Monday, November 27, 2006
Compromise vs Moral Relativism
Between the Constitution as written and the liberal paradigm, no compromise is possible. Every concession to liberal policies entails sacrificing individual political liberty.
When people share common principles, compromise is possible. But when the founding principles of society, expressed in the Constitution, are attacked by liberal moral relativists bent upon destroying those principles, acceding to their demands is, not compromise, but surrender.For that reason, demands by liberal media and by voters that Congress compromise and “get something done” are really demands that we continue slowly to dismantle the Constitution. The analogy is to heat yourself in the winter by tearing your house down, piece by piece, to burn in the fireplace.
The Constitution created a government of limited power for a religious and moral people. Political power was to be curbed by citizens’ God-given, inalienable, natural-law individual rights to life, liberty, and private property. As the English Glorious Revolution of 1689 established, when a ruler arbitrarily contravenes those rights, he has broken the social compact and thereby forfeited his right to rule.
The paradigm of American liberal-progressive-socialists, in diametric contrast, is an authoritarian government that has both the right and the duty to determine how people should live their lives and even what thoughts are to be permitted expression in education and public forums. In the government envisioned by liberals, the “public good,” as defined by liberals, always trumps individual rights.
In this liberal paradigm, political-state planners are the source of economic and social well-being. The welfare state is thought to be essential, because private individuals and private businesses are, according to liberal theory, incapable of doing the job.
Liberals are atheists or agnostics (or people who, in ignorance, believe themselves to be Christians) who believe that Judeo-Christian religious beliefs should be eliminated from government and education. Many liberals insist that the First Amendment’s ban on establishing an official religion means that the United States should be free from spiritual religion altogether. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., our first socialist Supreme Court member, wrote that morality should play no role in the law. This, despite Tocqueville’s observation in 1832 that Christianity was the most influential single factor in America’s uniquely successful republican democracy.
At the same time that individual political liberties are steadily curtailed, liberalism advocates no-holds-barred personal hedonism. Liberals want an amoral society that accepts, even welcomes, foul language, flouting social custom, abortion, sexual promiscuity, same-sex marriage, and an endless list of things designed to corrode and erode the social compact upon which the Constitution was based. Imposing hedonism, usually by judicial fiat, is a curtailment of individual political liberty.
Compromise with liberals thus necessitates accepting moral relativism, the idea that there are no timeless, religious or philosophical principles of morality flowing from the relationship between humans and God, the Creator of the universe. One might as well say the 2 + 2 = 4 applies as a principle only when that answer serves the interests of the observer.
Historically, political societies that abandoned their early core beliefs and pursued the course of moral relativism thereafter fell victim to outside aggressors or slowly declined in economic well-being. Not content with that inevitability, liberals want to accelerate the process by subordinating the Constitution to so-called international law and a world government under the UN.