Posted on 08/21/2007 11:41:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.
I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.
Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at phibetacons.nationalreview.com ...
“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
______________________________________________
Ensuring that we have the right to do what we ought is a sound basis for extending rights and for allowing the limitation of them. What do you find objectionable in the statement if it is not that there is a basis for limiting rights? As far as some detailed discussion of a bunch of academic terms, why not just briefly state your position, so I understand it. All I get is a fear of theocracy, which is so far from the vast majority of Christians intentions, and so far from being likely or possible, that it is irrelevant to modern American politics. Attacking Catholic pretensions and overreach is good fun but what does it have to do with John Paul’s statement?
They think that all of us “screwees” have no place else to go and we’ll just keep right on voting for them no matter what they do to us. Ask most of the elected crew and even after ‘06, they are still repeating that.
Classical liberals who were (and are) believing Christians may personally believe that rights come from the Creator, but that does not mean that they believe that religious principles should form the basis of government in a constitutional republic that is religiously tolerant. The whole question revolves around the sphere of morality, in which moral suasion and the freedom of association permit a community to do a great deal to influence the behavior of community members on a voluntary basis. That is different in kind from using the power of the state to enforce a particular Christian denomination's view of morality. If you don't see that difference, you're hopeless.
The fear of theocracy is deep-seated in the classical liberal mind, because classical liberalism developed in the 18th century that was busy trying to liberate itself from really repressive religious regimes, both Catholic and Protestant. Bloody Mary, the St. Bartholomew's massacre, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the English Civil War and the Commonwealth were fresh in the minds of classical liberal thinkers.
Your point about Christianity being under attack to day is true enough, but the attacks are coming primarily from the real left, modern liberals, Marxists and their progeny, not from classical liberals. Classical liberals attitudes towards religion generally reflect the broad tolerance of faiths (or lack of faiths) that has been our tradition in the United States.
The classical liberal's profound distrust of hooking any version of "truth" up to the power of the states is not limited to a fear of theocracy, it is every bit as much directed towards left totalitarianism.
Because people don't agree on what we "ought" to do. It's that simple. As Cromwell put it, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. There is a fundamental difference between belief in divinity (which is a fundamental First Amendment right) and human behavior that negatively impacts others in the exercise of their own freedoms. Liberty is not license. The business of buying, selling, and using drugs is not a victimless one. Drugs have destroyed countless lives. Has the Federal Government made the problem worse? Yes - most certainly, it has. Is it therefore not a proper subject for law enforcement? No, I think it is.
The proper question is: by whom and under which authority should the problem be addressed? My answer (as a Conservative) would be: at the most local level possible. I used to favor legalization of all drugs in the belief that people were responsible for their own lives and that if they wanted to disable or kill themselves, it was none of my business. If we all lived in self-contained bubbles and our actions had no effect on others, perhaps that might make sense. We obviously do not live like that. Drugs create social pathologies that damage people's lives and property, and they do not do so merely because they are illegal. They do so because they destroy the ability of people to reason and to respect the rights of others. That's why we have drunk driving laws.
I believe the proper reach of governmental authority should extend only to those human actions whose consequences involve others involuntarily, meaning without their knowledge or consent, with the potential for harming other's lives or property. Some kid smoking crack in his car on the highway is doing just that.
Actually you are making my point. TCQ was stating that social conservatives make laws based on harm of individuals or society and I was disputing that in the sense that many seem to be made based on whether they are evil or sinful, not whether they show a demonstrable harm to society.
______________________________________
Glad we agree on that. I will say that you cannot find a sin that is not demonstrably harmful to someone.
______________________________________
And although I agree with many of those points, rules prohibiting behavior based on sin is a matter more for the individual or Church rather than rules that should be enforced by government.
_______________________________________
Since all sin hurts people, I disagree. However, most sins are so minor, common and persistent that they are not worth resources to enforce laws against, and since we are all sinners, and we all don’t want to be hounded by anyone with a grudge or anyone with a badge who is having a bad day, I think Christian and non-Christian will be in agreement on a host of things that should not be outlawed but are still sins to a Christian. When you get to murder (read abortion), prostitution, drugs, and the like, you will find most Christians supporting laws against because they are so destructive, so there is a certain amount of cost/benefit analysis involved. The difference I suppose is that the Christian conservative is less likely than an atheist libertarian to worry that he doesn’t have a right to outlaw some destructive behavior. The Christian has a basis for his view that it is wrong.
Liberal = Socialist, there is no such thing as a liberal anymore, they’re all commies.
Because people don’t agree on what we “ought” to do.
___________________________________________________
People don’t need to agree on what is right and wrong to make a law in our system. It’s a majority rule system with some rights guaranteed in the Constitution. All else is a matter of persuasion and numbers. Shorhand, but you get my point.
I think it is much, much more important to fight for the right to do things we “ought” to do, for example speak freely, than for things we “ought not” do, such as prostitution or drug use.
I actually meat to reference ... Gonzales v. Raich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
The classical liberal’s profound distrust of hooking any version of “truth” up to the power of the states is not limited to a fear of theocracy, it is every bit as much directed towards left totalitarianism.
_________________________________________________
I don’t think this is even close to the historical mark. Where do you get that classical liberals were afraid of anyone that believed in the truth? These were not cultural relativists. The classical liberal was not afraid of people that believed in God. Most viewed religion as a social necessity and most were Christians. The fear was of concentrated power in the state.
And, does your position imply that what every is not expressly permitted is forbidden? What about things that are not "oughts" but not forbidden? What about superogatory acts? The difficulties in your proposal are legion. It's just not worth talking about any further.
I actually meat to reference ... Gonzales v. Raich
______________________________________________
LOL. I was trying to make the connection with Lopez. I’m all for the commerce clause getting put back into a framework that allows for limited government. Let the states decide issues not within Federal power. And nope, no stamp of Ceasar on marijuana plants either :P
I don't buy it.
I also don't buy the "It's the will of the people, so it has to be right." We live in a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Justice Clarence Thomas
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
A republic, if you can keep it, indeed.
It’s a basis for judgment. You have yet to provide a basis for judgment on what the law should allow and what it should prohibit, which is a point I made earlier. Your ultimate objection seems to be that not everything should be allowed, that we have a basis for judging something as wrong and to be prohibited, and a basis for judging other things right and to be protected.
I’ll ignore the straw men, since JP2’s statement was that “Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” No mention there of forbidding actions not expressly granted permission by the state.
Read the literature: the writings of the philosophes and the English, Scots and German enlightenments, the historical work of period (think Gibbon and Hume), the writings of the Founders, Burke, and the vast secondary literature on the questions that has grown up over the past 250 years. It is impossible to have a discussion when we don't even agree on the basic facts.
Sorry, I have to disagree. They did need help. They controlled the House and the Senate, but Bill Clinton was in the White House and he had the media in his corner, and he was better at using the media than the Republicans.
IMHO, the biggest reason the GOP could not fully implement their agenda in the mid 90's was that the party as a whole (from the top on down to the rank and file - and I will include the Libertarians in that) did not realize that it is a constant campaign. Bill Clinton did realize it and he was able to best them quite often.
Many people worked hard to get the GOP control in 1994, but after they won, we all just sat back and waited for all the "good stuff" to happen. The election was over and we all went back to our regular jobs and now it was up to those elected to do it.
And many of those elected thought the same way. Just like when Newt thought he was going to force Bill Clinton to sign things by not passing a budget. Did it work? No! Because Bill Clinton and his minions were out campaigning and attacking, running commercials, going on talking head shows - and the GOP sat there shell shocked and did not answer back.
Getting people elected, then going home and waiting for results is not how it works, at least not any more. It has to be a constant campaign.
Part of the problem though with the GOP is that most of its members actually have stuff to do - jobs and careers. Their lives aren't politics, unlike many big government liberals.
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.