So let contemplate for a moment the coming opportunity to end human abortion in America. And let us also contemplate how the opportunity for this was created by the lack of impulse control on the left. But we must begin by noticing an instinctive and characteristic difference between conservatives and progressives.
That difference is this. Usually conservatives, caring as they do about the rule of law, have two concerns running during the course of any political debate. They are concerned about process, and they are concerned about the content of the proposal. A good recent example would be supplied by my friend Peter Hitchens. Although he has no problem with the fact that the UK is departing the EU—the reality of Brexit being a good thing—he at the same time had constitutional concerns and objections about the way it was accomplished. You don’t do things like that in the UK by means of referenda. Well, actually, by this I mean that you didn’t used to do things like that by means of referenda.
In other words, there are the rules, and after the rules, there is the game. Conservatives (generally) want to respect the rules as they play the game. Progressives usually just play the game. Commitment to the rules is part of the conservative worldview. For progressives the rules are simply tools, to be used when you want them and ignored when you don’t. This is the autocratic temperament. As Turkey’s Erdogan put it, “Democracy is like a streetcar . . . You ride it until you arrive at your destination and then you step off.”
So progressives really like to play Calvinball, which means that they can make up the rules as they go along. They are in favor of a strong executive if the executive is theirs, and when the executive isn’t theirs, they have a strong interest in limiting the powers of the executive. They are in favor of not nominating a Supreme Court justice during an election year (“the Biden rule”) and they are totally in favor of it when they have an opportunity to nominate someone. They are totally against changing the filibuster rules unless they are in a position to do so, and then they do.
Now I of course grant that the “whose ox is being gored” game is a game of human inconsistency, and you can find examples of it everywhere. My point is not that conservatives have never guilty of this, but rather that conservatives try to resist this impulse as a failing, and progressives do not try to resist it at all. Progressives glory in this impulse. But something is happening that takes conservatives beyond simple inconsistency.
What has started to happen is that conservatives have found the progressive playbook, and are running some of their plays. This is not hypocritical inconsistency, or a case of conservatives selling their souls to become progressives. It is actually a case of the reality of our situation starting to dawn on them.
In other words, there was a time when true gentlemen could oppose one another in the Senate of the United States, take decidedly different views of a particular piece of legislation, battle one another according to the rules, and remain friends. That era only runs any more in grainy black and white over on Nick at Nite. We are at the point where virtually everyone has noticed what has happened to our republic, including Mitch McConnell. He is the one who kept the Scalia seat open until after the election when it would have been easy for him to go squish.
What this means is that we are now at the point where anything bipartisan is by definition unconstitutional.
The conservative view of governance is that you should configure the rules of the Senate (for example) in the recognition that your party will not be in power forever. The legal theorist John Rawls said that you should sketch out your ideal society without knowing where you are going to be born in it. This is just the Golden Rule in another guise. But for the progressives the demand is always to act now, downstream consequences be damned. And this is how Obama’s phone and pen created a six-lane highway for Donald Trump. Trump is now in the Oval Office, and it still has a phone, and they found the pens.
Now with all this in the back of your mind, take certain hoary causes from the greybeard paleo-conservative cupboard, things like “nullification” and “secession.” The centralizing impulse was strong during the 19th century, and a major war was fought over it. The centralizers won, and conservatives for the most part accommodated themselves to the new reality. Okay, we can’t nullify anything. Okay, we can’t secede if we get mad. Okay, okay.
But the left has not only been battering down all our constitutional protections, favoring centralization, they have also been battering down all manner of their own internal restraints, making centralization impossible. Their commitment to use whatever tool is ready at hand in the service of their pressing and urgent lusts is a commitment that is really going to haunt them. It is haunting them now.
When it comes to worldview commitments, there is a foundational difference between those who believe that states have a constitutional right to secede from the Union (as I do), and those who are demanding it because they are in a petulant temper and that is the closest available tool for getting what they want.
Before the election, ask a California progressive if states had the right to secede from the Union. Not on your life. But Trump gets elected, and lo! Calexit. Ask a progressive if states have the right to defy federal law. Of course not, they say. But what about pot or sanctuary cities? Of course, they say—because the outcome is what they want. But you cannot behave this way without creating massive opportunities to your opponents.
Colorado decided that they would just legalize weed. Federal law be damned. And what happened here is that they established the principle that a state can just go ahead and make their own laws. Chicago just decided that they were going to be a sanctuary city “forever.” A bunch of Calexit progressives have put secession back on the list of acceptable options. It is all there—secession and nullification, the whole shooting match.
Now if Colorado hippies can get stoned in defiance of federal law, why can’t Idaho conservatives protect the babies in defiance of federal law? If San Francisco can say that they have a moral duty to protect illegal immigrants from the feds, why can’t Alabama say that they have a moral duty to protect those who were legally conceived from the feds?
The only thing that has to happen is for the conservatives to continue to overcome their own internal reluctance toward disobeying “the rules.” All the indications are that this is starting to happen. The progressive game for a number of decades now has been to shame the conservatives into continuing to “play by the rules,” even though it turns out that they are the only ones doing so. Conservatives miserably try to play “federal republic” while the progressives are happily playing Calvinball.
There are two ways of saying no to the higher authority. One is simply an expression of disobedience and rebellion. But there is also another—a principled resistance to tyranny. As it happens, the dissolute impatience of the progressives is creating a host of opportunities for conservatives. The unprincipled are creating golden opportunities for the principled. And I don’t mind at all.
To the simple, it will look as though conservatives have simply given up and have started to play Calvinball themselves. The progressives will certainly shriek as though that were the case. But so?
The restiveness of many state legislatures is already apparent. Many pro-life measures have already been passed. What we are waiting for is just one state to cover itself with glory, and to pass a measure that openly defies Roe, and to have the governor sign it with all the media there. In his remarks, he should make sure to thank the Colorado hippies and Rahm Emmanuel for showing him the way.
Yes! And “oh dang”. Thank you
The only problem is in what appears to be conservatives learning how to actually fight (Republicans aren’t learning this, they’re still trying to figure out how to walk back their promises and still appear to be keeping those promises). Conservatives appear to be throwing out Biblical values (as impractical or doesn’t apply anymore because God doesn’t speak to us that way or something) for a more authoritarian way of governance which only leads to more statism eternally on big issues, even if we might get what we want on singular issues. Globalist wealth redistribution in the name of social justice… Read more »
I’d like to see Matt Trewhella weigh in on this – oh, wait: I think he already has…
https://lessermagistrate.com
So let it be written. So let it be done.
“To kill the first born pharoh’s son…”
You probably have no idea what that is, but I couldn’t resist.
Ride the Lightning Baby.
Right on! “Creeping Death” from RTL.
Just for clarity, since I suspect many here have no clue, Ride the Lightning is the album, and the song is called, “Creeping Death.”
As a former metal head during the 70’s, Metallica is etched into my head forever.
I am trying to picture you and John Knox rocking out to Metallica but I’m having a major imagination fail.
That world was long ago.
Like my Deadhead days!
Big Metallica fan right here.
Pre-“Load” fan here. Metallica hasn’t made anything remotely decent since the Black album. The live album wasn’t bad though
Totally read that in Yul Brynner’s voice.
Funny, that’s the voice I wrote it in :)
Typo: “So let contemplate”. Yeah baby. Hypocrisy has always been one of the least convincing arguments and letting ourselves be cowed by it has cost a lot. Knocking it out of the left’s hand disrupts their attack but probably not for long. What’s the next weapon they try? Direct force seems not to work, at least not at the scale they’ve tried so far. Lawfare is losing its efficacy with a more conservative Supreme Court and a deregulator in the presidency. Grassroots protests seem to play into Trump’s hands. What else have they got? Elite media and academia? Couldn’t save… Read more »
I want to believe that state conservative leaders will be bold and brave enough to defy the federal courts, left-wing protesters and “mainstream” media and stand for truth and life. but I am skeptical they can pull it off.
As long as your state Legislature is dependent on federal subsidies, conservative leaders will not have the guts. If Californika and other states that actually pay more in taxes than they get back are successful in non-compliance with federal tax law, there is hope.
Be praying for the success of CalExit.
Ken De Vries wrote: As long as your state Legislature is dependent on federal subsidies, conservative leaders will not have the guts. This is the piece of leverage that is missing from Wilson’s analysis, and why nullification hasn’t already been done. Our Federal government has the magical power of money counterfeiting. With it they have turned us all into dependents and addicts to the money carrot. Until this stick is taken away from the Fed, the states are unlikely to resist the gravy train. Unfortunately, tampering with this magical power to invoke trust in counterfeit money will blow up the… Read more »
Exactly. I am glad someone understood what I was saying.
I have no great love of pot, but I do love freedom. Conservatives should learn from the Left that it takes guts to remain free.
As someone on a different forum put it: “CalExit is like when you’re 7 years old and tell your mom you’re running away from home, then go sit in the backyard for half an hour and then come in for dinner.”
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline removes it far from him.
We don’t need California secede. We just need them to stop federal tax payments to watch the revolution begin. I am all for it, in any case.
Until recently I had no idea that California is a “donor” state. Not having my citizenship yet, it is hardly appropriate for me to favor Cal-exit, but I wondered why the majority of people in my state would oppose it. If you are an immigrant who does not have sentimental ties to the US (your family members are not veterans, you do not have emotional ties to other states), or if you are from Los Angeles or the Bay Area, what would be overwhelming reasons to induce you to remain? I am sure there are such reasons, but I wondered… Read more »
You must-spelled “Kalifornica.” Just sayin’ …
After the election of Lincoln, the future C.S.A. VP Alexander Stephens, argued compellingly against secession, in words that have renewed relevance today: In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution. Many of us have sworn… Read more »
It may be a very compelling argument, taken in isolation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t carry the intended persuasive force that it should have, once we remember that Lincoln did, in fact, violate and suspend the Constitution in multiple ways.
This is precisely why so many of us voted for and openly supported Trump. He knew the progressive rules and he played by them very well. The evangelical hipster pastors were all beside themselves with apoplexy because he was mean. The bigger issue here is that for far too long, Christians have been fighting the culture wars with political weapons. We seem to think that support for abortion and gay marriage came out of nowhere, and the adequate response is to make it illegal. Progressives have been fighting and overwhelmingly winning the culture wars by using education, business, music, entertainment,… Read more »
It’s much more to the point to recognise that mass media is itself a locus of political power in a society where political legitimacy rests on public opinion. Culture is downwind of power. 65% of Americans polled in 2004 were opposed to same-sex mirage when Massachusetts passed their law. Now, of course, it’s nearly that much in favour.
(As for Trump: his task is to reclaim the power of the presidency from the multitude of office-holders within it and relocate it within his personal command. He’s certainly on the way to it, but the battle has just begun.)
ashv wrote: It’s much more to the point to recognise that mass media is itself a locus of political power in a society where political legitimacy rests on public opinion. Culture is downwind of power. If culture is downwind of power (let alone mass media), then it doesn’t explain how Trump came to power. However, if political legitimacy is downstream from culture (“public opinion”, as ashv accidentally acknowledged), then it is pretty easy to see how Trump came to power. The culture wants to “Make America Great Again”. If mass media was truly the locus of political power, then the… Read more »
Mass media is a node of political power, not the only one. Part of Trump’s success can probably be attributed to his ability to communicate with supporters without going through channels controlled by his opponents.
Consider, though. If in February 2025, President Mike “Like other men? The dial’s going to ten” Pence announced that public support for same-sex marriage would disqualify you for government employment, government funding for your organisation, or journalist access to government communications — and was able to make it stick — just how long would public opinion support it?
This is a great illustration for why democratic methods of legislation are so flawed. It assumes a moral people, who will govern themselves with the best interests of the group in mind.
Doesn’t it also assume that there is some agreement, somewhere, on what is meant by moral? My leftie friends may differ on non-essentials, but they are in no doubt that they hold the moral high ground and that their principles, whether they ban gun ownership or plastic bag ownership, are in the best interest of society as a whole.
This is a great point to highlight. When I used the phrase, a moral people, I was making an objective statement. That, of course, assumes an objective morality. Without going too deep into this, there is only one morality. The circumstances can alter the moral question at times, such as killing for personal revenge versus government sanctioned execution. But God has revealed Himself, and therefore has revealed what is properly called morality. Anything that shifts the foundation of morality away from the revealed God to something resting upon human autonomy is necessarily illogical, and therefore false. The debate you are… Read more »
Massachusetts did not “pass” their same sex marriage law. Traditional marriage supporters had the signatures to put a traditional marriage law question on a ballot. The Massachusetts speaker of the house refused to put the question on the ballot. Some time later, the “superior judicial court” ordered the general court to make the law we now have. The voters were left out of the mass law.
This reinforces my point.
As intended.????
A++++! Great article. I’ll highlight two points. The progressive game for a number of decades now has been to shame the conservatives into continuing to “play by the rules,” even though it turns out that they are the only ones doing so. Conservatives miserably try to play “federal republic” while the progressives are happily playing Calvinball. This needs to go up on a billboard somewhere. I can’t think of any right now but there’s got to be a prime example of some lyin’ cheatin’ scumbag who openly defies all the rules, all the while wagging his finger at the good… Read more »
Playing by the rules and “the rule of law” is only as good as your knowledge of such. The “rule of law” as touted by the Left isn’t the same “rule of law” as written by the Founders.
“Rule of law” is precisely the sort of word-game that has been used to advance liberalism. In truth, there is only rule by men.
As long as it’s their Law, it’s the rule.
Did the South not secede specifically because the North wasn’t playing by the rules? There may only be “rule by men,” but men can’t rule without the perception of legitimacy, and playing by the rule of law builds legitimacy, right?
No, they seceded because of slavery. “Rule of $$$”
They already had slavery. Why would they secede over it?
Serious question? Because they knew which way the wind was blowing. But don’t take my word for it, here is South Carolina telling us directly:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
So you’re saying South Carolina’s grievance was indeed over “violations of the Constitution” and “encroachments on the reserved rights of the States”?
Read the whole thing, not just the first paragraph. It’s all about slavery, specifically how SC knew that the tide of opinion had turned against them and they would never get their fugitive slaves back.
What’s your point? Are you disputing anything I’ve said? What did “the wind” and “the tide” in the North (or DC) matter so long as the North respected the Constitution? Why are they relevant to a discussion of secession and legitimacy and the rule of law?
As a proponent of nullification for a very long time, I was happy to see states begin to use their prerogative and nullify unconstitutional federal mandates. In fact, I couldn’t be happier. I have no personal interest in Marijuana – none. I couldn’t care less one way or the other about it. I don’t use it. I don’t know anyone who uses it, nor do I care one way or the other if someone does. But I was overjoyed when states began to nullify federal prohibitions against it. When Washington State legalized MJ for recreational purposes, I predicted an avalanche… Read more »
Hopefully someday you’ll see the damage done by the sin of mind-altering drug use, and at least care about those destroyed by it physically, mentally and spiritually.
I know perfectly well what drugs can do. You comment has nothing what so ever do with the constitutionality of federal drug laws or any federal mandate that oversteps its constitutional authority.
Those who trade their liberty for safety shall have neither. I’ll take my chances on dangerous liberty over the safety of tyranny any time.
My comment had to do with your statement that you didn’t care.
I don’t worship the constitution (and your interpretation of it), I take my cues from Christ and his righteous law. 1 Peter 2:13-15
Either you missed my entire point, or your hatred for pot has blinded you to the bigger picture. I don’t “worship” the Constitution either. I endeavor to see that the federal government adheres to it. After all, it is the supreme law of the land. It is binding on the powers of the federal government, not on citizens. Either the government abides by it or it doesn’t. Either it limits the federal government or it doesn’t. If you grant powers to the federal government that it does not constitutionally possess, then the Left is equally justified in doing so. That… Read more »
That’s all fine and good, but Lance’s comment had nothing to do with the Constitution, with nullification, or with any laws at all. “I don’t know anyone who uses it, nor do I care one way or the other if someone does” is not a legal or political statement.
You’ll be glad to hear then that the only “mind-altering drug” mentioned in the Bible is alcohol.
LOL. Do you know the original context for that Ben Franklin quote?
It means the opposite of what you think.
I’ve read both the original letter where it appears and Wittes’ analysis of it. I am not convinced his analysis does it justice. He equates the safety purchased with the Penn/Governor relationship and the liberty with the legislature which is the general context of the quote. The immediate context of the quote, though, is that the Legislature has gone as far as the free men would want them to in order to defend them. For the legislature to do more would be an infringement of their liberty on behalf of their safety. It’s of note that Wittes admits he has… Read more »
I agree. In the original letter, Franklin writes: In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have,… Read more »
Love the article. I wonder though… you say, “(T)here was a time when true gentlemen could oppose one another in the Senate of the United States, take decidedly different views of a particular piece of legislation, battle one another according to the rules, and remain friends.”
I don’t know that Charles Sumner would agree with you. Even the Hamilton/Burr duel (although they weren’t Senators) highlights the inability to remain friends back then to an extreme degree. And then there’s this perspective-giving article that alludes again to the fact that there was much animus back in the good ole days:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/7-ways-donald-trump-is-just-1402033286914102.html
If San Francisco can say that they have a moral duty to protect illegal immigrants from the feds, why can’t Alabama say that they have a moral duty to protect those who were legally conceived from the feds? Or, to rephrase: If communists can organise a riot in Berkeley and get a no-arrest order given to the police while they do so, why can’t bigoted racist fundamentalists smash up an abortion clinic and have the police stand idly by? Power. If your hypothetical governor is going to sign that bill, he better have told the State Guard and all the… Read more »
Two additional notes: States really are subordinate to the federal government. That was settled at Gettysburg. The reason the DEA isn’t busting people in Colorado and Oregon is the same reason rioters weren’t arrested in Berkeley. Is there any reason you expect this has to continue under Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard “Good people don’t smoke marijuana” Sessions III? Similarly, would you find it hard to believe that he might tell his subordinates there would be no federal intervention, if Alabama or Idaho decided to take the step you describe? On the flip side, let us remember a governor who stood… Read more »
Two additional notes: States really are subordinate to the federal government. That was settled at Gettysburg.
Nothing was settled except that Tyranny won. The only thing that keeps the states “subordinate” is federal money. When that stops, all bets are off. The fight for freedom will never rest.
Manifestly false.
Really?
What are you asking?
The 101st Airborne isn’t imaginary.
“The Biden Rule” – alternative facts alert.
Maybe we could have accused conservatives of having principles and being concerned with process in the past. That’s all over now, especially when you counsel the Rs to kill the filibuster. Just tear down all the walls, we don’t need them.
Trump might be too busy starting wars with Iran and China to bother with enforcing abortion laws. Maybe he’ll just overturn RvW himself, to the “principled” cheers of our wonderful conservatives.
Principle is subordinate to survival.
The left has demonstrated they want us broke, dead, our kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny.
When the last possibility of leftists having a say in the actions or policies of government has been extinguished, then we may discuss principles. Until then, inter arma enim silent leges.
This is true. They hate us and they want us dead, and we just want to make sure that we’re nice and don’t offend anyone while they destroy us and everything good in our land. Let us hate them with a perfect hatred and count them our enemies. Blessed be the LORD, who trains our hands for war and our fingers for battle.
Relax guys, you sound like reverse-SJWs.
Have you been paying attention to what is being shouted by the people who are, right now, willing, able and enthusiastic about committing indiscriminate assault, battery, arson, arson and vandalism in this country?
If people who act like that say they want you, and everyone who looks like you, dead, it will improve your life expectancy to do them the courtesy of believing them.
What are you talking about; who wants you and “everyone who looks like you” dead?
The Berkely rioters held signs that said “This is War”. They set fires and shot fireworks at the police. The Portland rioters dragged obstacles across the streetcar tracks and smashed electrical boxes and set trees and buildings on fire. Any of those action could have killed people. The DC rioters destroyed an immigrant’s limo (that he drove as his job) and sent him to the hospital. In all of these riots, those calling themselves antifascists attacked and beat people who were or could be mistaken for Trump voters. The antifascists attacked them with pepper spray, and in one case set… Read more »
Not to mention that it took a professional MMA fighter to get 6 masked thugs to stop beating up a man. His great crime? Supporting Trump.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/03/ufc-fighter-says-he-came-to-aid-of-man-during-uc-berkeley-riots/
OK, but this topic is about mainstream liberals, not these far left mobs. It would be like a liberal president using the existence of right wing militias to justify whatever they wanted to do.
But despite all of the hand-wringing about the alt-right, et. al., there’s no equivalent to these violent mobs on the conservative side. And the Left does surprisingly little to dissociate themselves from them. You’d think the more mainstream types would discourage them or even chase masked thugs away when they start breaking windows, starting fires or assaulting people.
If “mainstream liberals” do not wish to be lumped in with “far left mobs”, they need to be loudly applauding their arrest and conviction, and protesting when they are left free. They need to be on the side of the victims of far left mobs. They need to proclaim their support for Richard Spencer’s right to not be punched by members of “far left mobs”. As some protest sign or other put it, “silence is consent”. Yet how many people on Twitter, as well as journalists, are talking gleefully about punching Nazis? It would be like a liberal president using… Read more »
You’re saying that Clinton did this? Was he right to do so?
Liberals often proclaim their support for non-violence. What metric are we to use to judge whether they have done so often enough?
In this life, non-violence isn’t an option. The question is whose violence shall be legitimated.
The far left mobs were surrounded and accompanied by mainstream liberals.
ashv wrote: Until then, inter arma enim silent leges. This is Latin for, “in wartime, the law falls silent”. This is a sentiment that Lincoln held to as he suspended and usurped the Constitution in his day. This is, fundamentally, the language of the progressive. The cry is that we can’t go back to the old restrictions, we must progress as the situation demands. Recently, I’ve become informed of a number of key features of early progressivism that are strikingly similar to that of ashv. For example, ashv has spoken against the Constitution as inherently corrupt, and blames the founding… Read more »
You know who else used guilt by association? Hitler.
ashv wrote:
Is that a reverse-guilt-by-association response from ashv? I was expecting another “LOL”.
Unfortunately for ashv, his significant similarities to progressivism are of his own making. It’s not invalid for us to identify those similarities to showcase the irony.
Do you agree that the American revolutionaries were the radical leftists of their day, following radical leftist philosophers such as Locke?
The war for American Independence was no effort to establish Locke, but rather a return to fixed natural liberties and limited government.
Why were the American loyalists called “Tories”?
Ashv appears to be leading down a rabbit hole. Maybe he should just state his point.
My point is that you have either no desire or ability to be straightforward about how much leftism you desire or about the origin of the liberal-democratic structure. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and don’t feel inclined to answer foolishness earnestly.
ashv wrote: My point is that you have either no desire or ability to be straightforward about how much leftism you desire or about the origin of the liberal-democratic structure. As one who appears to affirm the major premises of progressivism, I don’t see that ashv is in a credible position to lecture me, or anyone, about the desires of leftism. I reject ashv’s equivocation of natural liberty with liberalism. Ashv may as well be equivocating femininity with feminism. It would make as little sense. If being opposed to ethno-nationalism is supposed to earn someone the label of “leftist”, then… Read more »
I am not a proponent of ethno-nationalism. You’re not doing yourself any favours here.
ashv wrote:
I’m sure ashv is not a proponent of progressivism either, even though he shares almost all of the platform (except he substitutes an autocrat in place of the “will of the people”).
I would be curious why ashv refuses the ethno-nationalist label, given his ethnocentric and nationalistic arguments on this blog.
Because I don’t believe in national self-determination as a principle. Some nations really are better off as part of a coalition or larger empire, depending on the circumstances.
ashv wrote:
Ashv seems to be saying that ethno-imperialist is the more accurate label for his position. Depending on the circumstances.
How is the prefix “ethno-” meant to modify “imperialist”? I don’t think even you know what you mean. The definition of empire is “territory… comprising a variety in the nationality of… constituent and subordinate portions”. That is why I say America has always been a multinational empire — the societies produced by the Massachusetts and Virginia colonies were different by custom, law, mores, and blood, and remained so.
Do you think the revolutionaries who said “We have no king but Jesus” were motivated by Locke?
Why does ashv think Locke was a radical leftist? He seems to use that as a throwaway insult for anything he doesn’t like, including for Doug Wilson.
Which faction in the Glorious Revolution was on the right, and which one was on the left? Which one did Locke write in defence of?
ashv wrote: Which faction in the Glorious Revolution was on the right, and which one was on the left? This is one of the main reasons why ashv loses credibility. In his misuse of the left-right paradigm, he tries to apply, straight across, the European context of support for the monarchy, to the current U.S. context where left and right are nearly synonyms for Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. His refusal to make critical historical distinctions with these labels means that they are just empty insults in his mouth. Only in ashv’s mind does the modern U.S. right-wing conservative… Read more »
I think you are right about social progressivism. The working class socialists of Britain in the early twentieth century were socially very conservative–opposed to divorce, birth control, and anything approaching gender equality. We find this in Orwell’s description of life among the unemployed miners. Which makes sense when you consider that much of the trade union/socialist movement was built on Methodism.
The first socialist political party in Canada was Protestant and religious. They would have been startled to find socialism used as support for behavior they would have condemned as not only anti-social but ungodly.
I really cannot fathom how you got the idea I believe that. That’s pretty much the opposite of what I think.
Left and right are directions, not positions. The American revolutionaries were the leftists of their day, and practically all political opinion today is far to the left of their positions. Ever heard the term “Overton window”?
Ashv has been basically outed as a progressive. In response he makes no effort to deny a fundamental affinity with them in the core areas I mentioned. Instead he wants to suggest that we must be leftists if we would support the American war for independence. Why? Because to be right-wing in Europe in those days was in support of the monarchy, and since right-wingers today don’t support the monarchy, then the U.S. right-wing must be left-wing. Or something. ashv wrote: The American revolutionaries were the leftists of their day, and practically all political opinion today is far to the… Read more »
Do you believe that Christians could reasonably and honourably take different sides in a war like the American Revolution?
ashv wrote: Do you believe that Christians could reasonably and honourably take different sides in a war like the American Revolution? I’m not, in any way, trying to minimize the complexity of when war is justified. It is almost always hairy. Well meaning Christians can come down on both sides. However, there are certain arguments, for and against, that can be completely worthless. It depends on what the arguments are. Rather than toss around labels, anachronistically, as ashv is doing, I would prefer to talk about the actual content of the arguments, as I did in showing that ashv’s arguments… Read more »
Your claims about me being a progressive are nonsense. Your understanding of history is deficient too. There have been Americans opposed to the Declaration of Independence since the day it was written, such as Thomas Hutchinson. Your claim that “Progressives in the 19th century were proponents of scientific racism” is an example of your fundamental unseriousness. Who in the 19th century wasn’t racist? You’re making a straightforward guilt-by-association fallacy. Woodrow Wilson believed in the mutability and perfectability of human nature apart from the Gospel. You really going to try to pin that on me? Furthermore, your use of the Woodrow… Read more »
ashv wrote: Your claims about me being a progressive are nonsense. Ashv certainly doesn’t accept all of the positions of progressives (I had already pointed out a significant exception), but he shares a great deal of affinity with essential planks in their reasoning. I appreciate that he seems at least willing to interact, and hopefully he will respond to the merits of those similarities to clarify himself. ashv wrote: There have been Americans opposed to the Declaration of Independence since the day it was written, such as Thomas Hutchinson. No doubt there were many Loyalists who objected to the Declaration… Read more »
ashv wrote: As for the Constitution, it was considered at the time to be an experiment. I don’t condemn its authors for their attempt; they were better men than us. Ashv seems to have forgotten his prior assertions. He was rather outspoken that the Constitution was inherently flawed, and thus a failure from the very start. He took the position that limited government and separation of powers are inherently misguided. Ashv has been vehemently opposed to natural liberties, the recognition and defense of which are at the core of the Constitution. It’s a bit disingenuous for ashv to suggest that… Read more »
ashv wrote: I have called you a liberal in the past, not because you hold to positions that liberals today champion, but because you share their view of liberty and equality as unqualified goods. Ashv has called lots of people liberal because he refuses to make proper distinctions between liberalism and natural liberties. I’ve pointed this out a number of times. Ashv equivocates in other areas as well, such as confusing equality under the law with egalitarianism. Once again, those are two different things. I certainly don’t affirm egalitarianism, or the entitlement mentality of socialism, but I do affirm, along… Read more »
I showed where ashv aligns with the core arguments and principles of progressivism, but ashv has failed show how those who would support the historic war for independence are in any principle agreement with the current agenda of the left. OK reading back over this I see I failed to address this point, which may represent a significant chunk of your confusion. I certainly don’t think any of the American revolutionaries would support any of the current agenda of the Democrat party. I don’t think they’d support the current agenda of the Republican party. Most probably they’d be appalled at… Read more »
You are one patient man.
When a commenter with a rebel flag for his image gets labeled a progressive, we can be sure honest discussion and truth seeking have been replaced with point scoring and debate zingers.
Apparently Durden hasn’t observed ashv labeling just about anyone who disagrees with him as liberal, leftist, and progressive, including Doug Wilson. I’m simply pointing out the extensive contradiction inherent in that tactic. Apparently Durden is not familiar with ashv’s repeated rejection of the entire principle of limited government, or ashv’s rejection of separation of powers, or his rejection of Constitutional government, or his rejection of natural liberties (including freedom of association), or ashv’s endorsement of racial segregation, or his endorsement of white intellectual superiority over blacks. Durden may also not be aware that these were essential features in the development… Read more »
Katecho, My purpose was not to take a passive back hand at you, at all. I can tell you guys have a history, and I don’t see the whole picture. My point was that you are pretty bombastic in your interactions here. That’s fine, as far as it goes. But honestly, it feels far less like you are trying to get at the truth or have a good in-depth conversation, and more like you are trying to score points for a debate audience. You did it to me in our last chat and you seem to be doing it here… Read more »
Since we are talking about feelings, it feels like Durden is taking a back hand at me without benefit of the history of ashv’s criticisms and provocative labeling of others, and without benefit of the history of ashv’s extreme, and sometimes unscriptural positions. Durden may not feel that it is important to confront racial vainglory, or denials of God-given natural liberties, but I believe such things warrant a firm response, independent of feelings. Durden wrote: But from one brother to the next, you should at least be engaging with what the other person actually believes, instead of taking one point… Read more »
I don’t have the benefit of the history between you two, which I openly admitted. So writing a paragraph about why I don’t have that benefit seems rather superfluous. This illustrates my criticism. It was not about being driven by feelings, at all. Trying to be a logic robot is quite impossible, and sometimes a little stirring is good for the soul. My criticism was that you twist something small into more than it needs to be. I mentioned that I “felt” something in the last post and here we have a response focused on my feelings. It is a… Read more »
Durden wrote: I don’t have the benefit of the history between you two, which I openly admitted. … It was not about being driven by feelings, at all. Durden acknowledges that he doesn’t have the benefit of the history of ashv’s criticisms and positions here, so he based his own criticism on his perception/feeling about my approach. I think that is important to keep in mind. Durden wrote: My criticism was that you twist something small into more than it needs to be. I’ve invited Durden to give an example of how I have twisted ashv’s view. If Durden does… Read more »
ashv wrote: I certainly don’t think any of the American revolutionaries would support any of the current agenda of the Democrat party. I don’t think they’d support the current agenda of the Republican party. Most probablythey’d be appalled at the entire thing as far to the left of anything they thought reasonable or possible. I’m happy to agree with ashv that the current Republican party would appear, in many respects, to be socialist, and socially liberal in the eyes of the founders. But what does that have to do with ashv labeling me, and everyone else he disagrees with, as… Read more »
I am wondering how this is even a meaningful question in the context of the English political landscape in 1688. Most historians believe that both the Whigs and Tories united to rid England of the Stuarts. This was not a case where a reactionary faction fought a revolutionary one; both factions desired change and used Parliament to beat up on a king no one wanted and on a view of monarchy they both rejected. Sometimes it has happened that a king will cast his lot with “the people” as against the aristocracy, landed gentry, and rising middle class. In that… Read more »
You said it yourself, the factions were a united Parliament against the King. The 1688 revolution sealed the gains made by Parliament in assuming executive power in the English Civil War, and launched us into a kingless half-century. (Perhaps Her Majesty’s grandsons or great-grandsons will find the determination and ability to rule again one day. One hopes.) Sometimes it has happened that a king will cast his lot with “the people” as against the aristocracy, landed gentry, and rising middle class. In that sense, the king might be seen as “left wing”. This is the normal sort of alignment seen… Read more »
Certainly they weren’t opposed to him. I don’t think Locke was motivation any more than Marx or Alinsky are motivation for today’s communists. More like validation or rationalisation.
If truth is the first casualty of war, the law must be the second. We stifle the voice of the law in wartime when we most desperately need to hear it. I would trust St. Thomas More over Woodrow Wilson.
God says: Proverbs 26:4-5 (KJV) 4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Pastor Wilson’s comments immediately reminded of these verses. Dr. Bahnsen was one who fleshed this out considerably in his apologetics approach. President Trump is clearly vs 5 in this passage. For far too long we’ve seen conservative politicians and many, many evangelical pastors be verse 4a. A rising bubble of verse 5 has been building among both God’s people as well as a… Read more »
The nations rage, God laughs, and we applaud. Ten point zero! Stuck the landing! Woo hoo!
It’s happening in Texas: http://abolishabortiontx.com/2017/01/12/texas-legislator-files-bill-to-abolish-abortion/
So true – when good men realize resistance must be made, they want to be assured that their resistance is proper and legitimate. The doctrine of the lesser magistrates provides this. http://lessermagistrate.com/
“What we are waiting for is just one state to cover itself with glory, and to pass a measure that openly defies Roe, and to have the governor sign it with all the media there. In his remarks, he should make sure to thank the Colorado hippies and Rahm Emmanuel for showing him the way.”
The supreme Court’s infamous Kelo decision also opens up an excellent opportunity, if only the States will see it and act on it.