially and politically but that has little to do with their ideology. And, in the end it is not very important or interesting.
One of the greatest confusions of our time — and it is manifest in the raging debate between the "paleos" and the "anti-paleos" at this site — is the failure to understand that discriminancy or ranking or political order is essential to being, that is essential to human existence qua human. Today however, to say that race matters, or gender matters, or religion matters, or national origins matter is to be branded with the R word meaning you discriminate. But the discussion is patently absured because people and nations discriminate all the time and it is critical that they do or they cease existing as individuals or nations. That is what Liberalism on the one side and Islam on the other do to man. They destroy the ability to distinguish. Islam wants every man, woman and child to be a Muslim and that means a part of the faceless souless Umma prepared to murder its own and everyone else for the cause of the Umma. That is the danger of Islam not the fact that it is retrograde in the eyes of the modern Open Society Elite.
Comment by David Yerushalmi | December 23, 2006
I must respectfully disagree with you that race, gender, religion, or national origins matter very much in constituting a nation. They may make it easier to maintain cohesion, I’ll admit, but are not an absolute necessity. Furthermore, that limits what a nation can become.
Our founders welcomed immigration and saw it would fill up the empty spaces with a vibrant people. Although the large numbers of immigrants who came here have sometimes confused our understanding of who we are, they have not destroyed the real ‘essence’ of what brought us together. They enriched our nation with their customs, skills, and industry. The essence fusing us as one people was a common vision of freedom, not an adherence to ‘kith and kin’ which might only retard our expansion and corrupt our ideal of all men born equal. It was a vision begun here, but readily adopted and natural to all men. Three things are now threatening that cohesion: a large influx of recent immigrants who no longer share our vision, a loss of real freedoms, and a reactionary instinct to discriminate in order to protect ‘the nation’.
Some of these latest immigrants have a contrary and subversive vision of dividing up our country. Others want to subjugate it to Islam. They don’t just threaten some Americans of a particular hue; they threaten all Americans by destroying our dream. We may be forced to some degree of discrimination to keep that from happening, but no more than is necessary. More important is that we preserve America as the place where freedom reigns.
There are others, born Americans, who just as surely destroy the fabric of America when they make divisions of us in order to defend her. You may succeed this way in saving some part, but it will no longer be the thing you set out to save. It is better to lose America fighting for what she was, than save her as some disfigured mockery. I pray you are not suggesting you are one of these.
My ancestors were among the first Europeans to set foot on these shores and, to look at me, you would think me pure-stock. A tiny fraction of my ancestors, though, were here before them and red-skinned. My ancestors were mainly Christian, yet I have a Jewish wife and son, and have converted to her religion. My son is adopted and half Hispanic. I have close relatives who are, in whole or part, Cajun, Samoan, Philippine, and Negro. I have friends and associates who pretty much cover the gamut of race, ethnicity, and origin my family doesn’t. Which of them would you have me discriminate against as differing from ‘my nation’? I don’t need a common skin color, faith, sex, or origin to know every one of them is as American as I. Most of them were born right here and have no other identity than American. Others came here discarding an old loyalty to embrace a new one without reservation. Some of us are partial to places we derive from or have other affinity, yet none are confused but that this is our country. I disagree with many of them as to politics, but I do not agree they have less right than I … nor any of us less right than others. No, I am not confused as to the proper use of discrimination. I discriminate against those who would tear my country apart either from without or within, who forcibly enter, violate or plunder, who’d subvert as to sovereignty or principle. All others are my brothers.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 25, 2006
David:
Great dialogue here, that demonstrates your point well. Few are able to even understand the language, let alone judiciously sort to what is important…ie…discriminate. We truly need philosopher/warrior kings, but I don’t know where any can be found. If we had a philosopher, he would be prosecuted rather than elected.
Isn’t the real problem with the electorate’s inability to discriminate and our new found alturistic egalitarianism and compromise?
Comment by WeThePeople | December 26, 2006
Dear Mr. Stapler (and by inverse implication, WeThePeople),
First let me say that your position on the faithfulness of "good immigrants" and the infidelities of "bad natives" is true but unexceptionable. Of course that will be the case in almost any nation.
But think about what you suggest a nation is for a moment. It is, in a few words, the modern multi-cultural, open society democracy. The only requisite for peoplehood in your nation is a commitment to liberty.
Where then do you, if you can, justify the borders and the distinction between nations? Now, you will answer pragmatically here by saying we can't allow ourselves to be overrun by ungrateful and unfaithful immigrants who have no wherewithal or inclination to assimilate into our citizenry. Thus, you conclude, we must both limit and screen to make certain that we maintain our "our expansion" and prevent the "corrupt[ion] our ideal of all men born equal."
But your nation is only identified by the "ideal of all men born equal. It was a vision begun here, but readily adopted and natural to all men." Now if that is true, and I will assume it to be so for purposes of this comment, then all nations or peoples everywhere, if true to their "nature", can and should achieve this. Once achieved, there really is no need whatsoever for nations or peoples since according to your definition — all men are born equal with a natural desire to be free — and by free we mean it in the modern liberal democracy sense — that is, post-Enlightenment. Moreover, it would be wrong to discriminate between these freedom loving nations and peoples based upon your pronouncement that it is wrong for men to discriminate on any basis except between freedom lovers and anti-freedom lovers (say the Muslim faithful).
Indeed, assuming two equally free and liberally minded peoples-nations, how would you justify a border or any other discriminating act between the citizens of one and the citizens of the other?
Now, interestingly, the Declaration says that men are "created" equal not that they are "born" equal. Factually, men are not born equal. Some are smart, some stupid. Some beautiful and athletic and others not. Some good tempered and faithful, others foul and untrustworthy.
Moreover, they are created equal our founding fathers tell us, by our Creator with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Now we needn't get into a long discussion what these "rights" of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness amount to in order to recognize that G-d creates man with a dignity of Self. But that in no way denies the fact that men form nations not out of some universal claim to liberty but out of a shared participation in an existence as a people bounded by affinity.
This nation or people forming, while most certainly predicated upon affinities which include, but incorporate many others far beyond, a shared dream of liberty, does not mean that once formed this People ought not to discriminate against Others so as to remain a distinct people.
For example, suppose Communist China opened its doors to emigration. And, let's suppose they even encouraged it. And, they were so serious about this encouragement that they trained and educated 200 million Chinese who wished to come to America how to speak English, how to provide value added enterprise immediately to our economy, and to cherish freedom and liberty.
Would you welcome them all? Let's assume additionally that all these wonderful and potentially committed freedom loving future Americans worshipped Buddha. Would you still welcome them?
Would the fact that this country would become overnight a nation with a majority of Chinese Buddhists change the nature and quality of its Peoplehood or national existence? Of course it would just as if this country would be overrun by my fellow Jews. Neither Chinese Buddhists nor Jews ever created a nation like this one. Americans are for a variety of reasons unique in the world. We are a Unique People.
That some of us, like your family and mine, are blessed and privileged to live along side the white western European Christians who came to these shores to form this nation, says nothing about what it means to be a people. It only means that a family or nation can indeed absorb a minority of oddballs who work to assimilate but it doesn't deny the obvious consequence if you ignore the national character of the people.
Now, you cannot possibly be arguing that religion, race, language, and culture are not important aspects of nation-building. If you were, it would be what we might call arguing against the facts.
But, you might be arguing, based upon your own family's cultural diversity, that these facts are subject to exceptions or that they ought to be changed because man is somehow freed from his nature to form peoples through affinities by virtue of his embrace of the Open Society Democracy.
That could indeed be a subject of discussion with someone, but it cannot possibly be a rejoinder to what I have written in this essay and elsewhere.
All the best
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | December 26, 2006
I have nowhere stated I am for or advocate “multiculturalism” is the basis of our nationhood, though I do hold we are a pluralistic nation and that that is one of our strengths. I have already stated why I think that is so; that the mix of peoples who came here, wanting the same things we did, infusing our society with new and complementary ideas, and fueling growth in ways a restricted society can only achieved far more slowly in every way reinforces the idea liberty is the right way to do things. Simply stated an open-society, willing to absorb all that is wholesome, must thrive more than a closed one; constricted, as it must be, by its unwillingness to engage. It is not, then, my job to prove ‘openness’ valid, rather it is your job to prove it invalid; which, so far, you have not.
Nor have I said or advocate this nation is or should be a democracy. If you bother to read what I have written elsewhere in these pages, you will see I have a proper appreciation between what our system is and what ‘democrats’ believe it to be; and hold they are foolish to call it that or want that. Yet our system does contain elements of democracy in the manner of our elections and similar avenues for involvement in government; and these distinguish us from less liberal systems as fundamental to maintaining our liberties. Thus, it is not entirely wrong calling our society ‘democratic’. As liberty is an ideal to be approached (if never entirely achieved), so is this idea of democracy. To the degree we can have a say in government, we have the greater chance of retaining our free status against the usurpations of government and less call to complain of what we do to ourselves (making for greater stability). Therefore, if it were feasible to have real democracy, I would be all for that. As it is impractical and even dangerous in a nation so large, I am not.
There is no particular reason our nation should be democratic, multi-cultural, or open. Those are not objectives, only means. However, an exclusionary operating principle, such as you recommend, is the antithesis of proposals made by Smith, Locke, and other leading libertarians; and equally undesirable to me. Therefore, yes I do believe this is and ought to be an ‘open society’ in the same degree they advocated it (i.e., individually free to worship as we please, speak our minds, retain traditions and cultural distinctions, keep the fruit of our labors, and allow the same to others). This nation was established already inhabited by a mix of races, and considerable thought was given to how they’d be included. The founders debated and comprehended an ideal of “all men” when they spoke of equality. That was not a half-considered idea only applicable to themselves. Both their philosophy and religion taught them: no race or group has superiority by virtue of birth or grace. Their implementation of that ideal was woefully inadequate, to be sure, but that does not mean they did not comprehend fully its implications or wish it limited to themselves. Where I draw the line is that no others, be they outsiders or born to the soil, have any right to deprive me of my liberties. They are given to me not by my country, but by G-d.
Justifying borders is simple. Not everyone agrees with my liberties or that I have them by right. Some would come here not to share in my good fortune, but to steal it or destroy it. Open-borders would not cure their ills; they would only visit them on me, my family, my friends and my countrymen. While there are still vast differences of culture, too large an infusion of one into the other swamps and obliterates the latter. In that case, annihilation rather than synthesis is all that’s achieved and all are poorer for it. If I thought we could absorb all who wished to come here honestly and productively, I’d say let them come. As that is insane, I cannot. Until such time as all men share the same desire for freedom and respect that right in others, we will continue to need borders. Imagine for a moment that the whole world has been infected with freedom and has achieved the kind of prosperity we have here. Would you still then care about borders? Would you need or want them? There would be no pressure to emigrate here, because everyone would have what we have right where they are. People would only move from place to place to take a proffered job, pursue an interest, be closer to friends, or a change of scenery. That day, sadly, is long off.
(cont.)
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 26, 2006
(cont.)
I am for borders not only because they serve my interest, but also because they serve to safeguard mankind’s best hope of propagating freedom. This country is not just the special providence of a few; it is a promise of freedom for all. It cannot possibly absorb all, but freedom can be expanded to encompass all. Gradually, it has been doing that by example. Many nations today speak of being ‘modern democracies’. That they do so is a measure of the envy they have for our achievement and desire to emulate it more than it is a reality. Instead of trying to absorb everyone here, therefore, I advocate exporting freedom with all possible haste.
As a Jew, I understand the special destiny G-d imposes on some men or people. It seems a privilege, but is really more a mitzvah, an obligation to do something right. I can’t see G-d would create such a relationship to keep it forever exclusive. Originally, it was exclusive, the sole attribute of Jews, but only so long as it was a small and fragile thing; needing deep, strong roots before it could spread. We Jews were the first to claim a special relation with G-d. At first, we swelled in pride thinking ourselves the only people worthy or capable of such a relationship. We were chastised more than once for that hubris and came to realize we were not the end product but rather the means to changing our world. We infected the Christians with this idea at a time when the Roman world hungered for gods less capricious and more benign. The Arabs next were infected with it, but so inverted the sense of it Islam became something of a perversion. We are not granted this special providence merely to sate ourselves, we are granted it to guide the rest of the world toward a better way, easily achieved if they will only grasp it. I see the American people very much in this same context, the next step in G-d’s design for a better world. Not an exclusionary people but an inclusive one; yet pragmatic for all that.
I do not agree that I am discriminating against any people by maintaining a border. I would be discriminatory only by denying to them the same opportunity to do in their countries what we have done in ours.
The Declaration of Independence, as you know full well, never meant people are born equal in every respect, and I did not introduce that into this discussion – you did. We are all born with the same G-d given liberties; no man having a greater right than any other to rule over his brothers. That is the sum total of the equality of which our Declarations speaks. Liberals are free to extend that idea to other venues, and there is nothing wrong in doing that if they can make a valid case for it. Where conservatives differ is granting it has any validity (and much to condemn it) the idea equality goes so far as taking from the labors of one to give to another solely on the basis of an arbitrary ‘justice’ or that government should be in the business of it.
You are making me out a modern-liberal, whereas my liberalism plainly extends no farther than the classic variety. In that, I am entirely conservative within the American context, and have no loe of the socialist delusion. I could as easily misrepresent yours as the rabid ranting of a xenophobic bigot, but that would be unfair and untrue. I do think, however, you skirt awfully close to the it for reasons I am at a loss to fathom.
There is no particular reason to particularize class, race, heritage, &c other than an interesting way to individuate ourselves. It is interesting my ancestors include Europeans and Amerindians, Protestants, Catholics and Jews, arrived here at a particular stage, fought in certain battles, stood against or caved to pressures, rose or fell with fortune, experienced hardship, &c. I relish those things and celebrate them with my family. All those things go into forming my character, but they do not limit who I am or who I may include as cultural progenitor; nor are they necessary to an authenticity of common heritage. My heritage consists not just in things done by my ancestors, but also those of Squanto and Cochise, Scalia and Sinatra, Martin Luther King and Count Basie, Trini Lopez and Alberto Gonzales, Gershwin and Kościuszko, &c; all of whom have impact on who I am as an American. I count them as ‘forbearers’, even when I have not one drop of their blood, hue or accent. So too, I include new Americans, properly arrived and contributing to the common vision, as my cultural brethren.
(cont.)
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 26, 2006
(cont.)
I am for borders not only because they serve my interest, but also because they serve to safeguard mankind’s best hope of propagating freedom. This country is not just the special providence of a few; it is a promise of freedom for all. It cannot possibly absorb all, but freedom can be expanded to encompass all. Gradually, it has been doing that by example. Many nations today speak of being ‘modern democracies’. That they do so is a measure of the envy they have for our achievement and desire to emulate it more than it is a reality. Instead of trying to absorb everyone here, therefore, I advocate exporting freedom with all possible haste.
As a Jew, I understand the special destiny G-d imposes on some men or people. It seems a privilege, but is really more a mitzvah, an obligation to do something right. I can’t see G-d would create such a relationship to keep it forever exclusive. Originally, it was exclusive, the sole attribute of Jews, but only so long as it was a small and fragile thing; needing deep, strong roots before it could spread. We Jews were the first to claim a special relation with G-d. At first, we swelled in pride thinking ourselves the only people worthy or capable of such a relationship. We were chastised more than once for that hubris and came to understand we were not the end product but rather the means to changing our world. We infected the Christians with this idea at a time when the Roman world hungered for gods less capricious and more benign. The Arabs next were infected with it, but so inverted the sense of it Islam became something of a perversion. We are not granted this special providence merely to sate ourselves, we are granted it to guide the rest of the world toward a better way, easily achieved if they will only grasp it. I see the American people very much in this same context, the next step in G-d’s design for a better world. Not an exclusionary people but an inclusive one; yet pragmatic for all that.
I do not agree that I am discriminating against any people by maintaining a border. I would be discriminatory only by denying to them the same opportunity to do in their countries what we have done in ours.
The Declaration of Independence, as you know full well, never meant people are born equal in every respect, and I did not introduce that into this discussion – you did. We are all born with the same G-d given liberties; no man having a greater right than any other to rule over his brothers. That is the sum total of the equality of which our Declaration speaks. Liberals are free to extend that idea to other venues, and there is nothing wrong in doing that if they can make a valid case for it. Where conservatives differ is granting it has any validity (and much to condemn it) the idea equality goes so far as taking from the labors of one to give to another solely on the basis of an arbitrary ‘justice’ or that government should be in the business of it.
You are making me out a modern-liberal, whereas my liberalism plainly extends no farther than the classic variety. In that, is entirely conservative within the American context, and I have no love of the socialist delusion. I could as easily misrepresent yours as the rabid ranting of a xenophobic bigot, but that would be unfair and untrue. I do think, however, you skirt awfully close to the verge of it for reasons I am at a loss to fathom.
There is no particular reason to particularize class, race, heritage, &c other than an interesting way to individuate ourselves. It is interesting my ancestors include Europeans and Amerindians, Protestants, Catholics and Jews, arrived here at a particular stage, fought in certain battles, stood against or caved to pressures, rose or fell with fortune, experienced hardship, &c. I relish those things and celebrate them with my family. All those things go into forming my character, but they do not limit who I am or who I may include as cultural progenitor; nor are they necessary to an authenticity of common heritage. My heritage consists not just in things done by my ancestors, but also those of Squanto and Cochise, Scalia and Sinatra, Martin Luther King and Count Basie, Trini Lopez and Alberto Gonzales, Gershwin and Kościuszko, &c; all of whom have impact on who I am as an American. I count them as ‘forbearers’, even when I have not one drop of their blood, hue or accent. So too, I include new Americans, properly arrived and contributing to the common vision, as my cultural brethren.
(cont.)
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 26, 2006
(cont.)
While you are right to say “…men form nations not out of some universal claim to liberty but out of a shared participation in an existence as a people bounded by affinity.”, you neglect to say liberty is this nation’s particular affinity. More than any other value or virtue, Americans fixate on and are identified with this idea of freedom. Liberty is fundamental to all men almost as much as it is to breathe, but we do not associate it with Chinese, Iranians, Botswanans, or Swedes. The world uniquely and justifiably associates freedom with the United States. However much they criticize us, they still regard us as ‘guarantors of freedom’. Indeed, their criticism is an effect of their holding us reponsible for it! Unnatural is the constraint put on men, even by themselves, to submit to another. Our affinity is not the discrimination of kind you defend. That was the affinity of the old world our founders threw off and later heroes rejected at great loss of life. This nation, if it is to remain true to its vision can never become a “distinct people” (kind of late for that, anyway), we must remain a people forever ‘becoming’, else succumb to the same exclusionary corruption which freedom so offends. I am a mongrel in a mongrel nation. I leave to China and other nations to cling to their purity. They can have it.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 26, 2006
We-the-People,
I am perfectly capable of understanding Mr. Yerushalmi's “language”, and am as capable of judgment as you. If he is not sufficiently clear in his remarks as to avoid all misconstruction, it is not a sign of doltishness on my part. In fact, I did not wish to assign a meaning he did not intend, and elicited clarification so as to avoid misconstruction. This is what gentlemen do in debate. Observe, they also confound who think themselves of the same mind when, in truth, they are not.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 26, 2006
Dear Mr. Stapler,
You've certainly provided much to chew on, as it were. Rather than an essay long reply, let me touch on your main points, as much with questions as with answers.
First as to style. I don't assume you to be any follower of any "ism". We are speaking of ideas. One of the problems in this kind of forum and especially at this site when you begin to mention either "discriminancy" or the more common term but one laden with connotation "discrimination", you tend to get the ire of both sides of the argument. I don't wish to call you names, certainly not a "liberal" or multi-culturalist because that would simply be name-calling. Similarly, if someone refers to me as a xenophobe without evidence of such I will simply turn my back and walk away. The tenor of your words suggest to me you are also of the same mind.
But let’s glance at the substance of your remarks. You suggest, as indeed I described what I thought you were saying, that the only two real determinants or factors for discrimination between Us and Others (as a nation) is the “affinity” for liberty and the willingness to be a peaceful and contributing member of society. But if that is the case, how is that not a multi-cultural, Open Society platform? All the talk of gradualism etc. does not change the end result. And, if you answered my Chinese scenario as it reads, then these liberty-loving, peaceful Buddhists who could all add to our economy would be welcome even though that would convert this country to a Buddhist-controlled one. Am I correct?
Further, your understanding of America’s founding is simply not plausible. While there was most certainly a great affinity toward liberty, it was a liberty for men who were white, and Christian. Read the Constitution. Indians could not participate. Blacks could not. Women had no franchise. If you were not a landowner in most states you could not vote. If you wanted to hold a state office in many of the states you had to be Christian (usually of a particular denomination). Following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, six out of 13 states had official state churches, and at least three (New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts) continued as such for many years thereafter. Now you can say that was all bad, and we have “progressed”, but the facts cannot be easily dismissed. So it seems quite apparent that Liberty was indeed an affinity but these men understood this particular affinity to exist only among certain men of other affinities.
Parenthetically, the question of democracy and freedom is not an easy one. Let’s both suppose for purposes of this dialogue that we both appreciate the nuance of a constitutional republic. Yes, democracy notions under-gird it, but it is saved from democracy precisely because it is not OPEN. It is available only to men of certain affinities. Now, it is equally true that due to the atrocity of slavery and the bloody Civil War, this country began the swing toward no affinity other than liberty. But if that is the principle upon which you stand national existence, you stand national existence on the World State for the reasons I have already explained and should be obvious. (Obvious, though I note you didn’t explain what the possible grounds for discrimination could be between two nations equally peaceful and liberty loving. Since culture other than peace-loving and liberty-loving is not to be a legitimate factor for discrimination in your country, I am at a loss to understand what your answer could be other than there could be no distinction or discrimination.)
Finally a note on Judaism and discriminancy. You might wish to re-write the Torah, the Mishna, the Talmud and two thousand years of Rabbinical writings, but until the birth of the Reform and Conservative movements a mere 200 or so years ago (beginning with Moses Mendelssohn), Judaism was a particular religion because G-d chose the Jewish People. That Choseness was explicitly expressed in a blessing he gave them to be unique among all the nations. Is that an obligation? Of course. But there is no getting around the fact that the Jews were an Am Segulah (a chosen people) to be Holier. “You chose us among all the nations .. and made us holy”. Now one might try and make that PC, but it doesn’t get more particular. The Jews in the Bible are called a First Born of G-d, a wise and discerning people more than others. But it also says why. Because they observe G-d’s commandments. Simple. But particular nonetheless.
Now, being a welcomed member of this nation, I certainly understand the theological position of the Christians and respect it. I reject it but I came to their home that they built and they welcomed me.
Now, if they welcomed too many of me, we’d have a problem because America would no longer be America (as founded by white Christians from west Europe) but some version of Israel or maybe a big ACLU, heaven forbid.
In conclusion, I certainly understand why many people shudder when someone begins to speak of discriminancy. But the reverse of whatever evil you think that is, is far greater. Indiscriminancy is not merely the death and end to national existence, it is the death of the human qua human. Men simply cannot live in political society without discriminating in ways you reject; and if they cannot live in political society, they do not exist as men.
All the best,
David
Comment by David Yerushalmi | December 27, 2006
By the by, if you want to read a "philosophic" work on a worldview that says the factor for political order for a people is the desire for "liberty" and "peace", check out Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, by Alexander Kojeve. It is an eye opener. But in truth, he says not a whole lot more than Descartes, Hobbes and Locke in their own ways. Indeed, if you read Machiavelli deeply, it is there also.
DY
Comment by David Yerushalmi | December 28, 2006
David,
I have read Machiavelli, and I fail to see anything remotely resembling a libertarian philosophy in him. The only parallel you can make is: Machiavelli, Locke, et al each discusses fundamentals of government, make points about the objects of government, and concur in the need of it. Other than that, they differ hugely.
As an 'authoritarian', Hobbes is much closer to Machiavelli, yet Hobbes' focus is on justifying authority where Machiavelli takes it as a given. Although Machiavelli is unfairly accused of callous, even rapacious disregard of those governed, he is, nonetheless, guilty of trampling the right of the governed to have any say and treating us in the abstract (defends right of kings to rule arbitrarily as being in the best interest of those governed). Hobbes, in contrast, emphasizes kings are endowed with a right to rule while they govern well (i.e., conditional sovereignty) by weakly acknowledging people have some right to change rulers; but only in extremis.
Hobbes is a product of the middle period of the English Civil Wars; whereas Locke is of its end time. Hobbes wrote his "Leviathan" in support of the settlement returning power to the Stuarts. He was the king’s creature and mindful of it. Locke, similarly, wrote his “Second Treatise of Government” in support of the Parliamentarian triumph that booted the Stuarts out and wrote these ideas a few years after. In Locke’s case, the overturning of Stuart rule, the establishment of a ‘represented’ rule of law, and an invitation to the Hanoverians to share power with Parliament formed his philosophical framework. Locke was, thus, a Parliamentarian-libertarian creature much as Hobbes had been a sovereignty creature before him. Neither of these men pulled their ideas out of thin air (as people now suppose). Both chronicled more than theorized new understandings; and what they wrote was more in the way of fleshing out and consolidating ideas that were ‘the buzz’ of their times. They added to and polished these ideas, but their genius was more in giving them clear and defensible expression than in revolutionizing politics. In each case, the revolution was nine-tenths complete and only needed firming up.
Hegel and Descartes, by contrast, are abstract thinkers and their philosophies reach beyond the already rich descriptions and syntheses of a Hobbes, Locke or Jefferson. One of the great problems with Hegel, though, is he can be read too many ways and literally takes a stand nowhere. Both Left and Right claim him as one of their own, yet he is neither and no one's. His historical retrospectives are accurate, but he doesn't seem to extrapolate well. That is a flaw typical of philosophers who dwell too much on the idea of a 'progression' in history. There is progress, but is nowhere as neat, linear or general as Hegel would have it. Hegel's big contribution was his form of the dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) which became the mainstay of socialist philosophers. I can't say it is a form I favor, however, as it doesn't seem to have as an object reaching any sort of conclusion (one reason so many people have difficulty following Hegel) and leaves far too much subject to opinion. Useful as a last resort, perhaps, but not the first tool I'd pull from my pouch. Hegel is, ultimately, not a philosopher of any political-school (i.e., he’s not advocating any given system), he’s more often trying to reconcile philosophy (a system of fixed abstracts) with history (an unsystematic commotion into which philosophy repeatedly stumbles). In effect, he is trying to tidy up history and force it to settle down. It is said Hegel was made nervous by the French ‘terror’, and that had some effect on his ideas. It would certainly explain a great deal about him.
Descartes was the first of the 17th century ‘rationalist’ school. He was also a giant among mathematicians (gave us his Cartesian system). His philosophical forays were into the nature of man and the nature and uses of reason. He did dabble some in ‘rational’ morality, and is, therefore, highly regarded among secularists. He did not spend any effort developing nor advocating a system of government, any more than does Hegel. Hegel gives us his reflections on the substance of government but fails to make any conjecture as to form (other than recognizing both states and liberty are both valid). Descartes does not do even that much, yet that doesn’t seem to keep people from frequently referencing him as a political-theorist or linking him to all sorts of political tribes.
Kojeve, I confess, is less known to me. According to Wikipedia he was a Marxist, a teacher of the Marxian redux of Hegel and a ‘central planner’ connected with the European Common Market’s (now E.U.). He is said to have been a great lecturer, so I suppose he must have been great at firing up like-minded socialists. Like all Marxists, he seems to rant a good deal about ‘the end of history’ as if it were a valid, desirable and realizable object (the end of history will occur when we are all dead, not before). These Marxist are all convinced if we ever achieve their utopia, history will magically stay put until hell freezes over; and they reference Hegel as the lodestone for this belief. What tripe! If that is a sample of his ‘intellect’, I am not impressed and think you might have spared us any mention of him.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | January 6, 2007
David,
I have nothing against exercising a little discrimination, per se, if you mean by it the sort that does not have as its object the deprivation of others of their due. We all exercise discrimination in our dealings, and not all discrimination is bad. For example, if I believe someone is of a violent or dishonest character (based on some knowledge I have of him), I am within my rights and good judgment in choosing someone else to entrust with my child or money. In effect, I have discriminated against that person, but not without justice or good judgment. However, if you mean by it some are not trustworthy or entitled to all the same legal protections, respect, or natural rights by virtue of a condition of their birth or prior association, then I cannot agree.
Where I disagree with the kumbaya chorus is in what constitutes those protections and rights, and how far they extend. I believe a legitimate visitor in my home is due the protection of his person and property while he is my guest. They are not entitled to break my rules, usurp my place, or act in otherways that are offensive, however. Uninvited guest (i.e., burglars and similar forced-entries) are entitled to no such rights or protections. My respect has no such fixed limitation (whether to native or foreign, invited or otherwise) other than what additional each person earns by his good acts or loses by his predations, is what I deem appropriate in each case, and is his due by virtue of our common humanity. I do not agree that non-citizens should be afforded the same rights and privileges as citizens; in any country no matter how constituted (though they ought not to be abused regardless). If this is what you have been trying to get at, then we are in agreement on that point.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | January 6, 2007
David,
As to style, as you call it, I most certainly do follow a particular “ism” and it is classic-liberalism. That is, I am a fixed believer in liberalism of the classic variety (also called libertarian), highly conservative in my expression of it, and not some proselyte to the many variants that have been grafted onto and usurped that term since Locke and Adams framed its core tenets. The term liberalism has been hijacked by the socialists and ‘libertarian’ was coined by some Bolshevik as an insult (doesn’t bother me). In my political philosophy I follow the KISS principle, holding that: although I may agree with this or that additional idea as complementary to this philosophy, doing so does not make it part of nor require I give it any fixed allegiance. I am not, therefore, a libertarian of the Libertarian Party with their presumption of speaking for the rest of us who bear the label or favoring some of their isolationist (I am neither isolationist nor interventionists) and pacifistic proclivities (obviously). You won’t find any of that in Locke or Smith to support the idea they are requirements of a libertarian. In the same sense, I bear no allegiance to ‘objectivists’ with their atheistic conviction or fiscal libertarians with their placing means ahead of the object (liberty), &c. I may agree, at times, with things they say, but have some flexibility in that regard.
Despite this one obsession with liberty, I am not one of those impractical types who must have it all his way or no way. Being libertarian to me means consistently doing that which optimizes liberty; expanding its boundaries where I can and defending them against encroachment as best I may. Clearly, others have different notions about what constitutes freedom and how to safeguard it, but it is my job to dissect their arguments and discover in them what is genuine or artificial, practical or unworkable. My mission is to win others over through persuasion and educating. Beyond that, I am open to the ideas of others and accept others will try influencing me as I do them.
(cont.)
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | January 7, 2007
(cont.)
It appears you do consider me a multiculturalist (despite protestations you don't). I am not particularly offended, as many might be; but I think you are lumping together two ideas I consider separate: pluralism and multiculturalism. Pluralism accepts some diversity without promoting it (even worshiping it) the way multiculturalism does, and does not debase the host culture in the process. I do accept (and, yes, encourage) newcomers to our fold. Not all newcomers, but any who meet some minimum agreed upon standard (always subject to revision). Moreover, and unlike the multiculturalists, I do not hold that just because I may invite others in, that I must invite one and all. To me, my country is my home; and like my home I have a great deal of say regarding who comes in or stays out; even to the point of discriminating. I can even say how many may come in, when, or how fast in accord with ‘my comfort level’ or desires. As the ‘owners’ of our country, those are simply our prerogatives; and it is still and later our prerogative to say who may or may not join our national family though they may have lived among us many years. What fool allows a known subversive or a thief to have permanent residence, full rights, and equal status comprehending he will do what he can to deprive us of what we have built?
Newcomers do bring with them ideas of how to make our country better. The ones who come through the front door and wait their turn are the sort who appreciate what we’ve accomplished, do nothing to diminish liberty, make excellent citizens, and do not force alien values on the rest. They are, themselves pluralistic, mostly educated, self-reliant, and have already proven they know how to navigate unfamiliar systems before they get here. They are willing workers who find jobs right away and improve our national bottom line. They burden no one. They learn our language, adopt our customs, seek naturalization, and are some of our best defenders of liberty. I have known many of this type and can vouch they are everything I have said.
There is second type coming and are grown out of hand, encouraged so in no small part by the culture of blind inclusion we call ‘multiculturalism’. They are the kind who break laws to get here, attack our culture and sovereignty, and act in every way as bad characters who ought to be kept out. Among them are many who are hard working, but all are given to lawbreaking (proved by the very act of coming here forcibly). Among them is a heavy leavening criminals; who go on breaking our laws and inflicting harm and terror in every community they enter. Almost all of these are illiterate, have difficulty making ends meet without assistance, receive most of their pay off the books (not paying taxes), burden our schools and hospitals to the breaking point, and have no intention of being assimilated. That it is multiculturalism and not pluralism that so encourages this type is not mere semantics. Pluralism has always been based on an expectation that those who come here assimilate to the degree they learn and respect our laws, and learn our language and basic customs to a degree they are not a constant friction. Multiculturalism holds their cultural norms are as valid, and that it is the host culture that must accommodate them. Moreover, proponents of multiculturalism are the ones even now defending open-boarders and alien ‘rights’, and demanding no action be taken to stem their piracy.
There is one other type, and they are anomalous … the Muslims. Like the first type they are often educated, hard working, self-reliant, fiscally non-burdening and navigate our system readily. Like the second type, however, they have no intention of assimilating and even demand we change to meet their cultural expectations. A few of these go farther than the rest, engaging in positively subversive, criminal and warring behaviors. This type of behavior ought not to be tolerated anymore than the second type, and if their fellow Muslims are of a mind to shield them, ought to be expelled along with those who act aggressively. Once again, it is much the fault of multiculturalism these have been encouraged to come here and are shielded now in their activities against us. Pluralism plays no part in shielding them and played little part in inviting any them here.
(cont.)
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | January 7, 2007
(cont.)
It appears you do consider me a multiculturalist (despite protestations to the contrary). I am not particularly offended, but I think you are lumping together two ideas I consider separate: pluralism and multiculturalism. Pluralism accepts some diversity without promoting it (even worshiping it) the way multiculturalism does, and does not debase the host culture in the process. I do accept (and, yes, encourage) newcomers to our fold. Not all newcomers, but those who meet some minimum agreed upon standard (always subject to revision). Moreover, and unlike the multiculturalists, I do not hold that just because I may invite others in, that I must invite one and all. To me, my country is my home; and like my home I have a great deal of say regarding who comes in or stays out; even to the point of discriminating. I can even say how many may come in, when, or how fast in accord with ‘my comfort level’ or desires. As the ‘owners’ of our country, those are simply our prerogatives; and it is still and later our prerogative to say who may or may not join our national family though they may have lived among us many years. What fool allows a known subversive or a thief to have permanent residence, full rights, and equal status comprehending he will do what he can to deprive us of what we have built?
Newcomers do bring with them ideas of how to make our country better. The ones who come through the front door and wait their turn are the sort who appreciate what we’ve accomplished, do nothing to diminish liberty, make excellent citizens, and do not force alien values on the rest. They are, themselves pluralistic, mostly educated, self-reliant, and have already proven they know how to navigate unfamiliar systems by the time they get here. They are willing workers who find jobs right away and improve our national bottom line. They burden no one. They learn our language, adopt our customs, seek naturalization, and are some of our best defenders of liberty. I have known many of this type and can vouch they are everything I have said.
There is second type coming and are grown out of hand, encouraged so in no small part by the culture of blind inclusion we call ‘multiculturalism’. They are the kind who break laws to get here, attack our culture and sovereignty, and act in every way as bad characters who ought to be kept out. Among them are many who are hard working, but all are given to lawbreaking (proved by the very act of coming here forcibly). Among them is a heavy leavening criminals; who go on breaking our laws and inflicting harm and terror in every community they enter. Almost all of these are illiterate, have difficulty making ends meet without assistance, receive most of their pay off the books (not paying taxes), burden our schools and hospitals to the breaking point, and have no intention of being assimilated. That it is multiculturalism and not pluralism that so encourages this type is not mere semantics. Pluralism has always been based on an expectation that those who come here assimilate to the degree they learn and respect our laws, and learn our language and basic customs to a degree they are not a constant friction. Multiculturalism holds their cultural norms are as valid, and that it is the host culture that must accommodate them. Moreover, proponents of multiculturalism are the ones even now defending open-boarders and alien ‘rights’, and demanding no action be taken to stem their piracy.
There is one other type, and they are anomalous … the Muslims. Like the first type they are often educated, hard working, self-reliant, fiscally non-burdening and navigate our system readily. Like the second type, however, they have no intention of assimilating and even demand we change to meet their cultural expectations. A few of these go farther than the rest, engaging in positively subversive, criminal and warring behaviors. This type of behavior ought not to be tolerated anymore than the second type, and if their fellow Muslims are of a mind to shield them, ought to be expelled along with those who act aggressively. Once again, it is much the fault of multiculturalism these have been encouraged to come here and are shielded now in their activities against us. Pluralism plays no part in shielding them and played little part in inviting any them here.
(cont.)
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | January 7, 2007
(cont.)
By the way, you are wrong to say women did not have the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution as men. Voting was not yet deemed a right, it was a franchise granted by the states as they saw fit. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, speech, religion, bearing of arms, refusal to self-incriminate, habeas corpus, &c were the same for both men and women. Women could not be sold as property or forced to marry by our Constitution, and if there was still any of that, it was flaws in our state laws that are to blame. Remember, in 1783 the federal government had little power to affect those things and it would not be for many years that it did.
I am absolutely opposed to the idea of a one-world state, but not for the reasons you seem to have. I am opposed to it for the same reason I am opposed to democracy in any large population. It doesn’t work. If I thought we could achieve a one-world government and it would protect my liberties to the same or better degree than my own, I would have no great objection to it. For that matter, I don’t find our liberties as well safeguarded in a nation of fifty states as it used to be in a nation of thirteen. Mostly, that is a matter of time and government working away at us, but it also derives from the greater power governments have in a large nation to usurp than exists in a smaller one. I am not precisely a ‘state’s rights’ advocate, but I do see some virtue in a complementary idea known as ‘localism’. Localism has two virtues over centralized government: efficiency and variety. Government works most efficiently at the local level. It addresses the problems the local population deems appropriate to government, and does not burden them with ‘solutions’ some distant population deem necessary for government to address. The result is fewer unnecessary and unfit regulations. Before the 14th Amendment, the states had a lot more latitude to operate as they deemed fit. That meant if you didn’t like conditions in one state, you could go live in another; yet without quitting the country as a whole or giving up rights the Constitution guaranteed everyone. World government has only one virtue: greater efficiency in applying a one-size-fits-all mentality that I don’t believe fits anyone.
To answer your point about states sharing a common border, having the same regard for liberty, equally tolerant, equally given to liberality in enterprise, and, consequently, equally prosperous; yet retaining disparate cultures otherwise, I don’t see anything wrong in them merging into one nation if both are of a mind to do so. However, I also see little point to it. As I said before, my preference is for localism; and it were more efficient they retain their own identities and values; coincidentally providing a greater variety of places I, as an individual, may then chose from. If both countries are equally free and prosperous, what benefit is to be derived from consolidation … a more centralized power? That is the way to despotism in government.
Finally, in answering what comprises our heritage, you have been arguing for what you see as the base constituency critical to our heritage. However, if they are not who you think they are, then you are arguing for a no longer extant community. If, as I contend, we are so diluted through immigration as to be unrecognizable from those first Americans, yet have a lore (even a delusion) of being descended from them, then what essence is it that binds us together? I say it is the ideology (virtually a religion) of liberty, because that is common to all Americans. Certainly, it is what counts to all of a majority that will be called upon to determine your future. Your calls for something more ethnic simply no longer work.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | January 7, 2007
David … et al,
This part was intend as comment #22 above (instead I duplicated comment #21). My apologies for the confusion this creates.
(continued from #21)
Pluralism is ‘relatively’ open, but is not so open it invites its own heedless destruction. Gradualism does indeed change the end result, it just may not be the result you desire consisting of a static culture. Static culture is a logical impossibility; especially in a culture that encourages prosperity. Until the 18th century, we were accustomed to seeing cultural change take place over many generations, giving rise to the idea cultures were static. We can see in retrospect that was never really true. Since that time, we have seen a rapid acceleration of change, and not just here but almost globally. This disturbs a great many, and it is natural they feel some revulsion to it. But that won’t stop it, and it is a little late for that in any case. With commerce comes some exchange of cultural influence. There must be with it some mobility of people. With the mixing of people, comes friction; and we must either accommodate ourselves to it in some degree or halt all commerce, and so reduce our prosperity to a point we are no longer the world’s economic juggernaut (more like Iran). Yet, that does not imply we must give ourselves over to being deluged by humanity, or to losing that core of our being that is our heritage. We can regulate this coming to accommodate us.
Yes, I do regard liberty and tolerance as core features of our people. Consider, less than 1% are purely descended from that stock of whom we were comprised just prior to 1776. The 19th century brought more of British stock to our shores, but it brought many times more who were German, Slavic, Jewish, Italian, Asian, Hispanic, and African. At the time of the Revolution we were already one part African in every four, though that number later decreased to 1:7. Our religious tolerance was not yet as open as today, but, even then, it encouraged large numbers of Catholics and dissimilar protestant sects to swarm here. By mid-20th century, we began to see other religions take hold that even late-18th century America would not have tolerated. We learned we could tolerate it, and even came to prefer it finding our early religions unharmed by the experience and all finding security religious freedom. What I see as having changed, though, is the rise of religious antipathy on the one hand, and a subversive Muslim intolerance growing in our midst on the other. Both of these promise to destroy that very tolerance upon which our culture is built. Because of that, they are the exception for which we have good cause to protest and prevent them going any further.
No, David, I did not and do not say state churches were all bad, and I don’t know where you got the idea I did. I know as well as you that the ‘establishment clause’ applied only to the federal government and left the states free to maintain their existing establishments. And, for many years afterward, they did so. Yet, the early government also encouraged religious tolerance in all states and place tolerance stipulations on the territories to forestall religious wars there. Those territories, in turn, became states with constitutions virtually identical to the federal model, right down to the establishment clause. Pretty soon, states with established churches were in the minority and tolerance was the norm. Later still, there were number of legal cases in which the right of states to maintain establishments was challenged; and, so, the states responded by changing their constitutions to conform.
I know my Constitution, David, and how it discriminated in 1783 and why. However, do not make the mistake of thinking our founders all concurred in that discrimination. If you will read not just the Constitution but also the debates surrounding it, you will find those terms nearly cost us a nation. Even many southerners were guilt ridden by the compromise that gave legal status to slavery. Others fought bitterly against the provisions isolating native Indians from our national life.
Moreover, you are wrong to cite the Constitution with all those defects. The Constitution said nothing about who would be enfranchised; rather, it left that up to the states, and it was the states who so discriminated. The decision to exclude Indians was, similarly, not any part our Constitution; they were promulgated by later legislators (mainly states’) and Presidents. The Constitution was admitted to be imperfect not least by those very gentlemen who signed their names to it. Some of them spoke and wrote at some length about its imperfections. Yet each of them recognized it as a huge leap forward when compared to the despotic and unrepresentative government we’d suffered as colonies; and much to be preferred to the shaky government we’d had under the Articles of Confederation. They knew there was still much to be done and hoped wiser heads would prevail than proved the case.
(cont. in #23)
- Bob Stapler
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | January 8, 2007