Posted on 10/11/2005 8:53:47 AM PDT by Kitten Festival
With the Harriet Miers controversy, conservatism has begun its descent into ideology. Unlike the Left, conservatism has never been an ideological movement, in the sense of possessing an overarching system of thought demanding acceptance in toto. American conservatism is based on principle, firmly-grounded, straightforward concepts: that men are lower than angels, that governs best which governs least, and that innovations must be examined under the presumption of error. Apart from these axioms, everything else was open to debate. Until today, there has never been an orthodox party line in conservatism.
The consequent flexibility and dynamism have been a major factor in the conservative resurgence. Operating from principle rather than within a structured system has enabled conservatives to remain open to consensus, to drop outmoded concepts, to react quickly to opportunities and crises. It has given us the ability to maneuver. This ability in turn has taken us from the Goldwater era, when conservatism was the punchline of a joke, to a new millennium where the problem is managing an empire.
Compare this to the Left, which has steadily lost ground during the same period. Thanks in large part to its Marxist roots, the Left has been a slave to ideological thinking. Major questions of goals, values, and policy are taken as settled. Debate and discussion are limited to trivia or tactics. Can anyone recall an example of the Left debating anything at all of import? Try to imagine any given leftist questioning an element of the progressive program. Start with abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
My simple view is that the nomination doesn't indicate any weakness in the Party, the conservative wing or elsewhere. Instead it acknowledges a weakness in the Republican Senate and the leading Republican politicians across the board.
A firm understanding of "ideology" is usefull, so I will offer Russell Kirk's from ten years ago:
This, of course is from the introduction to The Politics of Prudence the last collection of essays that Russell Kirk, that giant of conservative thought, issued prior to his death. Its plain senisble truth must be remembered in issues like casting our own litmus tests and magic touchstones of what will set us on the right path.The word ideology was coined in Napoleonic times. Destutt de Tracy, the authorof Les éléments d’idéologie (five volumes, 1801-15), was an abstract intellectualof the sort since grown familiar on the Left Bank of the Seine, the haunt of all budding ideologues, among them in recent decades the famous liberator ofDemocratic Kampuchea, Pol Pot.
Tracy and his disciples intended a widespread reform of education, to be founded upon an alleged science of ideas; they drewheavily upon the psychology of Condillac and more remotely upon that of JohnLocke. Rejecting religion and metaphysics, these original ideologues believed that they could discover a system of natural laws—which system, if conformed to, could become the foundation of universal harmony and contentment. Doctrines of self-interest, economic productivity, and personal liberty were bound up with these notions. Late-born children of the dying Enlightenment, the Ideologues assumed that systematized knowledge derived from sensation could perfect societythrough ethical and educational methods and by well-organized political direction.
Napoleon dismissed the Ideologues with the remark that the world is governed not by abstract ideas, but by imagination. John Adams called this new-fangled ideology “the science of idiocy.”
Nevertheless, during the nineteenth century ideologues sprang up as if someone, like Jason, had sown dragons’ teeth that turned into armed men. These ideologues generally have been enemies to religion, tradition, custom, convention, prescription, and old constitutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of ideology was altered considerably in the middle of the nineteenth century, by Karl Marx and his school. Ideas, Marx argued, are nothing better than expressions of class interests, as related to economic production. Ideology, the alleged science of ideas, thus becomes a systematic apology for the claims of a class—nothing more. Or, to put this argument in Marx’s own blunt and malicious terms, what has been called political philosophy is merely a mask for the economic self-seeking of oppressors—so the Marxists declared. Ruling ideas and norms constitute a delusive mask upon the face of the dominant class, shown to the exploited “as a standard of conduct, partly to varnish, partly to provide moral support for,domination.”
So Marx wrote to Engels. Yet the exploited too, Marx says, develop systems of ideas to advance their revolutionary designs. So what we call Marxism is an ideology intended to achieve revolution, the triumph of the proletariat, and eventually communism. To the consistent Marxist, ideas have no value in themselves: they, like all art, are worthwhile only as a means to achieve equality of condition and economic satisfaction.
While deriding the ideologies of all other persuasions, the Marxist builds with patient cunning his own ideology. Although it has been the most powerful of ideologies, Marxism—very recently diminished in strength—has competitors: various forms of nationalism, negritude, feminism, fascism (a quasi-ideology never fully fleshed out in Italy), nazism (an ideology in embryo, Hannah Arendt wrote), syndicalism, anarchism, social democracy, and Lord knows what all.
Doubtless yet more forms of ideology will be concocted during the twenty-first century.
Kenneth Minogue, in his recent book Alien Powers: the Pure Theory of Ideology, uses the word “to denote any doctrine which presents the hidden and saving truth about the world in the form of social analysis. It is a feature of all such doctrines to incorporate a general theory of the mistakes of everybody else.” That “hidden and saving truth” is a fraud—a complex of contrived falsifying “myths”, disguised as history, about the society we have inherited.
Raymond Aron, in The Opium of the Intellectuals, analyzes the three myths that have seduced Parisian intellectuals: the myths of the Left, of the Revolution, of the Proletariat.
To summarize the analysis of ideology undertaken by such scholars as Minogue, Aron, J. L. Talmon, Thomas Molnar, Lewis Feuer, and Hans Barth, this word ideology, since the Second World War, usually has signified a dogmatic political theory which is an endeavor to substitute secular goals and doctrines for religious goals and doctrines; and which promises to overthrow present dominations so that the oppressed may be liberated. Ideology’s promises are what Talmon calls “political messianism”.
The ideologue promises salvation in this world, hotly declaring that there exists no other realm of being. Eric Voegelin, Gerhart Niemeyer, and other writers have emphasized that ideologues “immanentize the symbols of transcendence”—that is, corrupt the vision of salvation through grace in death into false promises of complete happiness in this mundane realm.
Ideology, in short, is a political formula that promises mankind an earthly paradise; but in cruel fact what ideology has created is a series of terrestrial hells.
I set down below some of the vices of ideology.
1) Ideology is inverted religion, denying the Christian doctrine of salvation through grace in death, and substituting collective salvation here on earth through violent revolution. Ideology inherits the fanaticism that sometimes has afflicted religious faith, and applies that intolerant belief to concerns secular.
2) Ideology makes political compromise impossible: the ideologue will accept no deviation from the Absolute Truth of his secular revelation. This narrow vision brings about civil war, extirpation of “reactionaries”, and the destruction of beneficial functioning social institutions.
3) Ideologues vie one with another in fancied fidelity to their Absolute Truth; and they are quick to denounce deviationists or defectors from their party orthodoxy. Thus fierce factions are raised up among the ideologues themselves, and they war mercilessly and endlessly upon one another, as did Trotskyites and Stalinists.
The evidence of ideological ruin lies all about us. How then can it be that the allurements of ideology retain great power in much of the world? The answer to that question is given in part by this observation from Raymond Aron: “When the intellectual feels no longer attached either to the community or the religion of his forebears, he looks to progressive ideology to fill the vacuum.
The main difference between the progressivism of the disciple of Harold Laski or Bertrand Russell and the Communism of the disciple of Lenin concerns not so much the content as the style of the ideologies and the allegiance they demand.
”Ideology provides sham religion and sham philosophy, comforting in its way to those who have lost or never have known genuine religious faith, and to those not sufficiently intelligent to apprehend real philosophy. The fundamental reason why we must set our faces against ideology—so wrote the wise Swiss editor Hans Barth—is that ideology is opposed to truth: it denies the possibility of truth in politics or in anything else, substituting economic motive and class interest for abiding norms.
Ideology even denies human consciousness and power of choice. In Barth’s words, “The disastrous effect of ideological thinking in its radical formis not only to cast doubt on the quality and structure of the mind that constitute man’s distinguishing characteristic but also to undermine the foundation of his social life.”
Ideology may attract the bored man of the Knowledge Class who has cut him selfoff from religion and community, and who desires to exercise power. Ideology may enchant young people, wretchedly schooled, who in their loneliness stand ready to cast their latent enthusiasm into any exciting and violent cause. And ideologues’ promises may win a following among social groups that feel pushed to the wall—even though such recruits may not understand much of anything about the ideologues’ doctrines.
The early composition of the Nazi party is sufficient illustration of an ideology’s power to attract disparate elements of this sort.
On the first page of this introductory chapter I suggested that some Americans, conservatively-inclined ones among them, might embrace an ideology of Democratic Capitalism, or New World Order, or International Democratism. Yet most Americans with a sneaking fondness for the word ideology are not seeking to sweep away violently all existing dominations and powers. What such people really mean when they call for a “democratic ideology” is a formula for a civil religion, an ideology of Americanism, or perhaps of the Free World.
A trouble with this civil-religion notion is that the large majority of Americans think they already have a religion of their own, not one cobbled up by some department in Washington.
If the approved civil religion, or mild ideology, should be designed, by some subtle process, to supplant the congeries of creeds at present flourishing in this land—why, such hostility toward belief in the transcendent, such contempt for the “higher religions”, is precisely the most bitter article in the creed of those ideologies which have ravaged the world for the past eight decades.
Yet possibly all that is intended by enthusiasts for this proposed new anti-communist ideology is a declaration of political principles and economic concepts, to be widely promulgated, legislatively approved as a guide to public policy, and taught in public schools.
If this is all, then why insist upon labeling the notion an ideology? An innocent ideology is as unlikely a contraption as Christian Diabolism; to attach the sinister tag “ideology” would be like inviting friends to a harmless Hallowe’en bonfire, but announcing the party as the new Holocaust.
If this “democratic ideology” should turn out, in practice, to be nothing worse than a national civics program for public schools, still it would require being watched jealously. Cloying praise in every classroom of the beauties of democratic capitalism would bore most pupils and provoke revulsion among the more intelligent.
And it is not civics courses, primarily, that form minds and consciences of the rising generation: rather, it is the study of humane letters. I should not wish to see what remains of literary studies in the typical public school supplanted by an official propaganda about the holiness of the American Way or of the Free World Way or of the Democratic Capitalist Way. I am not of the opinion that it would be well to pour the heady wine of a new ideology down the throats of the American young. If one summons spirits from the vasty deep, can they be conjured back again?
What we need to impart is political prudence, not political belligerence. Ideology is the disease, not the cure. All ideologies, including the ideology of vox populi vox dei, are hostile to enduring order and justice and freedom. For ideology is the politics of passionate unreason.
Permit me, then, to set down here, in a few paragraphs, some reflections on political prudence, as opposed to ideology. To be “prudent” means to be judicious, cautious, sagacious.
Plato, and later Burke, instruct us that in the statesman, prudence is the first of the virtues. A prudent statesman is one who looks before he leaps; who takes long views; who knows that politics is the art of the possible.
A few pages ago I specified three profound errors of the ideological politician. Now I contrast with those three failings certain principles of the politics of prudence.
1) As I put it earlier, ideology is inverted religion. But the prudential politician knows that “Utopia” means “Nowhere”; that we cannot march to an earthly Zion; that human nature and human institutions are imperfectible; that aggressive “righteousness” in politics ends in slaughter.
True religion is a discipline for the soul, not for the state.
2) Ideology makes political compromise impossible, I pointed out. The prudential politician, au contraire, is well aware that the primary purpose of the state is to keep the peace. This can be achieved only by maintaining a tolerable balance among great interests in society. Parties, interests, and social classes and groups must arrive at compromises, if bowie-knives are to be kept from throats.
When ideological fanaticism rejects any compromise, the weak go to the wall. The ideological atrocities of the “Third World” in recent decades illustrate this point: the political massacres of the Congo, Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Cambodia, Uganda, Yemen, Salvator, Afghanistan, and Somalia.
Prudential politics strives for conciliation, not extirpation.
3) Ideologies are plagued by ferocious factionalism, on the principle of brotherhood—or death. Revolutions devour their children. But prudential politicians, rejecting the illusion of an Absolute Political Truth before which every citizen must abase himself, understand that political and economic structures are not mere products of theory, to be erected one day and demolished the next; rather, social institutions develop over centuries, almost as if they were organic.
The radical reformer, proclaiming himself omniscient, strikes down every rival, to arrive at the Terrestrial Paradise more swiftly. Conservatives, in striking contrast, have the habit of dining with the opposition.
In the preceding sentence, I employed deliberately the word conservative as synonymous, virtually, with the expression “prudential politician”. For it is the conservative leader who, setting his face against all ideologies, is guided by what Patrick Henry called “the lamp of experience”. In this twentieth century, it has been the body of opinion generally called “conservative” that has defended the Permanent Things from ideologues’ assaults.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, the American public has looked with increasing favor upon the term conservative. Public-opinion polls suggest that in politics, the majority of voters regard themselves as conservatives. Whether they well understand conservatives’ political principles may be another matter. Halfway through the second administration of President Reagan, an undergraduate of my acquaintance was conversing in Washington with a young man who had secured a political appointment in the general government. That fledgling public man commenced to talk of a “conservative ideology”. The college student somewhat sharply reminded him of the sinister signification of that word “ideology”.
“Well, you know what I mean,” the youthful politician replied, somewhat lamely. Yet it is doubtful if the office holder himself knew precisely what he had meant.
Did he fancy that ideology signifies a body of well-reasoned political principles?
Did he desire to discover a set of simplistic formulas by which capitalism might be extended over all the world?
Or did he indeed wish to overthrow by violent action our existing social order and to substitute an artificial society nearer to his heart’s desire?
We live in a time when the signification of old words, like much else, has become insecure. “Words strain,/Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,” as T. S. Eliot puts it.
In the beginning was the Word. But nowadays the Word is confronted by Giant Ideology, which perverts the word, spoken and written.
It is not merely the rising political talents of our age that fail to apprehend the proper employment of important words—and particularly misunderstand the usage of ideology. An elderly lady writes to me in defense of yesteryear’s movement called Moral Rearmament, which three decades ago claimed to provide America with an ideology. “Perhaps I am wrong, but it has always seemed to me that Ideology means the power of ideas,” this correspondent states. “The world is run by ideas, good ones or bad ones. We need a great idea or ideal to replace the false ideas that dominate today. How long can we survive as a free nation when the word freedom has been corrupted?”
This lady’s concluding point is a keen one. But I must add, “How long can we survive as a free nation when the word ideology, with its corrupting power, is mistaken for a guardian of ordered liberty?”
I do not mean to mock; for I encounter this confusion among people whom I know well and respect heartily. One such, a woman who is an able writer and a bold spirit, retorts that her dictionaries—Webster and Oxford—disagree with Russell Kirk’s more lengthy definition of ideology. “If Oxford is right and ideology means ‘the science of ideas’, could they not be good ideas? I quite agree that many ideologies do great harm, but surely not all? In any event, I’m a congenital pragmatist,” she concludes, “and semantics are not my strong point.”
Nay, madam, all ideologies work mischief. I am fortified by a letter from an influential and seasoned conservative publicist, who applauds my excoriation of young ideologues fancying themselves to be conservatives, and of young conservatives fondly hoping to convert themselves into ideologues. This latter correspondent agrees with me that ideology is founded merely upon “ideas”—that is, upon abstractions, fancies, for the most part unrelated to personal and social reality; while conservative views are founded upon custom, convention, the long experience of the human species. He finds himself confronted, from time to time, by young people, calling themselves conservative, who have no notion of prudence, temperance, compromise, the traditions of civility, or cultural patrimony. “The woods are full of these creatures,” this gentleman writes. “The conservative‘movement’ seems to have reared up a new generation of rigid ideologists. It distresses me to find them as numerous and in so many institutions. Of course, many are libertarians, not conservatives. Whatever they call themselves, they are bad for the country and our civilization. Theirs is a cold-blooded, brutal view of life.”
Amen to that.
Is conservatism an ideology? Only if, with Humpty Dumpty, we claim the prerogative of forcing words to mean whatever we desire them to signify, so that “It’s a question of who’s to be master, that’s all.” Let us conservatives conserve the English language, along with many other surviving good things.
Let us raise up the banner of honest and accurate vocabulary.
Let us venture, whatever the odds, to contend against ideologues’ Newspeak.
The triumph of ideology would be the triumph of what Edmund Burke called “the antagonist world” —the world of disorder; while what the conservative seeks to conserve is the world of order that we have inherited, if in a damaged condition, from our ancestors.
The conservative mind and the ideological mind stand at opposite poles. And the contest between those two mentalities may be no less strenuous in the twenty-first century than it has been during the twentieth.
Possibly this book of mine may be of help to those of the rising generation who have the courage to oppose ideological zealots.
Specter and the Rino's aren't Bush's responsibiiity, they are ours', and creatures of our electorate. The ability of the principles to be clouded by the distorting lens of the media is our responsibility as well. Fancied support of one news channel doesn't suffice to reclaim the ground of the public forum.
Beyold it lives, it breates, it's ALIVE! When did you get your law degree? :-) just kidding. I think it will work out if we can just refrain from chewing our own tails.
I have always thought of ideology as simply a conscience about political matters. Give me a political question and I can give you an opinion based upon my political conscience. This is different from pragmatists who believe that any political question should be answered in a fashion that benefits them. An example of the latter is Robert KKK Byrd
Well, I don't know about a "party line" but we've always been straight and we've always been thinkers.
What I said was conservative is a nebluous term.. meaning it can mean about anything from big govt supporter to small govt supporter.. therefore it means nothing..
survivalists can never be ideologues, they are too busy surviving to countenance the mirage of utopia.
Oh, I didn't disagree with you about that. I was just quoting the quote that you quoted.
I don't think nebulous = nothing. I think it literally means "cloudy" or obscure. I would agree with anyone who says that "conservative" and many other words have become diluted and less useful. At one time, "conservative" meant that you believed in the moral depravity of mankind and that governments and other institutions exist to mitigate that depravity.
Umm, OK...
This whole article reeks of equivalence: since liberalism is guilty of doctrinal rigidity (at least in terms of its absurdity), so must conservatism be. However, it is the wholesale dearth of ideological purity that makes liberalism so weak; since it stands for anything, it stands for nothing.
Heaven forefend the day that same can be said of conservatism. That is the day to toll the bell.
I see that view as entirely consistent with Conservatism.
bttt for a post that deserves a thread of its own.
Alas, it is one of the threads from the era where they can't currently be brought up, but perhaps they will be recoverable some day.
It got only modest contributions -- semantics doesn't make for passionate debate.
I pinged IronJack as he appreciates Kirk and he and I generally agree, but the alteration of the term through liberal predominance in the written word has so predominated for the last fifty years that even he finds Kirk's definition as archaic.
However, that chapter was my first post because of the idea behind it. Conservatism holds to Principles and those principles span politics, morals, religous views, culture and society. They do not offer a magic formula that can be followed and solve all of our problems.
Totalitarian rationalistic democracy (an extension of Hayek's term) or progressive liberalism as it is known in this era, espouses a formula that once discovered and adhered to solves all political and societal problems.
Part of how it is sold is its isolation as theory and formula. When the hesitant see conflicts with true Virtue, heritage, or institutions, they are convinced to see it as from a seperate, and more pure world.
As Heyek says in Chapter Four of the Constitution of Liberty:
Though freedom is not a state of nature but an artifact of civilization, it did not arise from design. The institutions of freedom, like everything freedom has created, were not established because people foresaw the benefits they would bring. But, once its advantages were recognized, men began to perfect and extend the reign of freedom and, for that purpose, to inquire how a free society worked. This development of a theory of liberty took place mainly in the eighteenth century. It began in two countries, England and France. The first of these knew liberty; the second did not.I have found that the great thinkers of Conservatism -- Burke, Kirk, Weaver, Hayek, Sowell -- all hold a similar view about the distinction. For Burke, it is the inhereted freedom largely supported by time honored institutions as opposed to sophisters and metaphysics. For Kirk, its First Principles as opposed to Ideology. For Hayek, see above and for Sowell he shows us in A Conflict of Visions the difference between the Constrained and Unconstrained views of man and his nature.As a result, we have had to the present day two different traditions in the theory of liberty: one empirical and unsystematic, the other speculative and rationalistic –the first based on an interpretation of traditions and institutions which had spontaneously grown up and were but imperfectly understood, the second aiming at the construction of a utopia, which has often been tried but never successfully. Nevertheless, it has been the rationalistic, plausible, and apparently logical argument of the French tradition, with its flattering assumptions about the unlimited powers of human reason, that has progressively gained influence, while the less articulate and less explicit tradition of English freedom has been on the decline.
The commonality is seen by many who do deep analysis of political theory, but as IronJack so aptly points out, we must have the straight forward and plain rhetoric to charge our adherents and advance the unconvinced and often deep study is not something we can get that audience to devote the time to doing.
My caution is that we must watch for the traps of rationalistic totalitarianism and the way the arguement is framed. If a comparison of various simple formula is the artifical limit of the debate, the rationalists will always win. However, if the whole Heritage of Mankind is considered; the whole weight of civilization and our patrimony is measured up; if the inherited worth of what mankind has achieved is defended, then magic formuli pale in comparison.
In that sense, it IS a system of principles rather than ideas, and its adherents measure developments not against Conservatism's principles, but USING Conservatism's principles. The developments themselves are judged in their historical context, that judgment itself being a Conservative process.
I guess I feared Kirk was equating "ideological" with "doctrinaire." Neither is pejorative in its own right, but each is ripe for abuse.
As the only answer to social and governmental questions was seen by them as a metaphysical, rationalistic, ideological magic answer, poof, all those terms began to take on benign, rather than revolutionary, meanings.
Certainly, adherence to Kirk's exact terminology would be a Stalinist party line which he would be the first to abhore. He has taken the broad look at all such views, accepting Jacksonians like James Fenimore Cooper as long as he could find the common First Principles.
Likewise, you and I are on common ground.
Ideologues, if I understand Kirk’s use of the term, offer a magic formula, and if one doesn’t agree, one is branded a blasphemer. Many on the political right offer the magic formula of appointing persons to the Supreme Court who conform to a certain profile. Follow the magic formula and all political, moral, religious, cultural and societal (to borrow from your above quote) problems disappear, and America becomes heaven on earth. Failure to follow the magic formula is blasphemy. Thus the flame-throwing at President Bush from so many of his natural allies concerning Harriet Miers. No matter the realities of the vote count on the Senate floor, President Bush has committed blasphemy. Those on the present day right who are so quickly opposed to Meirs’ appointment without even waiting for the hearings should just stand on a chair, shout “Blasphemy!” at the top of their lungs, and hopefully get it out of their system, because that is the basis of their opposition.
Yes, conservatism spans politics, morals, religion, culture, and society, but the ideologues in this case have taken a strictly political matter (Supreme Court appointment), isolated it, and elevated it to the status of a magic formula that supposedly defines the essence of conservatism. That, in my opinion, is what makes them ideologs, as opposed to principled conservatives.
Rereading the article at the top of the thread, it seems I’ve done little more than regurgitate what the author, Kirk, and KC Burke have written. Thanks to all three for their thoughts. (Thanks KC Burke, including thanks for using the phrase magic formula.)
…we must have the straight forward and plain rhetoric…
How about:
But I don't want to contribute to a stereotype. So I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And yes, we need your help to keep us ever-mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.-Ronald ReaganThe American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said: "If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants." Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." And it was George Washington who said that "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius -- and he said: "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
Well, I'm pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.
I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities: the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.
Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a -- a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.
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.