View Comments |
Print This Post
| 
by Alan Roebuck | January 6th, 2009
The ideas of liberalism currently have effective control of America, so the conservative movement must deliberately instigate a war of ideas, with the aim of retaking intellectual control of the country.
Yes, this title may appear pretentious. But just as the Protestant Reformation was a call for Christians to return to fundamental principles, so conservatism must return to a proper understanding of that for which it fights. If we do not acknowledge that liberalism (meaning the worldview of the Left) has effective control of America and all of Western Civilization, and if we do not aim to discredit publicly liberalism's fundamental ideas, we conservatives will continue to lose.
Face it: Conservatism is losing. The sagacious reader will acknowledge that although an occasional conservative counterattack has limited success, the overall tendency in America, and the rest of Western Civilization, is toward the left. Political conservatism has remained viable through this shift mainly by redefining its goals, so that today's conservatism mainly is about impeding, rather than decisively reversing, our leftward movement. Thus, for example, mainstream conservatism is not trying to re-stigmatize homosexuality, but only to limit the advance of its legitimization.
And why is liberalism winning? Because although pockets of conservatism remain, liberalism has effective control over the official thinking of America. The ways we Americans generally think, and therefore the ways we generally act, start with the premises of liberalism, the most basic of which is that man, not God, is the supreme being. And therefore, since man is finite and fallible, there can be no certain and hence authoritative answers to the questions of life, which leads liberalism to emphasize liberty, equality, openness to the outsider (i.e., multiculturalism), and nonjudgmentalism. Ironically, this lack of authoritative answers also leads to tyranny, because society requires order, and with no God to be its source, order ultimately must be maintained by subterfuge and force, not reason.
As evidence that liberalism rules, consider: Why did Obama's leftism, manifestly documented by his many leftist words, deeds and associations, make so little difference in the election? And why are the storm trooper tactics of ACORN and a myriad of similar leftist organizations usually successful? Would these tactics succeed against the establishments of North Korea, China or Iran? Of course not. In America, leftists are officially regarded as righteous, and the general public, even if they disagree with them, only disagree with their tactics. John Q. Public generally supports (if only passively) the goals and ideals of the Left: equality, socialism and secularism.
Liberalism could in fact be described as our (unofficial) state religion, and I have analyzed it here. Calling liberalism a religion does not sound so strange now that Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism has popularized the idea, but we also have to understand that every nation must have a state religion. This is because every nation must have leadership, and leadership requires a comprehensive system of thought that provides a basis for making decisions. Furthermore, the majority of the people must agree, at least for the most part, with this system of thought, because leaders cannot lead unless most of those being led respect the decisions and their rationales. In short, there must be a comprehensive philosophical system that is generally acknowledged to be authoritative. And a comprehensive philosophical system always constitutes at least a de facto religion.
So America, like all nations, must have an at least unofficial state religion. Until roughly the 1960's, this state religion was Christianity, albeit a watered-down version. But nowadays it is the philosophical system of liberalism that is taught as truth by most of our authorities, and that provides the basis for almost all our decisions, although we must acknowledge a significant residual influence of Christianity.
And let's be clear about the consequences of liberal domination: Since liberalism is largely false, since it tells untruths about the most important questions of life, no society governed by liberal principles can maintain its existence. If America continues under the domination of liberalism, we can be certain that our future is either Balkanization (i.e., disintegration) or else the establishment of a soviet-style government, in which a leftist elite maintains its rule by force. The leftist dream of a society in which people live in harmony through voluntary assent to liberalism is just that: a dream. Real-world people require a social order that is in accord with traditionalist, that is, non-liberal, principles.
But although liberalism rules, this rule is not generally acknowledged. Those who understand the situation will experience the "shock of recognition" upon seeing this truth articulated, but for most people, the rule of liberalism is hidden. For one thing, conservatism does occasionally occur. Also, liberals don't call themselves liberals, but only "people who really understand," as opposed to conservatives, those odd ducks who just don't get it. Furthermore the rule of liberalism, so far, is not like, for example, the rule of communism in the Soviet Union: Officially, Americans are not required to know and to swear allegiance to liberalism, although most people will face various degrees of opposition or persecution if they openly oppose liberalism. Liberalism, in fact, is analogous to communism in the Soviet Union circa 1930: in charge, but not yet having fully implemented its agenda.
Nevertheless, liberalism currently is so dominant that in practice, "conservatism" mostly means disagreeing with liberalism on various isolated issues, but without explicitly disagreeing with the fundamental ideas that make liberalism what it is. In other words, conservatives generally don't disagree with liberalism, they just don't like some if its applications. This is only to be expected, since liberalism provides the default mode of thought on every issue.
If my assertion that most conservatives are basically liberal seems strange, consider: Conservatives by their nature want to support the existing order. But if that order is liberal (and in America it is), then the conservative's instincts will ultimately lead him to support liberalism, even if he disagrees with some of its excesses. Furthermore, since liberalism rules, the de facto definition of "conservative" is "opposing any part of the liberal agenda." With this definition, anyone who opposes even a small part of liberalism is liable to be branded a conservative, even if he is in most respects a liberal.
Conservatives, then, rarely dispute the premises of liberalism. But if you do not dispute your opponent's premises, you will eventually be forced to accept his conclusions. Therefore true conservatives will not make any progress unless they challenge, in the arena of public intellectual combat, the foundational ideas of liberalism. People do not judge ideas and proposed actions in an intellectual vacuum: they judge them in accordance with the worldview they already possess. Those with an at least somewhat liberal worldview, i.e., the vast majority of Americans, will not give much support to properly conservative ideas and policies, aside from certain cases that are so blindingly obvious that they overwhelm the liberalism of all but the most committed leftist (e.g., immigration reduction or the death penalty). Conservatism will not make progress until liberalism is displaced as our state religion.
And how shall we challenge liberalism effectively? Since it is most fundamentally a set of ideas, the only way to fight liberalism effectively is by articulating a conservative worldview, i.e., a comprehensive, coherent and explicit formulation of the most basic conservative principles and their most important ramifications. And then we must formulate a conservative apologetics to defend and advance this worldview. "Apologetics," a word familiar to most theologically conservative Christians, means the theory and practice of giving an intellectual defense of a doctrine.
Since probably the majority of conservatives are at least tacitly liberal on most fundamental issues, the ideas of proper conservatism need to be more clearly understood and articulated as a coherent whole. Then we can know where to draw the line between conservatism and liberalism, and we can articulate arguments that those not already committed to liberalism will find persuasive. Since liberal thinking is literally all-pervasive the first order of business is to understand liberalism deeply, and to know exactly where it goes wrong.
Although there is plenty of ad hoc opposition to liberal policies, there does not currently exist an intellectually organized discipline of conservative apologetics, which will be the link between the conservative worldview and our goal of a society over which conservative ideas have effective control. This is primarily a war of ideas, and our enemy is fighting for ideas that are clearly false. If we argue effectively, we can win.
And our enemy is most vulnerable in his premises. Liberals, for example, are skilled in arguing propagandistically for same-sex marriage, but they have little skill in defending the premises of liberal thought that lead to the demand for this policy. Among these premises would be: that God does not have authority over man; that men and women are not different by nature, but rather are made different by convention; and that morality is whatever we want it to be. The typical liberal would be a fish out of water if forced to identify explicitly these premises and to come up with persuasive arguments for them.
Perhaps an even better example is Christianity. The typical Western pagan has a vague idea that contemporary scholarship has decisively refuted the existence of God, the accuracy of the Bible, and other basic Christian doctrines. I certainly believed this at one time. But the truth is exactly the opposite: there is a vast body of persuasive evidence for Christianity that the garden-variety pagan would be unable to refute,1 were he actually to be faced with it.
In short, liberalism is an intellectual castle built on sand. There are powerful arguments for conservatism principles. Let's unleash them.
So what exactly is conservatism? This is not the place for details, but political conservatism is primarily an understanding of the proper way to order society. The "ordering" of society means the laws, rules, customs and traditions that provide the structure that every nation must have. Contemporary Western Civilization, disordered by the false teachings of liberalism, needs to recover a proper understanding of the basic principles of man, society and God. Politics in the deepest sense is concerned with the proper ordering of society in accordance with these principles.
Indeed, the essence of proper conservatism (the type commonly called "traditionalist") is respect for the objective order of reality, whereas the essence of liberalism is a desire to transgress this order. Reality contains an order that does not originate within the individual, and mostly does not even originate within mankind. This order is conventionally divided into a natural order, a moral order (ethics), a spiritual order (religion and the divine), an intellectual order, a social order (the ways of our people), and so on. Proper traditionalist conservatism consists of a respect for this order and a desire to protect its proper expression in the life of our nation. Liberalism, in contrast, is essentially the desire to transgress this objective order, and replace it with a subjective order that originates within the individual. This transgression naturally leads to libertinism in the individual, and Balkanization — which inevitably leads to tyranny — in society.
Although conservatism is necessarily concerned with individual behavior (through such issues as abortion and homosexuality), its proper focus is on American society as a whole. Conservatives have traditionally held that "ideology," i.e., the attempt to articulate, rationally and comprehensively, the basic principles of society, is futile. But at this late hour we need to fight, and the only cure for bad ideas is good ideas, aggressively promoted.
It will have to suffice for this essay to mention one specific element of conservatism: its opposition to the liberal emphasis on the individual and his alleged right to be free from all connections he does not freely choose. "Freedom" in this sense is impossible to achieve, and the attempt to achieve it must end in the anarchy that inevitably leads to dictatorship. To be free in the truest sense, an individual must be part of a group larger than himself, a group that has legitimate claims on him, and the primary examples of such groups are family, religion and nation.
Conservatism's emphasis on society rather than the individual helps explain why the conservative movement has been ineffective despite the fact that roughly one-third of all Americans (including this author) identify themselves as evangelical Christians, i.e., theological conservatives. Such people ought to be naturally supportive of political conservatism, but in fact most American Christians do not appear to care enough about the direction in which our society is moving to take effective action. Most evangelicals are primarily concerned with evangelism and with the personal relationships of believers with God and with man, and they are content to leave political activism to others.
All of conservatism, in fact, suffers from a failure to properly understand the big picture. Many conservatives, probably the majority, are really right-leaning liberals who only disagree with liberalism's excesses, not with its essence. But even the more traditionalist conservatives tend to see their conservatism as just a vendor in the marketplace of ideas: It provides a refuge for those who want spiritual relief from the madness of the leftist status quo, but it does not constitute a call to action.
Look at it this way: the vast majority of people, including most conservatives, believe either that American society is basically sound (only needing to be protected from a few leftist schemes), or that the overall condition of society is totally beyond human comprehension or control. Both of these beliefs must be rejected: The dominant leftist way of thinking is both wrongheaded and in control, and so America is in serious danger. Furthermore, we can understand the basic nature of the problem.
Fortunately, we have a source of wisdom about the things that liberalism misunderstands: truths from the traditions of Western thought and practice, both Christian and secular, built up over thousands of years. These truths need to be brought into the public square so that they can again become authoritative.
And therefore conservatism's primary need is for organization, both in the intellectual sense of explicitly formulating a conservative worldview and apologetics, and in the sense of organizing conservative personnel so they can argue effectively for these ideas. We're in a war of ideas, and wars are won by armies, not by disorganized bands of warriors. A large group of warriors, no matter how brave and aggressive the individuals may be, will never win a war unless they are organized into units, trained in proper tactics, and led into battle.
At the very least, organization will require two things: individuals with the necessary leadership abilities, and money.
We should not try to be popular. As an object lesson, compare theologically liberal churches with the "seeker-sensitive" churches that have been springing up throughout evangelicalism. Neither group teaches orthodox Christian doctrine, at least not in their sermons. But whereas the liberals don't teach it because they don't believe it, the "seeker-sensitive" churches don't teach proper Christian doctrine because they don't want to offend the uncommitted.
Most seeker-sensitive churches have on their websites statements of faith that are (small-o) orthodox, referring to the inerrancy of the Bible, Jesus' sinless life, atoning death, and resurrection, and so on. But their Sunday sermons, designed for the non-Christian visitor, contain none of the doctrines that trouble unbelievers, such as sin, Hell, and man's inability to save himself. Their desire to be popular has led them to censor Christianity.
We conservatives must not be like this. The necessity of gaining votes by not offending the uncommitted has led the Republican Party to abandon any meaningful support for most issues of authentic conservatism. But if we are to restore proper conservatism we must look to the future. We must primarily be concerned with reestablishing a proper view of society and working to train the next generation of leaders in proper thought and action. Probably a majority of people will not like what we have to say, but our goal should be to influence those who will make a difference.
More specifically, our main goal should be to influence the intelligent and ambitious young people who will be tomorrow's intellectual leaders. All societies are ruled intellectually by an elite, and ultimate authority always rests with those who have the highest authority to say what is true and what is real. When it comes to the most important and fundamental issues of life, such as the existence and nature of God, the nature of the physical world, morality, or the meaning of life, most people, including most of the highly intelligent and educated, do not form their beliefs on their own. Since most people do not have the nature, training or desire to study these issues carefully, most people believe what the authorities whom they trust tell them is true. Since this condition seems to be a permanent feature of human psychology, our apologetic task is only to convince a majority of those who will form the intellectual leadership class of tomorrow, not to convince a majority of the entire population.
In America, this highest intellectual authority is currently possessed by the teachers (especially the professors) and the journalists, but whomever society's highest intellectual authorities will be, our goal should be to influence those who will one day take their place among this elite. In order to change what most people believe, it will only be necessary to change what the authorities teach.
Most of today's young people can be reached, because they do not have a strong commitment to liberalism. How could they, when the young are always intellectually malleable, when liberalism preaches nonjudgmentalism and a mindless tolerance which render life meaningless, and when liberalism has become a dead orthodoxy? And remember the true cliche: today's young will be the leaders of tomorrow.
In principle, our task is simple. America is not in mortal danger because of vast and mysterious forces. She is in danger for the simple and easily understood reason that many Americans believe many things that are false. And people do not believe these falsehoods for mysterious reasons. They believe them for the simple and obvious reason that other people, especially the respected authorities, made the effort to teach these ideas. To describe the problem any other way is to miss its most fundamental element. Indeed, if you doubt that we need a campaign of conservative apologetics, I would ask: What do you say must be done? And why will your plan fix what ails Western Civilization, when nothing done so far has managed to impede the advance of liberalism?
Our nation — our people — are in danger. To protect the America we love, we need to fight for the ideas that can save her. Philosophically, step one in this campaign of conservative apologetics is to demonstrate that the God of the Bible exists. Nothing else can serve as the basis of American and Western society because no other worldview accounts so fully for all of the facts we know, and because our Western institutions are, in fact, based on Christian assumptions, despite the attempt by aggressive atheists to construct an Atheistic Western Man. In this enterprise we can make use of the rich traditions of Christian apologetics developed over the millennia. The faith of our fathers and the tools to defend it are there; we must pick them up again.
Specific Suggestions
All of these suggestions are being implemented to a certain degree already. But we need more action, and the most important ideas need to be disseminated widely.
a) Since we need to discredit liberalism publicly, public debates are one of the best concrete ways to advance conservatism. A public debate is an artificial and impersonal situation where the audience expects to be challenged intellectually, and this makes it easier for people to let themselves be influenced by new ideas. This is because the debaters are not directly speaking to (and therefore are not personally challenging) individuals in the audience. Furthermore, the audience views the debaters as being credentialed experts, which also makes it easier for John Q. Public to allow himself to accept the new ideas he hears. And debates will attract the people we most need to influence: those who are young, intelligent and ambitious. If our opponents will not debate us, then we can at least conduct public lectures to publicize our ideas.
b) Lawrence Auster suggests a think tank dedicated to the study of liberalism.
("Institute for the Study of Liberal Society"; scroll to the bottom of the page.) An intellectual discipline, such as conservative apologetics must be, must be founded by a group of scholars, and any movement must have some formal organization and apparatus. Such an Institute will stimulate the development of conservative apologetics and give it an initial boost of legitimacy, as well as producing intellectual ammunition for conservative activists. Liberalism already has several thousand think tanks; they're called colleges and universities. And although there are think tanks dedicated to specific aspects of conservatism, we need one dedicated to conservatism per se.
It must be emphasized that this think tank must not study liberalism according to the currently dominant thinking and practices of mainstream academics. Although it must produce intellectually credible work, a conservative think tank must challenge the status quo and be prepared to be regarded as personae non grata in some sectors of academia.
c) We need a magazine dedicated to proper conservatism of the type that is usually called "traditionalist." A good magazine would achieve some of the purposes of the think tank mentioned above, and it would give invaluable publicity to the new movement.
d) Speaking of publicity, Steven Warshawsky suggests a campaign (newspapers, radio, TV, billboards, etc) to educate the public in various elementary principles of conservatism, and pointing them to websites where they can learn more. This is an excellent way to get John Q. Public to do something he rarely does now: think about liberalism and conservatism in a way that extends beyond cliches. And there are many latent allies of ours waiting to hear the good news.
e) Eric Heubeck suggests "study groups" for the development of conservative "scholar/warriors." (Contained in "The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement") This is a part of his more general idea that we must ". . . advance a true traditionalist counter-culture based on virtue, excellence, and self-discipline" by ". . . promot[ing] a set of beliefs more compelling than that of our opponents."
Since any serious movement must be led by an elite, training traditionalist conservatives through a sort of "house church" movement is an excellent idea. Appealing to John Q. Public is not enough; we must also train leaders who will take conservative ideas into the important institutions of society. Heubeck's vision does not include "infiltrating" these institutions, which he believes (with some justification) to be hopelessly corrupt; instead he envisions gradually creating a new American society in parallel to the existing corrupt liberal one, with the hope that the liberal society will eventually collapse because the public has withdrawn its support. Although I acknowledge that this type of approach may be necessary, there is the historical example of liberals gradually taking over the West's conservative institutions, from which I infer that the reverse process is possible.
f) R. J. Loewenberg and David Yerushalmi have announced an initiative to found a string of on-campus organizations dedicated to nurturing conservative student activists in traditionalist thinking and to bringing intellectually profound criticisms of liberalism into the university, which is the temple of liberalism, i.e., its ultimate seat of authority. Or, to switch metaphors, they propose to attack the beast in his lair. While I do not know enough about this specific program to be able to endorse it, the general idea is excellent. The university is where the intellectual leaders of America are trained, and most people are still at least somewhat intellectually malleable during their college years.
g) We need works of art that portray the conservative worldview as true, good and beautiful. Man thinks at least as much with his emotions as with his intellect, and a properly ordered society will see to it that people have an emotional as well as an intellectual attachment to the ideas that govern society. Perhaps we can begin by reasserting the classics of Western art and literature, but without, as is currently done, perverting them to appeal to contemporary prejudices.
Endnotes
1. Unless he takes refuge in naturalism, that is. See "How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist," and "The Scientific Leftists of the Center For Inquiry."
These are excellent observations by Alan. We should espouse pure conservatism in order for America to rebound from the abyss that we find ourselves. This abyss was caused by the "feel good" crowd. It will continue, ad infinitum, as the "feel good" crowd has the votes.
Unless we heed Alan's advice to overtake the universities with conservative ideas our country is doomed. A study needs to be done on how we lost the universities. lbj's failed great society and fdr's new deal, are prime examples of failed liberal thought and should be exposed as such instead of listening to the garbage that is spewed about how fdr saved us from the depression. In my opinion the only reason that that depression is referred to as the Great Depression is that it allowed the socialists to gain a foothold in America and they are the ones who hold the keys to the broadcast media, newspapers, and the universities.
Great article Alan!
Comment by hvance | January 6, 2009
[...] Roebuck discusses America`s State Religion-Liberalism-and calls for a Conservative Reformation in a brilliant piece at Intellectual [...]
Pingback by Timothy Birdnow » Outstanding Essay on Conservative Reformation at Intellectual Conservative | January 7, 2009
Although I agree with the general tenor of this article, it fails entirely in identifying the “principles” underlying the Liberal ‘worldview’, and it fails even more spectacularly in identifying anything resembling the “principles” underpinning a Conservative ‘worldview’.
The crux of the matter is not who has the most persuasive ‘principles’, but whether what they advance as ‘principles’ are in fact PRINCIPLES. There can be no doubt that Liberal ‘principles’ have dominance today, but that is not because Conservative ‘principles’ have not been effectively marketed, but because Conservatives don’t have any – or better, don’t know what a principle really is.
Whoever demonstrates that what underpins their position are in fact principles, and not ideology masquerading as principles, will win the day.
I am always perplexed by Conservatives lamenting the fact that their ‘principles’ are not understood, especially when they link those ‘principles’ to Biblical principles, while themselves singularly failing to embrace the very Biblical Principles they claim to espouse.
The Scriptures set out clearly and unequivocally TEN clear Principles. The entire Scriptural message is based on those Principles, The Ark of the Covenant was built to hold them, as was the Temple (for where those Principles are, there also is God), and those Principles are the Ten Commandments. The Prophets espoused them; so did the Wisdom books (Eccl 12:13); Christ unequivocally embraced them (Matthew 5:17-18); and the Scriptures end with them (Rev 22:14).
But the incredible thing about these Principles is that they are the only Principles that can withstand reasoned scrutiny. They are Principles in the proper sense of the word. And that is the case whether or not one believes there is a God.
That is the real difference between Liberal and Conservative Principles.
To say, as this author does, that “Philosophically, step one in this campaign of conservative apologetics is to demonstrate that the God of the Bible exists” is a sure way to condemn Conservatism to eternal obscurity and irrelevance. No one can prove that God exists, so to predicate any philosophy on such an argument is to ensure that it will be doomed.
What we should focus on (and virtually everything I have ever written is dedicated to this), is that the Principles gifted us in the Ten Commandments are the only Principles that can ensure our individual and collective freedom; they are the entire basis of human obligations; they are also the basis of everything human beings recognize as morality; and they are the only sound basis for government.
Yet, for some inconceivable reason, Conservatives, while so often professing to advance Judeo-Christian ‘principles’, side-line the very Principles the God they profess to worship gifted us. They don’t even attempt to understand the depth of meaning contained in those Principles.
Instead, they cling onto vacuous claims that God gifted us Rights, not obligations. They put above the Principles their professed God said He had gifted us, what Thomas Jefferson claimed God had gifted us. They elevate the clumsy musings of a man above the God they profess to believe in. Even worse, all we hear today from the various self-appointed conveyors of God’s word is what God wants to do for us. It seems that we have forgotten the most fundamental tenet of this whole God/man thing: as my son has said in a magnificent article – “We are there to serve God – God is not there to serve us”.
So it is not the Liberals, or should I say not ONLY the Liberals, who place man above God. Today’s Christian Conservatives do exactly the same thing.
So until they get their priorities right and start paying a little attention to the Principles their professed God gifted us, they are destined for the political scrapheap – as I have argued in my article “Unless Republicans and Conservatives Adopt a Sound Set of Principles, they are Destined for the Political Scrapheap”, and my books and other articles.
But it seems my efforts to advocate the Principles God has given us will be in vain. We are all too busy telling God what He has to do for us – so that we can again be the ones wielding power.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | January 7, 2009
In comment # 3 above, Joseph BH McMillan asserts that the Ten Commandments, which he generally calls Principles (as opposed to the various ‘principles’ of incorrect forms of thinking) are the crux of the matter. He asserts “The entire Scriptural message is based on those Principles…,” and “They are the only Principles that can withstand reasoned scrutiny. They are Principles in the proper sense of the word. And that is the case whether or not one believes there is a God.”
He also says
To say, as [Roebuck] does, that “Philosophically, step one in this campaign of conservative apologetics is to demonstrate that the God of the Bible exists” is a sure way to condemn Conservatism to eternal obscurity and irrelevance. No one can prove that God exists, so to predicate any philosophy on such an argument is to ensure that it will be doomed.
What we should focus on (and virtually everything I have ever written is dedicated to this), is that the Principles gifted us in the Ten Commandments are the only Principles that can ensure our individual and collective freedom; they are the entire basis of human obligations; they are also the basis of everything human beings recognize as morality; and they are the only sound basis for government.
And, clarifying his view of false conservatism, he says,
Yet, for some inconceivable reason, Conservatives, while so often professing to advance Judeo-Christian ‘principles’, side-line the very Principles the God they profess to worship gifted us. They don’t even attempt to understand the depth of meaning contained in those Principles.
Instead, they cling onto vacuous claims that God gifted us Rights, not obligations.
Finally, on a less important point, he faults me for not clarifying my conservative principles. But in an already-long essay describing the big picture rather than the details, this is a minor sin. Clearly articulating truly conservative principles (or is it Principles?) can be done in another work.
There is a great deal of truth in McMillan’s position. Political conservatism ought to be concerned with the ordering of society, and this order must be based on what God has said about society in the Bible. And he correctly points out that today’s conservatives mostly focus on rights, whereas the making of rights to be the most important issue is a mark of liberalism, not proper conservatism.
But I think that McMillan is being somewhat esoteric. The Ten Commandments are not “the entire scriptural message…,”although they do summarize the scriptural message that is most relevant for political conservatism, namely how God wants society ordered. Scripture contains both Law–what God wants us to do–and Gospel–what God has done for us in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is not proper to make the Ten Commandments the be all and end all of conservatism, as they are only a part of Scripture, Christianity and conservatism. Conservatism is about conserving our people and society, and the Ten Commandments and what they imply are only a part of what is to be conserved.
Furthermore, his claim “no one can prove that God exists” is misleading at best. If God is real, there will be evidence for Him, and the proper presentation if this evidence is what we call proving God’s existence. Furthermore, some people are persuaded by this evidence to change their minds from atheism or agnosticism to theism. And we also need to demonstrate to both our enemies and the uncommitted that our Christianity is not the blind leap of faith that some claim it is. Proofs of God are not sufficient, but they surely have an important role to play, for otherwise our enemies can claim that the Ten Commandments are irrelevant because no such God exists.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 7, 2009
Personally, I find this entire premise faulty because it appears to have its ideologies 180 degrees backwards. It is not liberalism that is concerned with individualism and individual liberty. Neither is it conservatism (at least as it is customarily understood in the modern political context) that is concerned with "ordering" society, and focused on the collective. It is precisely the opposite.
Liberals are, in fact, the ideological group most concerned with a top-down ordering of society, and willing to impose such order by force. Communism and socialism, both leftist/liberal concepts, are both premised on the centralization of power and authority in order to restructure society. This is because of the liberal concept of "social justice".
Conservatism, or classical liberalism, the ideology laid out by such men as Adam Smith and our founding fathers, is the ideology of individualism and rational self-interest. It is focused on providing the maximum individual liberty to the maximum number of people while still maintaining civility and order. The "ordering" of society is specifically NOT intended to be administered by a central authority according to conservative concepts. Any conservative reformation that begins with the premise of glorifying the collective over the individual and imposing an authoritarian "order" upon society, whether that order be based upon the ten commandments, or the Bible, or some secular principle, is not a reformation – it is a redefinition.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 9, 2009
Patrick Mulligan’s comment # 5 above illustrates that the word “ordering” (as in “the ordering of society”) has two meanings: active and passive. Proper conservatism certainly does not desire that a central authority actively issue and enforce the “orders” that society shall be constituted in a certain way, and I tried to make this point clear when I said:
“The ‘ordering’ of society means the laws, rules, customs and traditions that provide the structure that every nation must have.”
Instead, the ordering of society with which proper conservatism is concerned is an organic order that arises from the people’s common understanding of things. And this common understanding must be achieved primarily by persuasion. At the same time, every society needs authorities (intellectual, spiritual and civil), and these authorities must, at least occasionally, exert force to preserve the order of society, for there are always those who wish to change it. To think that society can maintain its existence purely on libertarian principles is pure fantasy.
If Mulligan thinks that I am “glorifying the collective over the individual and imposing an authoritarian ‘order’ upon society,” then he has radically misunderstood my words. True conservatives want to conserve the best of America, and American society has never even remotely approached the pathological state implied by his lurid words. In fact, given his support for “the ideology of individualism and rational self-interest,” we can identify him as a libertarian. And libertarianism is not conservatism in the proper sense of the word, because one cannot conserve society if individualism is the bottom line.
It bears repeating: in a healthy society, the order within society arises from the people having, for the most part, a common understanding of reality. It does not arise from a central authority forcing its vision on the people (as in the Soviet Union), nor does it arise from people reveling in individualism and self-interest. It is not “glorifying the collective over the individual” to make the true observation that a nation is not just a bunch of people who happen to occupy the same geographical region and who agree, purely out of rational self-interest, not to take advantage of others. National cohesiveness, and therefore national survival, requires a mutual identification of people one with another and a rough agreement on most of the deep issues of life. It has always been so, and it always will.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 10, 2009
Libertarianism fails to be an adequate conservatism for another reason: it is only a reasonable position when the basic integrity of society can be taken for granted. But liberalism is a comprehensive attack on all aspects of our traditional American way of life, and therefore "laissez faire" is a wholly inadequate response to the contemporary crisis.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 10, 2009
Individualistic rational self interest is the driving principle behind classical liberalism, including free market capitalism, which are the key components of the society that modern "conservatism" wishes to conserve. Confining "conservatism" to the conservation of religious and cultural identities places severe limitations on exactly what we wish to conserve. Biblical principles provide a strong basis for issues of morality, but do not at all address, say, economic structure, responsibilities of government, rights of the governed in relation to their governors, etc. A parliamentary democracy, direct democracy, authoritarian dictatorship, or theocracy could all ascribe to Biblical principles and create a society with Judeo/Christian values as the guiding force. They could organize their economy based on Marxist, socialist, or free market principles, or some mix thereof. Those are just a couple very simple and simplistic examples.
So then, even if we could somehow use the power of persuasion to convince all (or at least a majority of) people that our Judeo/Christian and Western values are correct and proper without the use of coercion, that still leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions about the structure of our society and government. We need underlying secular principles to establish, for instance, the superiority of captialism over socialism/Communism/collectivism, or the necessity for representation in government, or the need to protect certain liberties for individuals from government intrusion.
Libertarianism is an adequate conservatism because the functioning society upon which it relies is a byproduct of its underlying principles. Or put another way, the society necessary for the existence of libertarianism is created by the application of libertarian principles to society. To say that libertarianism is dependent upon a functioning society is akin to saying that free market capitalism is dependent upon a functioning marketplace. The one exists because of the other, not in spite of it.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 11, 2009
The only principle of libertarianism is liberty, i.e., the freedom to do as you think best. Any principles that actually specify how individuals ought to act or how nations ought to be ordered come from outside libertarianism.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 13, 2009
Libertarianism as a philosophical concept is quite a bit more complex than "freedom to do as you think best". It is a concept of maximum individual liberty and the observation and preservation of individual rights. "Freedom to do as you think best" implies that I can, say, walk up to someone on the street and punch him the face because I "think it is best", and he me. That is anarchy. Libertarianism is based around the free market concept of mutual consent and rational self interest — individuals are free to make the decisions that they feel provide them with the maximum benefit without using force or coercion against anyone else to inhibit their ability to do likewise. Libertarianism provides a secular basis for the concepts that modern conservatism wishes to conserve – which is beneficial when defining and describing a secular government that presides over a culturally and religiously mixed group of people. By appealing to the libertarian foundations of modern conservative thought, we do not have to convince Buddhists of the moral superiority of the ten commandments or convert atheists into believers in order to sell conservative ideas.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 14, 2009
Mulligan asserts that “Libertarianism is based around the free market concept of mutual consent and rational self interest.” But what specifically does “rational self-interest” consist of? Unless the leaders of society specify, at least in general terms, what one’s self-interest ought to consist of, this principle will amount to exactly what I said previously: “do what you think best.” After all, people disagree about what their self interest consists of and therefore, since every society requires at least a rough consensus of how society ought to be ordered and what the good life consists of in order to avoid major conflict, some degree of what libertarians see as “coercion” is necessary.
And this discussion is not at all theoretical: Until approximately the 1960’s there was a rough consensus in America that broadly Judeo-Christian principles were authoritative for ordering society. Many individuals did not agree with these principles, but most people at least acted as if these principles had the right to rule. And despite the fact that the leaders of society often acted to preserve the rule of these biblical principles, pre-1960’s America would hardly have been described as coercive and authoritarian.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 14, 2009
Can anyone tell me why we abandoned the biblical principles of pre-1960's America? I watched it happen as those were my high school and college years and I am still in amazement that, in my opinion, a bunch of radicals could cause such an upheaval of an orderly society. I was so appalled by it at the time that it caused me to adopt a very conservative approach to my philosophy of life. I came from a very modest upbringing, dad was a steel worker and mom was a home maker. This background in my eyes should have made me into a more leftish ideology but it repulsed me. I had everything to gain by wanting change but even then my inner being told me something was wrong with the 60's revolution. I guess my question can those principles ever be brought back? It is apparent to me that this revolution has damaged America badly. It seems that today we are all so afraid to say anything because it may make someone boohoo that nothing can get done without law after law being passed to protect everyone's rights or should I say, perceived rights, that we are being enslaved by laws and lawyers. It is maddening to me to see this occur before my very eyes and be unable to stop this.
Comment by hvance | January 14, 2009
My ideas for fixing the Socialist American Order
1. Write and publish articles relating to our founding American Values.
2. Talk about our founding American Values with our families, neighbors and co-workers.
3. Get very involved in School boards and local government, and for some of us, get involved in higher levels of government.
4. Amend our Constitution with term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court, and provide Congress with 2/3 override power for all Supreme Court decisions impacting or relating to the Constitution its self. This amendment should also identify the Supremacy of the laws in our Declaration of Independence over Constitutional law.
5. Enforce the tenth amendment by breaking up all entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security into fifty state programs. Also, make the Department of Education an advisory agency only – ban all educational matching grants from the federal government to the states – let the states and the people educate their children without the socialist federal state.
6. Cease federal funding of the ACLU and similar organizations.
7. Consider creating non-voting citizen status for those who pay less than 10% in taxes – no voting in federal elections unless you pay at least 5% in federal taxes – no voting in state elections unless you pay at least 5% in total state, local and sales taxes. Representation must have a connection to taxation.
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 14, 2009
We must be able to innumerate and articulate what our American Values in fact are. Our Founding Fathers have already accomplished this:
American Values
1. All men are created equal – equal before the law, which is American human equality – not government-enforced economic equality, which is French Revolutionary or Marxist human equality.
2. Our human rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness are sacred – from God and therefore irreversible – not from the State and thereby reversible.
3. Individual Liberty = freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion (religion non-subversive of liberty), freedom to defend life, freedom to own property creatively attained by the sweat of your brow, freedom to have privacy at home, freedom to petition government for grievances, and government power divided into its three branches.
4. The entire reason for human government, and our Constitution, is to secure our essential human rights as listed above.
5. Just government power can only derive from the informed consent of the governed, i.e.: majority rule through elected representatives. All other government power is unjust, and subject to tyranny.
6. When government becomes destructive of our essential human rights as listed above, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government; i.e.: we have a right to revolution, if necessary when the government cannot be altered, against government destructive of our essential human rights.
7. Real multiculturalism – from many, one: e pluribus unum
8. Limited government – Limited by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 14, 2009
Alan,
"Rational self interest" is acting in a manner that one perceives as providing himself the most benefit — it is not necessarily the same for each person. When conflicting interests arise, the prohibition against using force or coercion to infringe on another person's individual liberty establishes order and ensures that all parties' rights are protected. These concepts are consistent with the constitutional limitations on government and delineation of individual rights that our founders conceived; the values derived from our constitution and declaration of independence described above by Ronald Cherry. Our constitution and its fundamental concepts are not dependent upon a universal religious or cultural tradition for their validity (our founders crafted it that way by design since religious, economic, and personal independence were the very reasons why early America was established). Appealing to Americans on that dimension instead of a religious one to which you believe they have become hostile and intolerant would be more effective as well as more consistent with real conservative principles.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 14, 2009
Patrick,
You say "When conflicting interests arise, the prohibition against using force or coercion to infringe on another person's individual liberty establishes order and ensures that all parties' rights are protected."
That will only happen when all people agree always to reject force and coercion, which will only happen in Heaven. On Earth, people frequently exert force and coercion, and calling on them to stop doing so and to adopt your Randian ideal has zero chance of success. The maintenance of a social order (i.e., preventing society from descending into the anarchy which necessarily leads to tyranny) requires religion (or something that functions like it, such as Darwinism), tradition and civil authorities who occasionally use force against those who threaten the existing order. Since something closely approximating the social order I advocate existed throughout most of the history of America whereas yours has never existed anywhere, I stand on firmer ground than you.
Your view of the Constitution is, I think, substantially correct, and it shows a weakness of the Founding of our Republic: The liberal principles of freedom, equality and universal rights that apply to all societies were made explicit and official in the funding documents, but the conservative principles of the actual and particular American society, the glue that actually held America together, were left implicit and unofficial. And being unofficial, they could not be maintained when the Left gained control of the formal apparatus of leadership starting in the 1960's.
Bottom line: It is always easier to appeal to self-interest, but one cannot form a more perfect union on that basis.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 15, 2009
Alan,
The principle difference between libertarianism and anarchy is that libertarianism does indeed allow for force to be used retributively and punitively by a central authority in response to the initation of force or coercion by one individual against another. Libertarianism isn't an ideology of no authority, it is just an ideology of limited authority. I reject categorically your assertion that a libertarian society has never before existed, for that is precisely what America was, at least principally, at its founding! An argument could be made as to the ideological purity of American libertarianism, but the framework of our government is certainly based on its concepts.
What you see as a flaw in our founding documents may equally be seen as their greatest advantage. They are adequate to govern a non-homogenous group of people. They are not dependent on religious or ethnic or cultural uniformity. That we had such (relative) uniformity at one time and lack it now does not necessarily render our founding documents, and the concepts contained therein, obsolete or doom American values to the scrapheap of history. What I'm saying is that it is not only easier, but also more in keeping with the conservative traditions of the United States, to articulate our values the way Ronald Cherry did above than to go to elaborate lengths to restablish a religiously based social order.
I think what you are suggesting in terms of a "revolution" and appeal to a central ordering of society is what Barry Goldwater was cautioning against when he said:
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies."
That there exists an apparatus to exert such an influence on society, and that it is presently dominated by liberal ideologues, is a case for dissasembling the apparatus — not using it toward a different end.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 15, 2009
Patrick,
If America at its founding was a libertarian society, then that indeed would be an example of good libertarianism. But note that until roughly the middle of the 20th Century, American politicians and other public thinkers routinely described America as a Christian and even a white nation, and they regarded it as perfectly legitimate for the authorities to take action to preserve America in these attributes. And politicians never contradict what the majority of the people regard as basic truths, because they require the approval of the people. Therefore American libertarianism was dependent for its success on America being held together by non-libertarian realities, chief among which were relative ethnic homogeneity and general assent to, if not the truth of Christianity, at least the right of the biblical worldview to be the ultimate ordering principles of our nation.
You describe our Founding Documents as “adequate to govern a non-homogenous group of people. They are not dependent on religious or ethnic or cultural uniformity.” But where has a non-homogeneous group of people ever formed a stable and decent society? All significantly non-homogeneous national entities were and are empires, not nations.
You also asserted that we ought to “articulate our values the way Ronald Cherry did above [rather] than to go to elaborate lengths to reestablish a religiously based social order. “ But general and abstract principles, no matter how valid and good, cannot have the loyalty of the people unless they are connected to something profound, specific and organic. For example, the Ten Commandments were not believed and obeyed by the ancient Israelites because they seemed to be good. They had the authority they did because they emanated from the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who had led them from captivity in Egypt with an outstretched arm and a mighty hand.
Finally, you persist in thinking that I am advocating that we conservatives emulate leftists, and seek to establish the rule of our principles by force and subterfuge. Since this is how most people visualize revolution occurring, this erroneous view is only to be expected. But I am advocating something entirely different: a campaign of “conservative apologetics” to convince people, especially the future leaders of society, voluntarily to support traditionalist principles.
Every possible society must ultimately be led intellectually and spiritually by a small elite that has the most widely recognized authority to describe how things really are, and because the general public generally believes what they teach, the general public voluntarily goes along (for the most part) with what the elite teaches. This is not fanciful thinking, it describes America both now and in the past: In the past, the public believed the leaders when they said that America ought to be ordered by broadly biblical principles, and today’s public believes the leaders when they say that America should be governed by liberal principles, relieved by occasional “unprincipled exceptions” (in the words of Lawrence Auster) when liberalism becomes too unbearable.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 15, 2009
Alan and Patrick,
I believe a way for you two (and me) to come to some sort of agreement may lie in an understanding of the United States which has recently dawned on me. I believe our founding fathers separated church from state – that is to say we have no established church, synagogue or mosque; but our founders did not separate God from state. They wanted God's influence on our nation, but not the direct influence of the church, being composed of fallible men and women, which they distrusted. Our founders clearly understood the dysfunctional relationship between church and monarchy in old Europe, but they had no distrust of God Himself.
Our Declaration of Independence unites God to American government, whereas the second amendment separates the church from American government. Does this concept make any sense to either of you?
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html
“The eyes of all should be turned to that Almighty Power, in whose hands are the welfare and the destiny of nations” James Madison
http://www.heritage.org/research/americanfoundingandhistory/wm375.cfm
"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." John Adams
http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/quotes.html
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” John Adams
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_Adams/
“The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” Samuel Adams
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs the affairs of men. And if the sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord builds the House, they labor in vain who build it.” Benjamin Franklin
http://www.flipsideshow.com/Documents/Founding%20Fathers%20Faith%20Quotes.htm
"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” Thomas Jefferson
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson
http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Thomas Jefferson
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
“With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.” Abraham Lincoln
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/abraham_lincoln.html
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div1;q1=nation%20under%20god;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln7;node=lincoln7%3A40
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 15, 2009
Alan,
Early America was a "white" ("white" skin color being a characteristic shared by many people across the globe, and by no means representing a homogenous ethnic or cultural group), Christian nation by demographics, but the government was by no means conceived to keep it that way or to be exclusive to that demographic makeup. Quite the contrary, it was designed to protect the individual rights of everyone, especially the minority, from being infringed by the majority – whoever they may be. It was intended in this way to keep our constituational government self-sustaining and future proof. If the constitution were adhered to, our form of government could survive even sweeping demographic change (of course, our constitution has not been adhered to, and the present state of our government bears little resemblance to its intended function).
There's nothing wrong with proseletyzing society with Christianity and striving for Christian morality and sensibility in society, and it is clear that winning the battle of public opinion is crucial for the success of any ideology. So your call for a conservative apologetics and intellectual leadership is spot on. The conservative movement today is in desparate need of a modern analog to William F. Buckley and the coalition of conservative solidarity that he coalesced. But marrying conservative principles of government to a demographic snapshot of America at one particular point in time strikes me as an ineffective way to preserve conservative ideas. Conservative principles of government, principles like individual liberty, free markets, free association, freedom of speech and religion, etc, are appealing to more than just white European Christians. A "conservative revolution" would be better based on conservative governing principles as found in our constitution than on recasting society in the mold of white European Christianity. Or to put it another way, I'd rather live in a society dominated by Asian Buddhists who respected our constitutional government and conservative governing principles than one dominated by white European Christians who subscribe to authoritarian collectivism.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 16, 2009
It is wrong for white people to rally around white skin, for black people to rally around black skin, for Asian people to rally around Asian skin, etc. etc. We should rally around our Declaration of Independence and Constitution – as written by our founding fathers. The former represents a unity of God and State, i.e.: one nation under God; and the latter represents separation of church and State. Our God-given equality before the law (not Marxist equality) and our God-given sacred human rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness are forever enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – and cannot be amended by vote. Our Constitutional law represents the best rational and secular thinking of our founders and it can be amended through the amendment process; and that represents a truly living Constitution which is still under the control of "We the People."
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009
An amendment that is passed to represent a living Constitution is, in my opinion, contrary to the intent of our founding fathers. While, in my eyes again, they made mistakes in not abolishing slavery, they were eternally correct in mankind's rights (life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness) which are derived from God. An amendment could be passed which are contrary to these truths. We are at a crossroads in our country where this could happen. Our founders were far from perfect but they put together the best constitution that has ever been written.
Comment by hvance | January 17, 2009
hvance,
Yes, and that is why we should assert the supremacy of Declarational Law over Constitutional Law. No law, including any amendment to our Constitution may violate our Declaration of Independence – this is something that Abraham Lincoln understood. He knew that the Declarational Law "All men are created equal" trumped the 3/5th Constitutional law of Article I, Section 2.
“The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use.” Abraham Lincoln
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/abraham_lincoln.html
Our Constitution must draw its life and breath from the amendment process, not from a Judicial Oligarchy which can make it mean anything it wants – against the will of the people – without the consent of the governed.
“You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power are the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves….When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves….” Thomas Jefferson
http://www.restore-government-accountability.com/judicial-tyranny.html
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of
the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." Thomas Jefferson
http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Periodicals_and_Newspapers/Fins-PaN-52.htm
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009
Patrick and Ronald,
My main point in this discussion is that abstract, formal principles such as “noninitiation of force,” “separation of church and state,” freedom, equality and such are radically inadequate to be the basis of a stable social order. They are necessary, but not sufficient. What makes a group of people living in the same geographic region become a nation rather than an anarchy cannot be only a mutual allegiance to certain abstract principles. There has never exited such a nation, and there never will.
What makes a nation hold together is a sense of unity among the people that is based on having at least something of a shared culture, history and, although it is perhaps the ultimate in political correctness to say it, ethnicity. This does not mean racial homogeneity is necessary, but it is simply a fact that there must be a “dominant” group that sets the standard for society. Because of human nature, too much diversity always leads to Balkanization.
Ronald, when you said “our founding fathers separated church from state – that is to say we have no established church, synagogue or mosque; but our founders did not separate God from state,” you are quite right. But the religion they regarded as necessary for society was probably not just any religion. They probably could not have conceived of non-Christian religions ever becoming a major factor in America, and so their assumption was undoubtedly that America remain Christian, at least broadly so.
Also, you said “It is wrong for white people to rally around white skin, for black people to rally around black skin, for Asian people to rally around Asian skin, etc. etc.” Perhaps, but what if they do it? Man has a natural tendency to prefer those like him, and simply telling him “don’t do it” will not stop it. The social order must acknowledge this tendency and take positive steps to render it nondestructive of society rather than simply declare it to be invalid.
Patrick, I’m surprised that you would imply that the word “white” is meaningless. White people” obviously means European, and despite the diversity of European peoples, they generally have enough in common for the term to be meaningful. If it was meaningless, why would the Left stick to its program of disempowering whites?
About your assertion, “I'd rather live in a society dominated by Asian Buddhists who respected our constitutional government and conservative governing principles than one dominated by white European Christians who subscribe to authoritarian collectivism:” Aside from the fact that Asian Buddhists have never created a society even close to the ideal you visualize, this is not the choice we face. The actual three options are: Balkanization (i.e., the destruction of America), the leftist ideal of a multicultural society held together by forcing people to grant formal allegiance to principles of tolerance and nondiscrimination (but people, especially nonwhites, would continue to favor their own kind, and therefore this scenario would require a Soviet-like government), and a more traditional society dominated by European peoples and ways (but in which non-European peoples can participate fully) in which people voluntarily assent to the social order because society’s intellectual and spiritual authorities teach that they are true and good.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 18, 2009
Alan,
I agree that we in the United States should maintain the dominant Judeo-Christian culture – the culture of our Founding Fathers – the culture which has enabled human liberty and creativity to flourish, and which has made us the greatest nation in history. Agreed. I just don't think skin color has anything to do with it. We should be a melting pot where the principals around which we unify are the main point – not skin color. It is those very principles of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution which I see being destroyed. You are right to worry about Balkanization in the United States – some people are working hard to divide our nation along racial and economic lines. These people are Marxists – they must divide the nation into competing and hostile groups so they can attain unjust political power along the lines envisioned by Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky. Marxists attain political power by dumbing down the public through inadequate public education, and by setting themselves up in government as a giant Robin Hood – unjustly stealing from the productive groups and then unjustly redistributing to the non-productive groups. Racial and ethnic divisions and frictions fit perfectly into their Marxist plans.
“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” Karl Marx
“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.” Karl Marx
“You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” Karl Marx
“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.” Karl Marx
“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property” Karl Marx
“Alinsky boasted about his close alliance with Frank Nitti, Al Capone's second in command in the Chicago Mob during the 1930s. Al Capone's Mob were domestic terrorists, and not for any noble cause either. They poisoned the Chicago politics of their era. Alinsky's close alliance with Frank Nitti tells us something crucially important today. Alinsky was also a lifelong ally of the Stalin-controlled Communist Party, at a time when Stalin was known to have murdered tens of millions of people. He was proud of building a bridge between organized crime and the power hungry Left.”
“Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin: "Lenin was a pragmatist; … he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns!"…. Alinsky called this "pragmatic radicalism." He differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological. Alinsky was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and influence, and made him feel good."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_alinskys_rule.html
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 18, 2009
Source for Karl Marx quotations:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
RC
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 18, 2009
Alinsky, the father of community organizing, dreamed of socialism one day replacing the "jungle" of American capitalism. He wrote that he hoped "for a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful."
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=76170
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 18, 2009
Cherry,"“You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy" is not even close to what I was trying to say. How you came up with this interpretation is beyond me. What I was intending to mean was that our fathers had it right when they set it (Constitution) up for our country. What concerns me now is that an amendment could be passed that would supersede their original intent. This concerns me. As for judges, I want no judge interpreting the Constitution whatsoever, only ruling on it strictly. Too many lawyers but that is for another discussion.
Comment by hvance | January 18, 2009
hvance,
This quotation from Thomas Jefferson was meant to support you view of original intent, which is the opposite of the current liberal view of the "living Constitution." I am in complete agreement with you and the conservative view of original intent. I am simply trying to re-define the phrase "living constitution" from a conservative, original intent point of view; and that is where our Constitution draws life from "We the People" through the amendment process rather than drawing life from "We the Oligarchy of Supreme Court Judges" which was not the intent of our founders. The liberal version of "living Constitution" is tantamount to the death of our Constitution. I'm with you.
If an amendment to our Constitution is determined to be bad, for example if it violates our Declaration of Independence; it can be undone by another amendment. In the worst case scenario, if an amendment becomes destructive of our God-given life or liberty and we the people are unable to alter it through the law; we have a Declarational right to revolt.
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 18, 2009
Ron, We are on the same page. The problem that I see with the amendment process is the liberal agenda being able to change the Constitution by an amendment. That is the strength and weakness of our Constitution in my eyes.
I an aware that an amendment can be undone but it scares me that not only that it will not be undone but that another amendment that is worse than the prior amendment can be passed.
Comment by hvance | January 18, 2009
hvance,
I believe our greatest security lies in our Declaration of Independence which relfects and draws upon Divine Law – it is simply higher that the man-made laws of our Constitution. As good as our Constitution is, it is trumped by the Declaration of Independence – the highest and unchangable law of our land.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/cherry/080331
http://fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=1386407
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 18, 2009
Alan,
I didn't say that the term "white" was meaningless – just that it is has no descriptive value since it is a characteristic shared by ideologically, culturally, and ethnically diverse people across the planet. That makes it a poor dimension for unity or social order.
You are correct to say that shared characteristics are necessary to hold a society together, but I don't think you're correct on exactly what those characteristics should be. The nation based around "mutual allegiance to principles" which you claim has never existed actually describes America as it was founded, both conceptually and practically. Only if we accept the premise that all people with "white" skin who come from the same continent share a universal sense of ethnic loyalty or cultural and religious homogeneity (or near-homogeneity, if you prefer) can we say that the composition of the nation at its founding was unified on ethnic, cultural, or social lines. The idea that European ancestry is somehow a racially and culturally unifying factor is dubious on numerous grounds, the most obvious of which being the wars and revolutions fought along ethnic and ideological lines in Europe for the last thousand years. Another excellent example is the French Revolution, which took place right around the same time as our own, and yet was far different in its principles and execution. Without that underlying assumption of a universal European cultural/social/ethnic/relgious identity, what is left to unite the German, English, Spanish, Dutch, French and Russian settlers who coalesced here? Not mentioning, of course, the Chinese, African, near and middle eastern, and native North and South American people who arrived here as well. It seems plausible to me that such a diverse array of people ended up founding and building a country because of mutual respect for the basic human rights, dignities, and principles set out in our declaration of independence and constitution, irrespective of their numerous different ethnic, cultural, social, and religious identities and customs. Or put another way, I don't think the principles reflected in our founding documents are exclusive to people of a particular race, ethnicity, geographic location, or religion (although they are certainly incompatible with the teachings of certain religions). The Balkanization and anarchy you fear are the result of people, including white European ones, abandoning our founding principles in favor of socialist/Marxist concepts of "social justice", as Ronald pointed out above. That ideology is no more exclusive to a particular racial, ethnic, cultural or religious group than conservative principles are.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 18, 2009
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." – Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948
Here are some good articles on Marxist Socialism. This European ideology is here in the United States now – it has infected the Democratic Party, and to a somewhat lesser extent the Republican Party as well. Marxist Socialism is the antithesis of the principles laid out by our founding fathers in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/preface/03pref.pdf
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2125/print
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_evidence_for_neocommunism.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={154962F8-7FF3-4B63-B37F-CC3921DCF621}
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 19, 2009
Ronald, I just read your articles, http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/cherry/080331
http://fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=1386407
and may I say they were excellent. As I have stated before the thing that we must be concerned about is the pell mell direction that out country is headed. There is also the problem of the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution and omitting The Declaration of Independence. While the latter is something that we can fall back on I question if that would be done in today's society. I doubt it. It seems to me that if we do not get our ideas into the market place we will follow Europe into oblivion. Thank you for posting the articles that you wrote. Now if we could get those same articles into the mainstream.
Comment by hvance | January 19, 2009
Patrick,
The existence of "mutual allegiance to principles" does not mean that these principles are what holds society together. The principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were the basis of the government, but government (executives, legislators, judges, bureaucracies)is never the basis of society. "Society" means a group of people who have at least somewhat of a common set of beliefs about the basic issues of reality and human life (and these beliefs come from a common religion), and at least somewhat of a common way of life. These things that the people have in common may be called "culture." If the people differ too much in their religious beliefs and their ways of life–in their cultures, that is–then a society does not exist, but only the juxtaposition of peoples. And with differing cultures, there naturally arises deep conflict.
A significant degree of homogeneity does not guarantee a functioning peaceful society (at the European wars demonstrate), but it is necessary.
America at her founding had a far greater degree of religious and ethnic homogeneity than now, which is why it is not legitimate to say, as you do, "America at her founding was held together well by mutual agreement on the principles represented in the Founding Documents." The truth is that the agreement (never perfect, of course) on the principles was largely due to (or at least made possible by) most Americans having a common religion (lowest-common-denominator Christianity)and something like a common way of life. It was not the case that our common life together was made possible by the Founding Principles (although these principles, and the government they created, did make a greater degree of cooperation possible.) You are reversing cause and effect.
I repeat my challenge to you: Identify any nation, current or historic, having anything approaching contemporary America's diversity of religion, race, ethnicity and so on but also having a form of government and way of life even approaching your ideal. I say that your ideal, as I understand it, is literally impossible in contemporary America. Too much diversity makes a common society impossible. This is indeed a difficult pill to swallow, but we must begin by acknowledging reality if we are to be able to prescribe the correct cure for what ails us.
Bottom line: You say the principles of the Founding are sufficient to hold society together. But where is the concrete, detailed evidence? And what specifically will you do if it turns out that they aren't, i.e., if there are groups of people who refuse in significant numbers to follow these principles?
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 19, 2009
The last reference on Marxist Socialism doesn't seem to work – I'll try it again.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={154962F8-7FF3-4B63-B37F-CC3921DCF621}
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 19, 2009
One more time.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={154962F8-7FF3-4B63-B37F-CC3921DCF621}
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 19, 2009
The above reference appears to only work if you highlight and copy it, then paste it as the URL.
RC
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 19, 2009
Alan: "The principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were the basis of the government, but government (executives, legislators, judges, bureaucracies)is never the basis of society. "Society" means a group of people who have at least somewhat of a common set of beliefs about the basic issues of reality and human life (and these beliefs come from a common religion)…"
Yes, and Marxist Socialism has its religious underpinnings – something that Igor Shafarevich and Sergi Bulgakov understood very well:
"For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life, and as the only meaningful principle of history." Sergi Bulgakov
“We can see that all elements of the socialist ideal–the abolition of private property, family, hierarchies; the hostility toward religion–could be regarded as a manifestation of one basic principle: the suppression of individuality…Finally, human individuality finds its greatest support and its highest appreciation in religion. Only as a personality can man turn to God and only through this dialogue does he realize himself as a person commensurate with the person of God. It is for this very reason that socialist ideology and religion are mutually exclusive.” Igor Shafarevich
“The religious aspects of socialism may explain the extraordinary attraction of socialist doctrines and their capacity to inflame individuals and to inspire popular movements. It is precisely these aspects of socialism which cannot be explained when socialism is regarded as a political or economic category. Socialism's pretensions to be a universal world view comprising and explaining everything (from the transformation of a liquid into steam to the appearance of Christianity) also make it akin to religion. A characteristic of religion is socialism's view of history not as a chaotic phenomenon but as an entity that has a goal, a meaning and a justification. In other words, both socialism and religion view history teleologically. Bulgakov draws our attention to numerous and far-reaching analogies between socialism (especially Marxism) and Judaic apocalyptics and eschatology. Finally, socialism's hostility toward traditional religion hardly contradicts this judgment–it may simply be a matter of animosity between rival religions.” Igor Shafarevich
“It is certainly true that socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it as a consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. It is not clear just how such a negative concept can become the stimulus for an active attitude toward the world (its destruction or alteration) or how it can be the source of the infectiousness of socialist doctrines. Furthermore, socialism's attitude toward religion does not at all resemble the indifferent and skeptical position of someone who has lost interest in religion. The term "atheism" is inappropriate for the description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be more correct to speak here not of "atheists" but of "God-haters," not of "atheism" but of "theophobia." Such, certainly, is the passionately hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain vacant; a new lodger appeared.” Igor Shafarevich
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 19, 2009
“Shafarevich begins with a question: How can we explain the remarkable fact that socialism, which criticizes society for its injustice and inequality, results in even greater inequality? How is it that a system which agitates for freedom has so consistently produced slavery on a massive scale? ….. This Shafarevich says, is the basic allure of Socialism; this is the secret of its seductive power and its driving force; it is nothing less than a deeply emotional, ecstatic urge toward self-destruction. The prospect of the utter annihilation of oneself and of mankind is precisely the attraction of Socialism, and possesses a subliminal motivating power far surpassing any rational economic argument. For Socialism is the final religion of the Theophobians, the God-haters; and God has told us of the inescapable psychological condition of those who deny Him: “He that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate Me love death.” David Chilton
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/preface/03pref.pdf
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 19, 2009
“World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them–all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis…. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct–also laid bare by Shafarevich–these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach…. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity…. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been "socialist." But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 19, 2009
Alan,
As I stated before, I find it dubious to say that all peoples of European lineage share a common culture. The customs of the various peoples across the European continent are very distinct. In the list of six European countries I mentioned above there is not even a common native language among them. Even in terms of religion Europe has been divided for over half a millenium by factions within Christianity itself (Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant). The common culture in early America was uniquely American and based on the principles articulated in the DOI and constitution. Those principles are indeed, as you assert, based on Judeo/Christian values, but they are sufficiently secular that one need not subscribe to any particular religion in order to appreciate and respect them. It is not diversity of ethnicity in and of itself that will Balkanize and ruin American society, it is diversity of ideology, as I said from the beginning. Ideology is abstract — it can be adopted by people of any ethnicity, culture, religion or geographic location. That liberal/socialist/leftist/subversive ideology has changed the face of American culture is not uniquely attached to any one particular race or ethnicity — a point exemplified by the fact that most of the people responsible for pushing the acceptance of said ideology have been white skinned European-descended liberals. I believe it is you who is confusing cause and effect.
To answer your question, what would I do if people refuse to follow the principles enshrined in our constitution, I would personally advocate using the force of government to enforce the rules and laws of our constitution rather than allowing them to be subverted and eroded by judicial activism and outright usurpation.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 20, 2009
Patrick,
Although I have some sympathy with your position, and we agree on some important points, you continue to make some statements that are simply false. Thus you said
“The common culture in early America was uniquely American and based on the principles articulated in the DOI and constitution.”
This cannot be correct: The Constitution defines the basic nature of the Federal government only, and it simply presupposes, without even saying so, the nature and functioning of the culture, the society. In the view held at the time, government presupposes and leaves in place the nature and functioning of the society it governs, and is to act within the general spiritual and intellectual framework of the already existing society.
The basic problem with the view you expressed is that it confuses government with society. “Society” is a richer concept than government; it refers to the totality of laws, rules, customs, habits, traditions and so on that make a people a unified whole rather than just a bunch of isolated social atoms who simply happen to live in the same geographical location. Government is part of the picture, but (ideally) only a small part. The idea that the Constitution stipulates the basic way society operates is a leftist view.
As for the Declaration of Independence, it does express some deep principles of society and government, but it has never had the force of law, and therefore it is only unofficially formative of society.
To return to my point that too much ethnic [or racial, or cultural, or religious] diversity makes a properly functioning society impossible: You said
“It is not diversity of ethnicity in and of itself that will Balkanize and ruin American society, it is diversity of ideology, as I said from the beginning. Ideology is abstract — it can be adopted by people of any ethnicity, culture, religion or geographic location.”
It is an easily-verified empirical fact that nonwhite and non-Christian peoples (Jews excepted) are far less likely to support the secular, rights-oriented government ideology you advocate than white Christians are. (I’m using “Christian” in the broadest sense: members of an at least historically Christian nation.) Nonwhites and non-Christians, overall, are not much interested in implementing your ideas. And this is especially true in America and Europe, where nonwhites and non-Christians (and even Jews) are minorities who generally favor their own kind out of a desire to avoid being pushed around by other groups. But even when they are a majority, in their own nation, these people continue to hold the belief that it is proper to favor one’s own kind. I agree: favoring one’s own kind is indeed proper. It is we white people who favor our own less than any other group does, largely because we have embraced liberalism.
These things being so, we cannot avoid taking race and ethnicity into account in our discussion of how American society ought to be. Different groups of people have differing characteristics, including differing views of government. Perhaps a concrete example will clarify things:
Consider Muslims. Those who are loyal to the actual teachings of their religion will want Sharia law to rule. But if Sharia rules American Muslims, then they will have de facto seceded from our nation. And if (God forbid) Sharia law ruled all of America, our way of life would have been destroyed.
Many Muslims in America are at least sympathetic to the rule of Sharia. Ethnic diversity [Islam being both a religion and an ethnicity] necessarily leads to ideological diversity. And there is no reliable way to proselytize Muslims to become supporters of our form of government and way of life. A few will change; most will not. This being the case, we are justified in treating Muslims as a group who differ from us in important ways.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 20, 2009
Alan: "As for the Declaration of Independence, it does express some deep principles of society and government, but it has never had the force of law, and therefore it is only unofficially formative of society."
In my opinion this is the crux of the matter; this is the culture war between Marxist Socialism and Americanism. We will only win the culture war and restore our republic to the Constitution when we assert that the Declaration of Independence carries the force of law, and that it is superior to the Constitution. This is something that Abraham Lincoln understood and agreed with.
“The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use.” Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson also understood that the Declaration of Independence was supreme because it identifies our Divine human equality (equality before the law – not Marxist government-forced economic equality of a low order for the masses) and our Divine human rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson understood that Divine and unalienable human rights trump government power, i.e.: human law – including Constitutional Law.
"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 21, 2009
Alan,
We are in a continual back-and-forth about chicken and egg. The real question at the crux of our disagreement is whether particular ideologies are inherent to particular races of people.
In reference to Muslims, I mentioned before that the teachings of certain religions are incompatible with the principles enshrined in our founding documents — they are anti-American. But Islam, like socialism or classical liberalism, is an ideology. An Arab Muslim, black American Muslim, near-eastern Muslim, North African Muslim, or white Bosnian Muslim all share the same ideological traits that you describe. In the same vein, South American communists, Chinese communists, Russian communists and African communists all shared (and share) the same anti-American, anti-capitalist ideological traits. You are correct in saying that the principles reflected in the founding of our formal government are reflective of the informal values held by the broader society (to a certain extent. There was, of course, considerable debate and compromise as to what rights and principles and values would be protected and reflected in our constitution). But like communism or Islam, it is possible for many different, disparate people to subscribe to the same unique ideology of "Americanism".
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 21, 2009
Getting our ideas crystallized is the first step; and in actuality this means re-familiarizing ourselves in the most rigorous way with the ideas and deeds of our founding fathers, and passing that on to the next two generations.
On the heels of this we'll need to create a new Hollywood and mass-media which is completely in love with the ideas, principles and deeds of our founding fathers. The power of suggestion is powerful indeed; and it must out of necessity precede the following step, which is new legislation, including amending our Constitution. New law and the amendment must accomplish that which our founding fathers died for: Government of the people, by the people and for the people. We must destroy government of the elite, by the elite and for the elite.
1. Amend our Constitution with term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court, and provide Congress with 2/3 override power for all Supreme Court decisions impacting or relating to the Constitution its self. This amendment should also identify the Supremacy of the laws in our Declaration of Independence over Constitutional law.
2. Enforce the tenth amendment by breaking up all entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security into fifty state programs. Also, make the Department of Education an advisory agency only – ban all educational matching grants from the federal government to the states – let the states and the people educate their children without the socialist federal state.
3. Cease federal funding of the ACLU and similar organizations.
4. Consider creating non-voting citizen status for those who pay less than ~10% in taxes – no voting in federal elections unless you pay at least ~5% in federal taxes – no voting in state elections unless you pay at least ~5% in total state, local and sales taxes. Representation must have a connection to taxation.
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 23, 2009