Posted on 07/20/2007 8:27:02 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Part 8 of 'The Crisis of the Republic'
In a republic such as the United States is supposed to be, the sovereignty of the people derives from and reflects the personal sovereignty of the individuals who comprise it. Therefore, the capacity for private choice and the nature of the choices made are inherently matters of public consequence.
Failure to take account of this fact has produced enormous confusion and error in defining and dealing with vital issues of self-government. Demagogues in politics and the judiciary, with the help of self-worshipping elitists in the communications and entertainment media, have relentlessly promoted the idea that issues of personal morality (those in particular having to do with sexual gratification) are strictly private concerns that do not involve, and should not be subject to the authority of, the people as a whole. "You can't legislate morality" is their absurd mantra. "It's a private affair."
Pretentiously decked out in legal jargon and baseless assertions of constitutional authority, this self-evident lie has been used to strike down legislative acts that define and maintain standards of sexual conduct and responsibility, including the public's respect for the natural form, rights, and obligations of family life. In their place, the partisans of this lie now seek to force public acceptance of and even reverence for a "lifestyle" that epitomizes the selfish hedonism and subservience to passion that make people fit subjects for elite domination.
Self-contradiction
Ironically, at the same time that they appear to advocate the destruction of all public authority over certain supposedly private choices, these same demagogues seek to impose public authority over other choices heretofore regarded as private matters. In the name of justice and compassion, they seek to regulate the distribution of wealth, income, and other aspects of the material life of the people. In the name of public health, they seek to eliminate unhealthy personal habits like smoking — first in public places and conveyances, then in private establishments, and now in some localities, in private dwellings as well. In the name of ecology and a clean environment, they want to impose requirements on private sector production, force businesses and homes to follow law-enforced regimes for waste disposal, and redefine the limits of acceptable personal conduct with respect to wild and domesticated animal species.
I am not here disagreeing with or rejecting all these efforts. Some have merit. Others may simply be excuses for conditioning people to accept and depend upon elite authority and largesse. But all are done in the name of some good to be achieved, or in order to eliminate bad effects and consequences, either for individuals or on the whole.
Any choice that involves a judgment about good and bad, and that defines right or wrong action in terms of that judgment, is a moral choice. This means that when, by law, government restricts private choice in the name of health or a clean environment, it legislates morality.
Assigning value
When the same people who use rhetoric that rouses or appeals to prejudice against moral legislation about certain things turn around and promote moral legislation about others, their rhetoric is obviously a smokescreen meant to obscure some other stake, shielding it from careful scrutiny.
We might begin that scrutiny by asking why these demagogues consider some issues fit and necessary subjects for moral legislation — while making such a show of opposing moral legislation on other subjects? Does the answer lie in the nature of the subject matter?
The demagogues appear willing to promote moral legislation about matters that can be quantified — that is, analyzed and presented in terms of discrete physical units of measurement: dollars and cents, housing units, deaths from cancer or respiratory ailments, degrees of heat and cold, numbers of wolves or snail darters. By decking out their preferences with the trappings of empirical research, they establish a specious analogy with the physical sciences, thus invoking the authority of scientific proof in support of their proposed laws and policies. They can get away with this, however, only so long as we ignore the issue that empirical science never confronts and cannot resolve — which is the one that addresses the intrinsic worth of the units in question.
When it comes to moral legislation, is the life of a snail darter worth more or less than the life of an infant in the womb? Is the execution of a murderer more or less reprehensible than the death of his innocent victim? Were the 9/11 terrorists who slaughtered unarmed civilians in the name of Allah more or less praiseworthy than the men and women who now work to find and destroy others who plan to imitate them? It may be that the answers to such questions seem plain to common sense, but common sense only exists on the basis of some common principle, when deliberation arises from some agreement about standards of worth and decency.
Moral consensus
So we come to the issue that is really at stake in the controversy over moral legislation. It is not about whether we can legislate morality. It's about the true starting point of moral deliberation — the principles of moral judgment, the standards, ideas and ideals of what is to be praised, what is to be blamed, what is to be honored, what is to be condemned. This, in turn, involves assumptions about the nature of the whole — the universe as a whole, but also the meaning of every particular and individual whole that exists within it. Though the demagogues want us to believe that politics is exclusively about more mundane and practical things, this is true only to the extent that some agreement on moral principle is either properly assumed or covertly imposed.
In our era, human societies are hardly starting from scratch. We have all been born into circumstances that reflect a moral consensus arrived at before we got here. It differs from society to society, sometimes to such a degree that genuine community between them seems practically impossible, conflict and even war almost inevitable. The differences are reflected in different religious beliefs, different behavioral priorities, different attitudes toward the passions and aspirations made manifest in existing things. These not only involve the human condition, but that of the plants, the animals, the earth, the air, the stars, and indeed every experienced or imaginable thing.
It may not be the work of politics and politicians to explore, ponder, describe, and articulate all of this — what are the poets for, the preachers and the philosophers? It is, however, the work of the political leader to be open to the content and consequences of what these others do, so that the varied streams and colors of creativity, reverence, and thought can be brought together, as the prism combines the frequencies of light, into a common stream that presently sustains us even as it sheds some light upon our vision for the future.
Constant change
The moral consensus of any given society is never completely settled. In this respect, it resembles physical objects. Even the appearance of great solidity masks a state of constant flux.
In some times and circumstances, the moral commotion is more evident than at others, including epochs where it is so great that it threatens to break down the very core of the community's moral identity. These are moments of truth, when the community's survival as a community depends upon the ability to renew its common sense of the relation between its actions and its principles, between what it does and what the premise of its existence requires it to do.
In this respect, communities are like living things. They move within and in response to their circumstances. Life is change. But all of the changes must take place within and with respect for the parameters of its distinctive existence, else that existence ceases, it dies.
When cancer develops, for example, the cancerous cells grow without respect for the parameters of the body's existence. Skin cells, liver cells, white blood cells, etc. — each with a distinctive way of being that contributes to the continued existence of the body — are displaced by cells that operate with no regard for it. In ways that we still do not thoroughly understand, the existence and requirements of the body are communicated to every healthy cell, which then conforms its operations to those requirements, receiving in turn what its life requires. The activities of every healthy cell of a living body thus take account of and respond to the distinct idea or concept of its existence as a living whole, even as the activities of the body as a whole take account of and respond to the requirements of its component parts.
The heart and "soul" of a community
The prejudiced thinking that arises from the dogmatic materialism of our times has impaired our ability to conceive of and discuss this aspect of life, though we retain the concept needed to do so. The "soul" is the distinct idea or concept of the existence of the living whole.
Our advances in computer science and technology should actually make its nature easier to understand than ever before. The soul is pure information. Its content can be expressed in physical form (just as data can be expressed by the arrangement of electrical charges, or the modification of a beam of light), but a soul is not simply identical to the form it takes. As our understanding of matter and energy improves, we are finding and will find more and more sophisticated ways to track its physical manifestations, but I doubt that we will ever comprehend it fully by any physical means.
In this respect, however, the corresponding aspect of the human community ought to be easier to follow. Ideas, like the ones expressed in this essay, appear in physical form. But when I say "America," we all know that the whole I refer to is not the same as any given physical manifestation of it. In fact, the information the word conveys depends on what each reader does with it, and that will be influenced by their background and experience, their emotions and their will.
When the community is healthy, our response to some things produces a general positive reaction that suggests that they convey this information more reliably than others: physical objects like the flag or a picture of the White House; sense experiences like eating a hot dog or watching a football game; thoughts and ideas like "equal rights," "representative government" or "liberty and justice for all." Such are the symbols that invoke the community's soul.
When a community is in moral crisis, however, the evocative power of the more visceral symbols of its common life becomes increasingly unreliable. The subconscious complex of mental and emotional responses they produce declines — either through the natural erosion produced by change and fading memories, or deliberate assault from those who seek to overthrow the community's existing identity. That identity may be entirely lost unless an effort is made to renew the community's conscious sense of attachment to the purpose and way of life the symbols are meant to convey.
This in turn requires that its members revisit the state of heart and mind that drew them — or people not unlike them — into the community in the first place. To continue their walk together, they must think again of the goal that unites them, and of the path that brings them together for its sake. And in light of that renewed vision of their unity, they must renew their commitment to the cause it represents — moving in answer to the hope it produces and accepting the limits required to sustain that hope.
The American Dream
We Americans have a name for the vision that unites us. We call it the American Dream. Years ago, in the first chapter of the book I wrote about the moral identity of black Americans (Masters of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America, William Morrow and Co., 1995), I did my best to put into words what my reflections on my heritage as a black American have taught me about the true nature of this vision.
The American dream wasn't just about money and material advancement. It was a dream of freedom. Tycoons and stockjobbers weren't its only heroes. They were also colonists from Europe who traded houses and jobs in developed cities and towns for the hardship of life in a wilderness. They were families who exchanged comfortable city life in the East, for a dangerous westward trek in covered wagons across the Plains. They were men who died thirsting in the Great American desert and women who gave up frills and fancy dresses for days working their fingers to the bone. Most of these people weren't guaranteed a better future in material terms than the one they left behind. Some sought riches, to be sure. But others sought the right to worship God in their own way, or to build communities in which they themselves could make the decisions and the laws. Pioneers like Daniel Boone or Abe Lincoln's father gave up farms in settled communities to move farther west, where they could, as the saying went, breathe free.
It was a dream of freedom. And its heroes included Native Americans who fought against overwhelming odds to maintain their autonomous way of life. They included fugitive enslaved blacks who braved tracking dogs and bounty hunters to follow the North Star out of slavery. They included the enslaved blacks these left behind, who, following the North Star of their faith, never surrendered the kernel of their humanity or their hope for a better day.... To those who limit their vision to the dingy materialism that passes for ambition in our day, it will seem strange to assert that black Americans were masters of the dream.... If the American dream is mainly an economic result, black Americans had little or no part of it. But if the dream included the longing for freedom, or the values and character that make people capable of it, then the enslaved and their offspring can indeed lay special claim to be its masters.
Simply put, the American dream of freedom is not just a material result for the lucky few who manage to "succeed" in some material sense. It's a moral premise, a moral purpose, a moral hope extended, by God's will equally, to every human being.
It has never been more succinctly stated than it was when the nation began with the assertion that we are all "created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." Though the result of this premise is a form of government that respects the consent of the governed, the justice claimed for that form of government depends on our acknowledgement of and respect for the authority of the Creator — an authority beyond our consent, beyond our rights, and beyond our will. If in our actions, our laws and policies, we deny that authority, then we deny the basis for our claim to equal rights and self-government.
The moral discipline required for liberty is therefore the capacity to keep our use of freedom within boundaries consistent with respect for the determinations of God that make it possible. But that means first and foremost that we must respect in all others the moral dignity and rights we each claim for ourselves; and that we must accept for ourselves the obligations to others that our rights require them to assume in their dealings with us. Every issue of personal and national sovereignty, every issue of law, policy, and politics that involves these equal rights and obligations, confronts us with choices that will either strengthen and preserve the vision that forms our community, or blind and distract us in ways that lead ultimately to its dissolution. Such moral issues are thus the focal points of the crisis of the Republic.
Coming next
For those of us committed still to live as a community of free men and women, these ought to be the kinds of issues upon which all our decisions about its future first depend. In the next few installments of this series, I will deal with the foremost of these issues — such as abortion, the definition and understanding of marriage and family, and the responsibility we have in our individual actions to understand and respect the good of the whole community.
In this context, we must consider for the first time the implications of this discussion when it comes to individuals presenting themselves for public office, including especially the present candidates for President of the United States.
© 2007 Alan Keyes
SirJohnBarleycorn is a strange name for a speed-freak hooker, but by all means have fun girl-friend.
I am far to old for this party.
"The Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms. Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble…the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith."
Excellent quotes, EV. The Founders had it right. It’s a shame that so many in our day are not uneducated enough in Constitutional, Declarationist, or religious principles to see the merit of these words. Is it because they’re too immoral or too flippant to take these words seriously?
The immoral tend to flippancy.
I think the Bible calls them “scorners.”
Oh, and “fools”...
Hey, lighten up, Jorge, I’ve got a joke for ya, bud!
********************
A man walked into a very high-tech bar. As he sat down on a stool he noticed that the bartender was a robot. The robot clicked to attention and asked, “Sir, what will you have?”
The man thought a moment then replied, “A martini please.”
The robot clicked a couple of times and mixed the best martini the man had ever had.
The robot then asked, “Sir, what is your IQ?”
The man answered, “Oh, about 164.”
The robot then proceeded to discuss the theory of relativity, the possibility of interstellar space travel, the latest medical breakthroughs, etc. The man was most impressed.
He left the bar but thought he would try a different tack. He returned and took a seat. Again the robot clicked and asked what he would have. “A martini please.” Again it was superb!
The robot again asked, “What is your IQ, sir?”
This time the man answered, “Oh, about 100.”
So the robot started discussing the weather, the latest basketball scores, and what to expect the Yankees to do this weekend.
The guy had to try it one more time. So he left, returned and took a stool... Again a martini, and the question: “What is your IQ?”
This time the man drawled out “Uh... ‘bout 50.”
The robot clicked, then leaned close and very slowly said,
“Jorge, ya ever think ‘bout posting on DU instead of FR? Might be more your speed...”
Here is what I quoted from Keyes' paragraph:
It's about the true starting point of moral deliberation — the principles of moral judgment, the standards, ideas and ideals of what is to be praised, what is to be blamed, what is to be honored, what is to be condemned.
Do you notice the bold that is kept intact from the original quote I posted? Good, that's a start. The true starting point of moral deliberation begins with the principle of not initiating force/harm against any person or their property.
If I'm wrong perhaps you can answer these: Perhaps initiating force by kidnapping you, molesting you, robbing you, extorting money from you, jailing you for exercising free speech, imprisoning you because you carried a gun to protect yourself in Washington DC... all are examples of the initiation of force. Which initiation of force, threat of force or fraud do you want inflicted on you?
Or is it that you don't want force/harm initiated against yourself, but rather, you want to initiate force/harm against other people, or perhaps you want to enlist government agents to be your muscle to inflict initiation of force/harm on other people on your behalf? I think it's that last one.
I bet you even vote for the lesser of evils, believing like every other voter that your candidate is the lesser of evils.
With each person saying their candidate is the lesser of evils, how can they all be right--especially since it begets evil? They cannot. Like religion. For each follower, their religion is the only true path to enlightenment. But how can every religion the only true path to enlightenment? They cannot.
As far as I'm concerned a person can follow any religion they want so long as they do not initiate force, thereat of force or fraud against any person or their property nor enlist any person, organization or government to initiate force/harm on their behalf.
White is black. Good is bad. Left is right...
Federal government alone creates about 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. Most of them in one way or another burden and or deprive persons and businesses full use of life and property.
These aren't your penny ante common thieves that rob a house or two a week. These are master criminals that rob tens of millions of people with nothing more than a vote and stroke of the pen. Facilitated by an incompetent main-stream media and academia.
Organized crime by the criminals for the criminals. And people continue voting for it.
When instead, every able bodied person should be screaming from the roof tops for someone in congress to stand up and expose the massive criminality, fraud and parasitizing they inflict on honest value producing citizens.
Honest hard working taxpayers repeatedly abused by their servant employees.
Parasitical elites aren't worthy of even the lowest minimum wage job. They're not value creators. They're value destroyers. Can you imagine if corporate boardrooms functioned like congress.
Still, herds of true believers heard off to the polls to cast their votes.
But my guy -- my candidate -- is the lesser of evils. Least wise that's what every person thinks about their favorite candidate.
People hoodwinked into believing the ends justify the means. But what are the ends when the means -- voting for the lesser of evils -- leads to an evil end?
Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. The ends don't justify the means. (Those two sentences can't be honestly reconciled.) The ends justify the means only when the ends are intended to be evil. But somehow I don't think voters really intend an evil end to come from their vote. They just don't know any better.
Something to the effect of, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. I call it voters' collective delusion.
Politics is not the solution. Politics is the problem.
Begin the transition with voting each and every incumbent out of office. Shine the spotlight of honesty on them with the shamnesty immigration bill. Like what's happening to the global warming hoax.
Value Destroyers
versus
Value Producers
How right you are, EV.
That's a beautiful quote. I love the Bible.
But in a pluralistic society we can't force Christianity on unbelievers through our classrooms.
"The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."
The goal of the founders was not “a pluralistic society.” It was a free republic. And the quotes I’m offering from those great men demonstrate their correct understooding of the only practical basis for self-government and true liberty.
“But in a pluralistic society we can’t force Christianity on unbelievers through our classrooms.”
Meaning: pluralistic = immoral, godless
“SirJohnBarleycorn, you ever think of how stupid and long-winded your jokes are on FR?
And Robot said shut the hell up. And everybody was happy.
Right. So we're going to outlaw every religion but that of the majority.
“Right. So we’re going to outlaw every religion but that of the majority.”
Wrong. The Founders didn’t have that in mind.
Wow. You have to have quite an inventive imagination to come up with straw men like that.
If you’re not already a fiction writer, you perhaps should be.
In the entire history of humanity man has never been offered a choice in government of absolute good. Even the best government is the least evil, it is not and cannot be truly good. That concept is the very basis of the Constitution, it's why it is built on a balance of powers. A truly good government shouldn't have its ability to do good limited by restrictions.
The ends don't justify the means.
Some ends justify some means. This is so obvious that it shouldn't even require argument, but I guess it does.
A terrorist holds 50 people hostage, with them wired to be blown up if the police attempt to rescue them. A sniper can take him out and save the 50 people. But we can't do that, because the end of saving 50 innocent people's lives does not justify the means of blowing the terrorist's head off.
It seems to me that this whole ends and means discussion tends to descent into idiotic positions on both sides. A Commie, for instance, will argue that all means are justified to advance humanity towards Communism. A pacifist or libertarian may argue that no ends justify the slightest deviation towards unpleasant means.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, this argument just diverts us from the true issue: What means are justified by a particular end?
Wow. You have to have quite an inventive imagination to come up with straw men like that.
Oh, so you DON'T think we should OUTLAW Islam?
I didn't "invent" anything.
You should try reading the posts I'm responding to and THEN get back to me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.