A Philosophy - If You Can Get One

Thinking that it matters if 'WE' have "won the Senate" is part of the problem that Noumenon argues. What possible difference will 'winning' make to restoring respect for our constitution?

I think that leftist Judicial Activism has probably been as destructive to Constitutional principles as our leftist legislatures and Presidents have been. The turning points for the Judicial Branch are few and far between. We could have the best series of roll backs in leftist legislation all go for naught, if leftist Judicial Activism mandates all sorts of programs, correctives and similar claptrap like they have done the last five decades since Eisenhower put Warren on the Court.

Both factions on the USSC have been consistently supporting big government socialistic programs since FDR. Imagining that some new republican appointments will 'roll back' anything is a futile dream.

I thought I was hearing a call for forthright espousal of a return to Constitutional principle and value, and not just a lament and love-song to the barricades. What can be more in the way of a long-term turn around of that branch than nominations being confirmed now rather than taking our luck in 2004?

I suggest you read Noumenons 'lament' again. He calls for a new constitutional dialog, one where we 'conservatives' can all develop common ground on principles.

-----------------------------

-- In effect, you're saying that we shouldn't talk about our crazy old senators, till after the election.

Hardly. Read it again. The "this" I refer to is the passage I quote. I'm saying that for too many months the immediacy of transitory electoral issues have sanitized the forum from paying attention to real conservative principles. Why else have you and I occasionally been on the same side? My real reservation from Noumenon's post is its reliance on libertarian rhetorical terms...too much Philosophy and Reason...kind of the thing that always makes it difficult for you to find common ground with me even if we start to agree.

Sorry, your rhetoric lost me again. I can't find 'common ground' on such vague generalities.

..fear that the terms (Justice, Duty, Enduring Moral Order, Presriptive Convention -- you know all those plain conservative terms) will somehow make me ask for more than simple, Constitutional, principles. I'll certainly settle for the compromise that our two flavors of the American Spirit had in 1789 and I know that you will settle for nothing less.

Ah, mmm, sure, - I guess.

For generations before Hitler, Germany had been cultivating the notion that the "German Idea" or "German Spirit" or "German Soul" was collectivist and anti-individualist. We Americans have proclaimed ourselves to be the arch-individualists. So the soil was well prepared for Hitler in Germany, in a way that it hasn't yet been made ready over here for any future tyrant.

It's not inconceivable that we might reach a similar collectivist point some day. But so much of what's happened since Peikoff wrote his book has reflected a tendency in the opposite direction, away from statism, collectivism or conformism. Such a trend won't continue forever, and perhaps a new collectivist age will come in the future. Peikoff's Carter-era warnings are worth hearing again, but they don't seem to reflect the current situation just now.

Randian warnings against the state are bound to be right some time. At some point the government will probably try to take more power than it deserves. But the Randians may be in the position of the boy who cried "Wolf!" warning in season and out, warning as much against innoculous or necessary measures as against truly tyrannical ones. When a warning is necessary, it may well be ignored.

Thanks for your well-considered commentary. I felt that Peikoff's apiece was worth reposting even though he does get some things wrong - or at leat, there are many points where he and I may not agree. But on the whole, I think that the propositions that he sets forth are the stuff of worth debate.

I think that you've got the correct take on Peikoff's anti-religious outlook as evideneced in his statement that religion helped to cause the fall of the old Weimar Republic. The failure of virtually every great religion to hew to the teachings of its founders is only part of the story - the trouble with the majority of belief systems is that such ideas or sytems of thought and belief are readily co-opted or hijacked by those who use them to their own political ends. You don't have to look too far to find evidence of this. It's an age-old struggle - in the search for meaning, purpose and something larger than ourselves, we - as humankind - have been all too willing to hand our bodies, minds and spirits over to those who use them for sake of excersisng power; it's always been the path of least resistance. And it's the road to spiritual slavery.

But it's the extent to which all of our 'mainstream' religious belief systems have become hollowed out and held utterly in thrall to the heirs and disciples of Gramsci. For all their impact and influence on the course of human lives and souls; for al their dedication to the destruction of human freedom, dignity and spiritual soverignty, they are no better than the Aztec ghouls who capered about their bloody altars dressing the freshly flayed skins of their victims. R. J. Rummel characterized the professors, scholars and political 'scientists' who preach the same self loathing and hatred of freedom as 'the clergy of oppression.' The clerics who preach passivity, submission, and sheepery from their pulpits are no less the same clergy of oppression, because - intentionally or not - they are its aiders and abettors.

I agree that we as parents are the keepers of he keys, and part of our duty lies in raising our kids to be philosophers, warriors and spiritually sovereign individuals. This, of course, is in diametric oppostion to the entire zeitgeist, and in that sense, we're at war, because war it is. Everything else is virtually a sideshow. Weapons of mass distraction.

What we're moving toward may be somewhat debatable, but I'm certain it is not peace and harmony.

That's for sure - it's a cultural war that's on the verge of running white hot. Homeschool your kids? You're a subversive. Believe int he Constitution? You're an extremist. Own a gun? You're a criminal. Think that there's such a thing a right and wrong? You're a bigot or worse.

At least, that's what you hear coming from our universities, our popular culture, and a disquieting number of our so-called leaders.

And when the killer without conscience on the Left decide that after this recent election they've been backed into a corenr and there's nothing left to lose, then what? We know the answer to that, don't we?

cornelis said, "Even the direction of an enemy has unforeseen consequences of . . . good." This, in the context of our wondering what difference, if any a Republican win might make. The throwaway phrase is that 'there isn't a dime's worht of difference' between the two parties. This isn't entirely true, as there are differences in style; perhaps not so much in substance. The statist leanings of both parties are cause for concern; politicians' utter lack of regard for the founding principles of the country as stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; the casual and virtually uncritical acceptance of a predatory system of taxation by both sides of the aisle - none of this suggests that we're heading fora renaisance of liberty any time soon.

But cornelis has something in his statement. The crux of it is this: no matter what the intent of our erstwhile minders, they are no less immune to the tides of history and the law of unintended consequences. The fact that we're still able to have such a discussion is cause for hope. The fact that many of us - as no other folks in history - have the training, the means and the moral certainty to act in the cause of liberty may well be our salvation.

A new Thomas Sowell article was recently posted that ties in well with your thoughts here. It's called:

Political history and the future

Posted by tpaine to JohnHuang2
On News/Activism 11/10/2002 12:14
PM PST #6 of 6

Sowell:
"We do not need liberal judges or conservative judges. We need judges who follow the laws and the constitution. And we need to get such judges confirmed by the Senate, without ideological litmus tests based on abortion or any other political issue. This is one of those islands that cannot be bypassed if we want to preserve the right of Americans to govern themselves."

-- Sowell tells it like it is, -- like it should be, phony partisan politics aside. He will make no new friends with words like these.

Which is why they need to be said, and repeated, over & over

Thank you for the very good comments you've made here concerning the original article and subsequent posts, there are points I would have made if only I had your acumen.

One point I will make is that the article, written in 1980, could not predict the influence of Ronald Reagan or the Republican revolution of the mid-90s. Conservatism today has a much stronger voice than it did during the miserable 70s, especially in light of recent events. There is a case for guarded optimism.

A second point which you touched on briefly; I am a proponent of the TWO party system. As Machiavelli clearly elucidated, the Roman Republic required power for both patricians and plebes (the Senate and the Tribunes) to establish stability. America is strong because we have only two parties, each acting as a corrective on the excesses of the other.

This doesn't mean that I feel our gov/culture has achieved perfection (it never will), however, comparisons to Nazi Germany are of little value.

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.