 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 704, January 6, 2013 "It is perhaps a bit late, but individuals who value civilization are beginning to act."
Does The Left Have An Agenda? Oh Yeah, You Betcha!
Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise Throughout my life I have listened to the musings of people speculating on the actual intentions of those who align themselves with the philosophy of the progressive left. Many good-hearted people who always search to find only the best in others would look at the disastrous results being achieved by various wealth redistribution schemes, corporate bailouts, regulatory boondoggles, failed educational initiatives and programs based upon moral relativism, egalitarianism and altruism, and offer one excuse after another in an attempt to justify that, in spite of all the harmful consequences, the aim of these people was nevertheless still noble and well-meant. But was it? After four years of Obama's incessantly divisive rhetoric, capped off by his historic reelection last November, there appears to no longer be any need to attempt to conceal the true intentions of these folk. The time for polite conversation and gentle persuasion has drawn to a close, and more direct and decisive action is now being demanded. Take for example what Louis Michael Seidman—who, just like Barack Obama, was an instructor of constitutional law—suggests in his December 30, 2012 New York Times-sponsored piece entitled, Let's Give Up on the Constitution:
That's right. Our reliance upon constitutional principles is a
neurotic obsession, and those principles are not just
Seidman is the left's answer to
John Galt.
He stands up on the pages of the New York Times and proudly proclaims,
"Get Out Of My Way!"—not to the looters and moochers—but
to the last remnant of protection that this country has to offer in
service of the rights of individuals wishing to exist on their own
terms and live for their own sake. Who is he gunning for? Me ... and
for you!
If an objective guideline such as the Constitution is to be abandoned
as a constraint upon unlimited government power, and the concept of
inherent unalienable rights is to be abolished, then what will replace
them?
This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands.
Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and
protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or
property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution.
We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not
obligation.
Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the
president's term should last or whether Congress should consist of two
houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly
the way we favor.
There is even said for an elite body like the Supreme Court
with the power to impose its views of political morality on the
country.
What would change is not the existence of these institutions,
but the basis on which they claim legitimacy.
Seidman is privy to the answers, which appear to be nothing more than
a grab-bag of personal wish, whim and mystical revelation. For some
unstated reason we should have respect for certain amendments
(I guess he'll know them when he sees them) while abandoning others
that are self-evidently undeserving. Some aspects of the Constitution
represent great tradition or are too much a bother to change, while
the remainder should be tossed out with the baby and the bath water.
Seidman will let us know which is which. And then there's
"something to be said" (of course, the actual reasoning is
better left unsaid) for maintaining an unrestrained totalitarian body
with the power to impose it's arbitrary will upon the remainder of us.
Who could argue with any of this? I mean, where exactly would you
start?
What makes it possible for muddled linguistic regurgitations like
these to pass for "thought," which then gets prominently displayed
upon the pages of the New York Times? The answer is our postmodern
educational system that has stunted the minds of the preceding and
current generations, rendering so many incapable of any sort of
rational analysis. As an example, consider this little gem:
If we acknowledged what should be obvious—that much constitutional
language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range
of positions—we might have a very different attitude about the
obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree
with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our
core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to
express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace.
Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level.
If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at
least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a
good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a
tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.
Why is constitutional language so broad? Because in the postmodern
world, words are no longer concepts with definitions and meaning, but
merely "sounds" hinting at underlying platonic
"feelings" which are all equally valid and must therefore be
"embraced" through "good-faith" efforts.
And what's wrong with rigid, objective principles as embodied in our
Constitution? For the postmodernist, these are the "tools" of
oppression which force one to abandon their subjective "moral and
political judgements." In this context, "judgements" means
arbitrary assertions requiring no more justification than someone
screaming, "this is what I want and demand!"
For additional information on how postmodern philosophy is infecting
our educational system, I highly recommend a wonderful series of
videos presentations by Professor Stephen Hicks, which form a part of
his Philosophy of Education course.
Seidman concludes:
If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country
ruled by "We the people" is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give
up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our
disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before
abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try
extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give
real freedom a chance.
So the entire history of Enlightenment
thought which developed throughout the
17th and 18th Centuries, and its impact that upon Western
civilization, leading to the recognition of the concept of individual
rights, limited government, the Declaration of Independence, the
American Revolution, and the creation of the U.S. Constitution, is
nowhere to be found. This history is reduced to a floundering heritage
of "mature and tolerant debate" (whatever that is?) held in
"bondage" by rigid constitutional ... what? Principle? No,
nothing so grand—just archaic and idiosyncratic utterances.
The "freedom" that Mr. Seidman seeks, isn't the political
freedom for which our forefathers fought. No, what he strives for is
the unobtainable freedom from reality that, time and again, history
has shown leaves only a trail of human death and destruction in its
failed wake.
Here we find a classic case of our opening thesis. Do we make excuses
and allowances for Louis Michael Seidman's apparent lack of knowledge
regarding western history and the meaning and purpose of the
Constitution which he has been teaching for nearly 40 years, giving
him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually understand the
meaning of what he preaches—or do we hold him fully accountable for
his ideas and the consequences that they portend? We'll come back to
that.
Just one day earlier, on December 29th, Donald Kaul, was compelled by
current events to come out of retirement and pen a column for his old
newspaper, the Des Moines Register, titled,
Nation
Needs a New Agenda On Guns.
[Note: This link is to a Fox News story, as the Des Moines Register is
not a visitor-friendly site. The original column may be able to be
accessed
here.]
Like Seidman above, Mr. Kaul is no friend of our Constitution. In his
article concerning the Sandy Hook shooting, he declares that,
"The thing missing from the debate so far is anger."
Well, anger is certainly something that Kaul has in ample supply!
In just a few short paragraphs, he calls for:
Repeal the Second Amendment. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a
right.
Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal.
I would also raze the organization's headquarters, clear the rubble
and salt the earth, but that's optional. Make ownership of unlicensed
assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns,
that "prying the guns from their cold, dead hands" thing works for me.
Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed
Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them
around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.
And if that didn't work, I'd adopt radical measures.
When it comes to feelings of anger, it is always time for the
Constitution to be sweep aside, allowing those emotions to flower into
the bloodlust that is the hallmark of the progressive left. And after
all, there's simply nothing quite as eloquent as a good lynching to
firmly make your point.
Just like the New York Times, the Des Moines Register considered this
suitable material to promote as part of the national discussion on
violence. However, considering the rhetoric above, it gives one pause
to wonder if the elimination of violence is actually a goal of the
left after all?
So just what is the left's agenda? As these examples demonstrate, it
is nothing less than a concerted attack upon the principles
articulated in the Constitution that provide a framework for autonomy
and independence in thought and action. So long as individual rights
are recognized and honored, even to a limited extent, it means that
people remain somewhat free from the rule of other men. This sort of
freedom cannot be tolerated by the tinpot dictator-wannabes like
Seidman and Kaul, not to mention the staff at many of our news
publications who promote these views while propping up the elected
officials—the Reids, Pelosis, McConnells, Boehners, and their ilk—who
share in this desire to control.
The agenda is simple, and it explains every position taken by the
progressives: That which which promotes individual initiative and
personal choice is the bad which must be destroyed, while that which
constrains individuals in any manner is the good. As always, it's the
age old battle between individualism and collectivism, and it does no
good to make allowances and excuses for those out to chain and control
us. They know exactly what they are doing. Let's not allow them to
hide from the consequences of their own sorry truth one moment longer.
Was that worth reading?
TLE AFFILIATE
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next