01-03-2013
Permalink
Ready. Aim. Fire!
|
Subject: Does The Left Have An Agenda? Oh Yeah, You
Betcha!
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:
|
AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers
are reaching the conclusion that the American system of
government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit:
our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its
archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with
a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the
merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.
[Emphasis Added]
|
That's right. Our reliance upon constitutional principles is a
neurotic obsession, and those principles are not just
wrong according to this constitutional scholar — but are
morally corrupt and therefore evil! Well,
let's give Mr. Seidman credit for finally coming out and explicitly
stating this belief that so many have struggled to conceal for so long.
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 something to be 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.
[Emphasis Added]
|
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 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.
External links to reprints of this article:
|
