When it comes to "limited government" as defined by the Founding Fathers, Liberty Letters sides with the inspired electoral college process created in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one which rather than making for a pure democracy (or something like unto it) gave us representative government - but more than that: mixed forms for representation coupled with a variety of checks and balances that prevented power from concentrating, as well as providing a check on passionate and frequent overthrows of the law. Change was not to be impossible when desirable, but only after a deliberate process of debate, reasoning, and separation of time from any supposed crisis (outside of war). The Electoral College system set up for electing Presidents of the United States is part of that inspiration.

The Idaho Values Alliance, the Idaho Affiliate of American Family Association notes today:

Not too many people are happy with the current proess of selecting presidential nominees – too long, too expensive, too confusing. The simplest solution would be to go back to the system envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. According to the Founders, what this season should be about is not electing a president but electing the people who will elect a president.

 

 

As Article II of the Constitution says, Election Day is not the day to choose a president but rather the “Time of chusing (sic) the Electors.” This is a reflection of the often-forgotten historical truth that the Founders created a republic, not a democracy, when they established the government of the United States.

 

 

The Electoral College was designed by the Founders to consist of those people that the voters of each state have chosen, on the first Tuesday in November, to actually select the next president of the United States.

 

 

We should not, at this stage of the process, be hearing from presidential candidates but rather from candidates for the position of Elector.

 

We should be hearing from Idahoans seeking to convince us, by the criteria they will use in casting their votes, that they can be trusted to pick a president on our behalf.

 

 

The system is designed to work in such a way, according to Article II and the 12th Amendment, that we would not know who our next president is until the sealed Certificates listing the votes of every Elector from every state are opened by the President of the Senate in the presence of a joint session of Congress in Washington, D.C.

 

 

Then, if no one candidate received a majority of the votes, the House of Representatives would choose the next president from the top five vote getters in the Electoral College.

 

Bottom line: if we’re disenchanted with the current process, there’s no reason not to go back to the Constitution and do it the way we’re supposed to.

We agree, but add: An additional step to true election reform would be to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, which amendment called for the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people, rather than by the Founder's method, which was the election of Senators by their state legislatures - a radical departure. The Founder's formula sought to provide a vital check against the concentration of power on the national level, provide a balance of power between the states as well (by giving every state, large or small, two Senators directly responsible to their respective state governments and interests), and also a check against socialistic schemes for the forced redistribution of the wealth which they were sure would arise in the more democratic house (and thus this was a check on the dangers of pure democracy). And to coincide with these, election of Senators by their state legislatures was supposed to provide for more statesmanship, more independent thought, more sense of history, more sense of moral maturity, for the thought was that by in large these Senators - thus elected - would be the tried and tested senior statesmen from each state.

When one really considers what the Founder's did, and what later generations undid with the 17th Amendment, we are also led to exclaim, "If only we were to repeal and return, here would be true campaign-finance reform!" For it would mean, in large part, an end to millions of dollars from corporations and other private interest groups flowing into election campaign coffers for senatorial and presidential elections. Only in the House would the problem continue to be the problem we have today …  just as the Founders predicted and wanted. It was the House that represented directly the passions, whims, and or legitimate concerns of the people, and yes, groups of people (associations). There they would be aired in either their glory or shame … but they would be aired … and then hopefully, even if some of the more shameful measures made it through, then in the Senate, a more mature legislative body, representing a different constituency would provide the balance, checking the bad, and only concurring with the good.

Powered by ScribeFire. Quotation used with the permission of our friends at the Idaho Values Alliance

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion - for who can read to the bottom of hearts? - but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks. - Alexis de Tocqueville, as quoted in "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,"  Jon Meacham

The Liberty Letters are a project of The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

"We have explored the Temple of Royalty and found that the idol we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and with a propitious eye beholds His subjects assuming that freedom and thought and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting of the sun, may His Kingdom come." - Samuel Adams, Address to the Third Continental Congress

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Lew Rockwell makes the argument that Ron Paul is the candidate for a return to honest money under the gold standard.

Easy Money, Easy Lies - Mises Institute

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Here's a look into some of the gimmicktry being used by interventionists and social planners. Thanks to Lew Rockwell.

The Mirage of the Mortgage Fix - Mises Institute

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

… the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike. - Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy In America," 1835.

Liberty Letters Comment: Alexis de Tocqueville, who with a philosopher's and sometimes a prophet's pen understood so much about America and her destiny … understood this above all other realities: that the American miracle in liberty was the by-product of the best in Christianity … of men inspired to live, govern, learn, and prosper under the sway of the Higher Laws and perfect moral code of Jesus the Christ. And as to the equality of men before the judgment bar of God, did not Christ teach such things when he held up as examples to the Jews - the Good Samaritan, the Women at the Well, a Roman Centurion, and others outside of the House of Israel; as well as the poorest of widows, the repentant adulteress, and the boy born blind? And was this not his message when he rebuked those in Israel for failing to realize that "where much is given, much is required," nor to understand that their father was not Abraham (for they did not the works of Abraham), but the devil?  Indeed, it was Christ who taught us, and still teaches us to judge a person, or a group, by his fruits, not his genealogical line, nor the color of his skin, nor his sex. Alexis de Tocqueville knew this. Every early American school child knew this. But do we today?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.8
AT different periods dogmatical belief is more or less abundant. It arises in different ways, and it may change its object or its form; but under no circumstances will dogmatical belief cease to exist, or, in other words, men will never cease to entertain some implicit opinions without trying them by actual discussion. If everyone undertook to form his own opinions and to seek for truth by isolated paths struck out by himself alone, it is not to be supposed that any considerable number of men would ever unite in any common belief. But obviously without such common belief no society can prosper—say rather no society can subsist; for without ideas held in common, there is no common action, and without common action, there may still be men, but there is no social body. In order that society should exist, and, a fortiori, that a society should prosper, it is required that all the minds of the citizens should be rallied and held together by certain predominant ideas; and this cannot be the case, unless each of them sometimes draws his opinions from the common source, and consents to accept certain matters of belief at the hands of the community.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.9 - p.10
If I now consider man in his isolated capacity, I find that dogmatical belief is not less indispensable to him in order to live alone, than it is to enable him to co-operate with his fellow-creatures. If man were forced to demonstrate to himself all the truths of which he makes daily use, his task would never end. He would exhaust his strength in preparatory exercises, without advancing beyond them. As, from the shortness of his life, he has not the time, nor, from the limits of his intelligence, the capacity, to accomplish this, he is reduced to take upon trust a number of facts and opinions which he has not had either the time or the power to verify himself, but which men of greater ability have sought out, or which the world adopts. On this groundwork he raises for himself the structure of his own thoughts; nor is he led to proceed in this manner by choice so much as he is constrained by the inflexible law of his condition. There is no philosopher of such great parts in the world, but that he believes a million of things on the faith of other people, and supposes a great many more truths than he demonstrates. This is not only necessary but desirable. A man who should undertake to inquire into everything for himself, could devote to each thing but little time and attention. His task would keep his mind in perpetual unrest, which would prevent him from penetrating to the depth of any truth, or of grappling his mind indissolubly to any conviction. His intellect would be at once independent and powerless. He must therefore make his choice from amongst the various objects of human belief, and he must adopt many opinions without discussion, in order to search the better into that smaller number which he sets apart for investigation. It is true that whoever receives an opinion on the word of another, does so far enslave his mind; but it is a salutary servitude which allows him to make a good use of freedom.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.10
A principle of authority must then always occur, under all circumstances, in some part or other of the moral and intellectual world. Its place is variable, but a place it necessarily has. The independence of individual minds may be greater, or it may be less: unbounded it cannot be. Thus the question is, not to know whether any intellectual authority exists in the ages of democracy, but simply where it resides and by what standard it is to be measured.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.10 - p.11
I have shown in the preceding chapter how the equality of conditions leads men to entertain a sort of instinctive incredulity of the supernatural, and a very lofty and often exaggerated opinion of the human understanding. The men who live at a period of social equality are not therefore easily led to place that intellectual authority to which they bow either beyond or above humanity. They commonly seek for the sources of truth in themselves, or in those who are like themselves. This would be enough to prove that at such periods no new religion could be established, and that all schemes for such a purpose would be not only impious but absurd and irrational. It may be foreseen that a democratic people will not easily give credence to divine missions; that they will turn modern prophets to a ready jest; and they that will seek to discover the chief arbiter of their belief within, and not beyond, the limits of their kind.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.11
When the ranks of society are unequal, and men unlike each other in condition, there are some individuals invested with all the power of superior intelligence, learning, and enlightenment, whilst the multitude is sunk in ignorance and prejudice. Men living at these aristocratic periods are therefore naturally induced to shape their opinions by the superior standard of a person or a class of persons, whilst they are averse to recognize the infallibility of the mass of the people.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.11
The contrary takes place in ages of equality. The nearer the citizens are drawn to the common level of an equal and similar condition, the less prone does each man become to place implicit faith in a certain man or a certain class of men. But his readiness to believe the multitude increases, and opinion is more than ever mistress of the world. Not only is common opinion the only guide which private judgment retains amongst a democratic people, but amongst such a people it possesses a power infinitely beyond what it has elsewhere. At periods of equality men have no faith in one another, by reason of their common resemblance; but this very resemblance gives them almost unbounded confidence in the judgment of the public; for it would not seem probable, as they are all endowed with equal means of judging, but that the greater truth should go with the greater number.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.11
When the inhabitant of a democratic country compares himself individually with all those about him, he feels with pride that he is the equal of any one of them; but when he comes to survey the totality of his fellows, and to place himself in contrast to so huge a body, he is instantly overwhelmed by the sense of his own insignificance and weakness. The same equality which renders him independent of each of his fellow-citizens taken severally, exposes him alone and unprotected to the influence of the greater number. The public has therefore among a democratic people a singular power, of which aristocratic nations could never so much as conceive an idea; for it does not persuade to certain opinions, but it enforces them, and infuses them into the faculties by a sort of enormous pressure of the minds of all upon the reason of each.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.12
In the United States the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. Everybody there adopts great numbers of theories, on philosophy, morals, and politics, without inquiry, upon public trust; and if we look to it very narrowly, it will be perceived that religion herself holds her sway there, much less as a doctrine of revelation than as a commonly received opinion. The fact that the political laws of the Americans are such that the majority rules the community with sovereign sway, materially increases the power which that majority naturally exercises over the mind. For nothing is more customary in man than to recognize superior wisdom in the person of his oppressor. This political omnipotence of the majority in the United States doubtless augments the influence which public opinion would obtain without it over the mind of each member of the community; but the foundations of that influence do not rest upon it. They must be sought for in the principle of equality itself, not in the more or less popular institutions which men living under that condition may give themselves. The intellectual dominion of the greater number would probably be less absolute amongst a democratic people governed by a king than in the sphere of a pure democracy, but it will always be extremely absolute; and by whatever political laws men are governed in the ages of equality, it may be foreseen that faith in public opinion will become a species of religion there, and the majority its ministering prophet.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.12 - p.13
Thus intellectual authority will be different, but it will not be diminished; and far from thinking that it will disappear, I augur that it may readily acquire too much preponderance, and confine the action of private judgment within narrower limits than are suited either to the greatness or the happiness of the human race. In the principle of equality I very clearly discern two tendencies; the one leading the mind of every man to untried thoughts, the other inclined to prohibit him from thinking at all. And I perceive how, under the dominion of certain laws, democracy would extinguish that liberty of the mind to which a democratic social condition is favorable; so that, after having broken all the bondage once imposed on it by ranks or by men, the human mind would be closely fettered to the general will of the greatest number.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.13
If the absolute power of the majority were to be substituted by democratic nations, for all the different powers which checked or retarded overmuch the energy of individual minds, the evil would only have changed its symptoms. Men would not have found the means of independent life; they would simply have invented (no easy task) a new dress for servitude. There is—and I cannot repeat it too often—there is in this matter for profound reflection for those who look on freedom as a holy thing, and who hate not only the despot, but despotism. For myself, when I feel the hand of power lie heavy on my brow, I care but little to know who oppresses me; and I am not the more disposed to pass beneath the yoke, because it is held out to me by the arms of a million of men. - Alexis de Toqueville

Liberty Letters Comment: Extremes in Democracy and Equality and Libertarianism bring about the danger de Toqueville prophetically warns about, that there is a dark side to some approaches to freedom. On the one hand, were we to not rely upon commonly held ideas taught and accepted in the public sphere, we would all be starting over anew … constantly - a fools errand. On the other hand, over-reliance and belief in the democratic principle as a religion of sorts, creates a crushing reliance upon "the majority" view of things (or in our day, perhaps the media orchestrated majority view, which may in fact not be the majority view) that becomes both unwritten and legislated law. One thinks of political correctness, academic accreditation, fierce intolerance in various "science" journals for opposing point of view. Thus, controls of the majority become oppressive, and thus in the information age looms the danger and reality of a nation of students and citizens who no longer know how to think, to reason, to judge, for lack of training, opportunity, and for fear.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Men will not accept truth at the hands of their enemies, and truth is seldom offered to them by their friends: for this reason I have spoken it. I was persuaded that many would take upon themselves to announce the new blessings which the principle of equality promises to mankind, but that few would dare to point out from afar the dangers with which it threatens them. To those perils therefore I have turned my chief attention, and believing that I had discovered them clearly, I have not had the cowardice to leave them untold.

I trust that my readers will find in this Second Part that impartiality which seems to have been remarked in the former work. Placed as I am in the midst of the conflicting opinions between which we are divided, I have endeavored to suppress within me for a time the favorable sympathies or the adverse emotions with which each of them inspires me. If those who read this book can find a single sentence intended to flatter any of the great parties which have agitated my country, or any of those petty factions which now harass and weaken it, let such readers raise their voices to accuse me. - Alexis de Toqueville, "Democracy In America, Volume II."

Liberty Letters Comment: Which are we? The party coward focused on the blessings of being a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian, or that statesmen who searches out and stands by right and wrong, good and better, and has vision enough to be more concerned with the long view than expediency and the "crisis" of the moment?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

NewsMax.com's David Limbaugh writes today:

Newsweek's Anna Quindlen recently wrote that a presidential victory for Rudy Giuliani "wouldn't be a good thing for this country, but his candidacy may wind up being a good thing for his party," which Quindlen obviously believes has been hijacked by the Christian right.

Giuliani's strong poll numbers, said Quindlen, perhaps "indicate that the end is nigh for the stranglehold the Leviticus Lobby has had on the GOP." It's no longer surprising that those screaming most loudly against Christianity and its influence on public policy in America often employ the same tactics and represent the same dangers they falsely attribute to Christians. Christians have far more to fear from the secular thought police than the other way around.

Whether it's writer Christopher Hitchens or CNN's Christiane Amanpour sloppily conflating Christian "fundamentalists" or observant Jews with Islamic jihadists; secular leftists calling the Christian right the American Taliban; or militant secularists like HBO's Bill Maher salivating over reports that Mother Teresa had a crisis of faith, the theme is the same. Christian activists are a societal nuisance.

The secularists' criticism goes beyond decrying the Christian right's alleged hostility to church-state separation. They claim strong religious belief leads to oppression, tyranny, and violence.

They even suggest the mere defense of absolute truth is dangerous. Alan Hurwitz of North Star Writers Group, wrote, "One thing I do know — the pursuit of 'truth,' as in mine over yours, creates conflict and isolation among individuals, groups, and societies. I am secular enough to think those are bad things. Religious zealots, 'knowers of truth . . . often have a scary gleam in their eyes . . . The challenge of dealing with rigid manifestations of religious 'truth' is one of management leadership — how to create societies that allow diverse groups to believe and act on their truth, without hurting each other." Note this is not some Christian talking about creating societies and exerting control.

The secularists demanding the removal of specks from Christians' eyes are oblivious to the planks in their own. Their paranoid predispositions about Christians lead them to the very type of oppressive behavior they wrongly ascribe to Christians. If anyone is guilty of wanting to foreclose debate and impose their values on others, it is these hyperventilating secularists.

They are the ones who have decreed there's a consensus on global warming and attempted to stigmatize dissenters as paid mouthpieces for "evil" energy companies. With their absence of self-reflection it must never occur to them that in their professed monopoly on "science," they squarely violate the fundamentals of the scientific method by forbidding debate and insulating their theories from scientific scrutiny.

They malign intelligent design proponents for daring to subject their dogma — and distortions — to the rigorous re-examination scientific methodology requires.

They seek to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance, though one poll reveals that only 14 percent of Americans agree with them.

They brand as bigots opponents of the societal sanctioning of homosexual marriage. Some even pronounce certain scriptural passages on homosexuality "hate speech" that leads to violence, as if to disapprove of any behavior is to hate it or its practitioners and leads to violence against them.

Likewise, many pro-abortionists speciously argue that pro-life advocacy leads to violence against women — never mind the violence against the unborn. The secular left condemns traditionalists for "legislating morality" and invading our bedrooms. Their quasi-religious fervor apparently blinds them to their efforts to wield governmental power to impose their own values, whether on homosexual marriage, abortion, wealth redistribution, or socialized medicine.

Alas, none of this should surprise Christians, who surely understand we are reaping the ravaging effects of a secularist, atheistic worldview that has finally become dominant in our postmodern culture and has claimed absolute truth as its casualty.

Liberty Letters agrees; read the full article.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 7

As a child growing up in New York, I was attracted to the opposite sex. When I saw a pretty little girl flash a smile, my heart fluttered, my cheeks blushed, I shuffled my feet and shyly looked the other way.

I always liked girls. No one had to tell me that I should. I just did.

When I became a teen, little changed. I still adored them, though when I thought of females, I began to think of marriage. Holy matrimony seemed like a prerequisite to happiness and completeness. Don't ask me why. It was instinct. I knew I was born to be married; and fortunately, no man, woman or institution stepped in to pervert nature's instincts.

Public schools, you see, and even television, still defended traditional values and helped reinforce what nature had implanted.

Ben Franklin, a man from a value-laden era, and a man who was not the philanderer anti-American historical revisionists make him out to be (he firmly believed in the law of chastity, for instance), (1) expressed long ago what I by nature felt as a teen. In an attempt to persuade a young friend to reject the idea of a mistress and embrace the institution of marriage, Franklin wrote:

Marriage is the proper remedy. It is the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness. Your reasons against entering into it at present appear to me not well founded. The circumstantial advantages you have in view by postponing it are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her softness, sensibility, and acute discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the world. A single man has not nearly the value he would have in that state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy wife, your industry in your profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient. (2)

One Flesh He might have added, for it fit, "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (3) and God's command to our first parents, "[to become] one flesh." (4)

Franklin and the revelations are right. There really is something about this marriage thing, an extraordinary opportunity ordained by God and Nature to become something we cannot be alone (and not become with a person of the same sex).

Two people, man and woman, mutually bound by love and sacred covenants, become one flesh in the natural unity of sexual intercourse; they become one flesh through children, who literally possess their combined genetic code; they become one heart and mind through the common endeavor of raising these children through thick and thin; and hopefully, through their common devotion to God, His laws, and their duty to serve their fellow man and, firstly, each other, they become one forevermore.

But this is not all. They also become one, as Franklin noted, because of natural differences between man and woman, which interlock and complement each other in a wonderful symphony achieved through a lifetime of give and take, sacrifice and patience, struggle and mutual reform.

It is an ingenious and inspired plan devised to stretch man, refine him, and teach him to love others more than he loves himself, a plan which, besides being religiously sanctioned, has met with the approval and sanction of every great civilization.

Family and National Stability

And here's why: All societies have learned that the family is basic and fundamental to national stability and happiness. When families fall apart, so do nations.

French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville knew that a collective animosity or negligence toward the family was the sort of destabilizing force that fomented revolutions, while strong families prop up and prosper free government, as was the case in early 19th century America. In his classic work, "Democracy in America," he observed:

But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself easily to moderate his opinion as well as his tastes. While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs. (5)

America rose, Europe fell. No wonder. Unfortunately, the cultural differences between Europe and the United States are now dimming. Generally, we still have stronger families than they, and thus more stability, strength and freedom; but, simultaneously, the anti-family values that brought the terror and instability of the French Revolution have gained a considerable and militant foothold here in the United States, and may, if left unchecked, beckon our downfall.

Marx's Loathing of Family

It was the ideology of communism founder Karl Marx that led the charge against marriage and the family that unsettles us today. In language fuming with hatred, loaded to the hilt in reckless, sweeping generalizations and on fire with revolution, Marx decried Western Civilization's belief in the "hallowed co-relation" of husband to wife and parent to child as a "bourgeois claptrap [artifice]" which is "disgusting." To him and his cohorts, capitalist children are thought of by their parents as nothing more than "articles of commerce and instruments of labor," whereas wives and daughters are thought of by their capitalist husbands and fathers as nothing more than "common prostitutes"; and bourgeois marriage is thought of by men in general as nothing more than "a system of wives in common," (6) for, according to Marx's dark view of the Capitalist Christian culture, every Capitalist, like every Christian, cheats on his wife and abuses his children.

Such a world!

But he didn't stop there, no. Since the family stinks, then why not a free-sex society where anything goes? It sounds all too familiar. Marx has, in many respects, won the day. He teaches in our schools, writes the scripts in Hollywood and sends down edicts from the bench.

Yet, Marx's modern beneficiaries, the various ‘victim's' lobbies of the anti-family movement, ought to consider the possibility that they have been exploited alright, by political opportunists who employ "a technique that is as old as the human race, a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave" (7) – that is, exploited, and ultimately duped into slavery, by a moral, even a religious appeal from the very folks who say they abhor such things in public life!

Nevertheless, not all things are as they seem to be. Sometimes a chunk of free cheese obscures a deadly trap. Or to put it another way, in this case, behind the smoke screen of supposed rights for things thousands of years of culture, religion and law have rejected as harmful, it seems plain that a red eye emerges, wickedly, haughtily peering down on marriage and the family intent on overthrowing the existing moral and political order.

Joining hands with the same are myriads of individuals and institutions pressing forward, unwisely, unwittingly, perceiving a benefit in being thus encouraged, and thus exploited, many of them ironically doing so in the name of preserving religious freedom. Those who do, miss the mark about religion in public life, and in truth, hold hands with Marx, the Devil, and every tyrant who ever hoped to enslave the children of men.

And so we have come full circle. And yet, whether it remains politically correct or not, marriage between a man and woman, and children raised by mother and father are still divine institutions; and as such, the nation that makes war on them will rue the day as surely as the sun rises tomorrow; while the nation that rises up and defends them will save itself.

The only question is, to which will we cleave?

Steve Farrell is a pundit with NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, editor of the Liberty Letters, author of the inspirational classic "Dark Rose," and founder and president of the Latter-day Foundation for Moral Liberalism: preserving and promoting the Judeo-Christian ethic, the U.S. Constitution, and lessee-faire in the 21st Century.

Footnotes

1. Franklin was in his 80s, beset with several incapacitating physical maladies – gout, boils and huge (some have said softball size) gall bladder stones (during the time he was supposedly philandering!) – and was thought of by the ladies in France, and the French in general, as "harmless," "sober," "a Quaker," a man of "simplicity and innocence," one of the "paragons of the age," "beloved Papa," and was proclaimed in the title of a portrait of Franklin commissioned in France as a "Man of Character." It was true, at this age, that women enjoyed his company, and he theirs. Especially appealing to him was that French women were educated.

But the accusations against him as a philanderer were made by political enemies, denied by Franklin and those who knew him best (teaching on the principle of chastity, he counseled his son ‘to avoid the very appearance of evil,' as a result of these political charges), and were, besides slander and libel, at his advanced age and particularly in his medical condition, nonsense as well. The one charge that might honestly be held against him was that he fathered a child in his youth, which today's revisionist ‘historians' mention in such unkind ways as "he fathered a bastard child," but they rarely, if ever, tell the full story, that Franklin was quick to rectify his mistake and took good care of his obligations to mother and child the rest of his life, even finding honorable and profitable employment for the boy as he grew older.

This helps us understand why Franklin counseled so strongly against the same weakness in others. He learned the hard way, and wished to prevent others from sharing in the same fate. In light of all this, here's a point to ponder: To the Christian who repents, God remembers the sin no more, but ‘historians,' particularly those who wish to destroy America's heritage, unveil just how un-Christian, how ill-motivated, they truly are by drudging up old mud, again and again – indeed, conjuring up new mud while they're at it.

2. Franklin, Benjamin, Letter, June 25, 1745.

3. Holy Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:1.

4. Ibid., Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, Ephesians 5:31.

5. de Tocqueville, Alexis. "Democracy in America," Book 1, Chapter 17.

6. Marx, Karl. "Communist Manifesto," for all the quotes from Marx in these two paragraphs.

7. David O. McKay, former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, warned: "We … warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution. … The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government and to set up instead one of the forms of dictatorships [which] is now flourishing in other lands. These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race, a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them." (See: Cannon, Donald Q. ed., "Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution," Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1991, pgs. 120 - 121.)

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Liberty and license are not synonymous. Parents know better.

Too many of them have had the unfortunate dilemma of dealing with the "I am free to do as I please" child who routinely, or upon occasion, exercises that egocentric proclamation to reckless extremes. These parents stand as witnesses that a widely accepted notion that "freedom and moral responsibility are not connected" is at best a delusion instilled by mis-education, not experience, and is at worst a diabolical lie.

The pain they feel, the shipwrecked lives they labor to pick up and reassemble, the incessant pleadings to stubborn, short-sighted children, and the endless nights spent sobbing upon their knees, all testify to them that unrestrained freedom is not freedom at all, but quite often a terrible, miserable slavery.

Every act has a consequence. Experience, that cruel schoolmaster, teaches us that. But it's not as if the idea is lacking in proponents.

The voice of Christianity warns, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (1)

The voice of the sciences seconds, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." (2)

And even the man-on-the-street echoes, "What goes around comes around."

Experience, God, the scientist and the streetwise understand this common-sense law. Call it the Law of the Harvest, the Law of Physics, the Law of the Street, or the Boomerang Effect; it is dreadfully real that actions for good or evil will bring results which either enlarge or limit one's freedom.

Sexual "freedom," when thought through, provides a clear-cut confirmation of this truth. For instance, the modern doctors of humanism, socialism and new age-ism proclaim to our youth that premarital sex is a healthy, happy and satisfying activity.

No doubt, it seems satisfying for the few moments it lasts.

But the choice to be sexually active as a teen-ager is not the liberating, ‘isn't-that-sweet' lifestyle that the social engineers and social scientists say that it is.

Early premarital sex reaps natural consequences: loss of virginity, damaged or lost church affiliation, guilt, limitations on spousal selection (men exploit sexually active women but are reticent to marry them), social disease, pregnancy, adoption, abortion (with the even greater moral dilemma of considering killing one's own), early marriage or single motherhood, increased risk for poverty, divorce (with its unpleasant, often unrelenting custody and parenting battles), abuse, and possible enslavement to government welfare programs.

This is especially so for the female. The male experiences some of the same, but worse yet, he often runs from responsibility and into the arms of yet another victim, and the cycle begins anew.

For a young lady abandoned to motherhood, even when she just happens to be that tough, resilient female who takes her lumps, transforms her life, bravely bears her child and wisely goes to college to improve her lot, the question must be asked of her, "Are you now free?"

Her answer most likely will be a resounding "No!" For when the school day is over, and the social and dating ritual begins, she is, rightly so, home with the baby, loving, feeding, cuddling, lullabying and diaper changing. She may be working a job.

Her social life is nonexistent; her chance of finding a worthy young man diminished; her study time, if she hasn't the luxury of affording a babysitter (few do), checkered and challenged; her life terribly lonely and stress-filled.

There are exceptions, but relatively few.

Unrestrained freedom bears a heavy cost.

Others suffer too. Parents (in a variety of ways), younger brothers and sisters by way of a poor role model, friends who naively believe that single parenthood ‘looks like fun,' and unrelated citizens who are forcibly taxed to pay for an assortment of social repair programs.

Beyond this, the precedent of extending a "safety-net" catches on and every other mistake-ridden person on the block joins in with the plea: "If the government can take care of him or her, than why not me?"

But there is at least one more cost. It is the cost of those whose exercise in "liberty" leads them to become bitter rather than better.

There is a little-known but documented story of an obscure boy, and his family, who converted to Christianity. Of that conversion, the changed young man wrote a precious and powerful testimony to the world concerning his newfound faith. It had transformed him and his parents, bringing great joy and purpose in life.

Then something devastating happened. He went to college! Isn't that all too often the case? It was there that he, like so many others, decided it was time to spread his wings and assert his newfound freedom. He could have done so in a positive manner, but he did not. His choice was to have a sexual affair with a married woman.

At that point, rather than express regret and redress the mistake, he exulted in his liberty. He decided his previous religious liberation was a form of physical and emotional bondage. He began to pursue a course to denounce the religion of his parents, his former faith of Judaism, and every other religious faith. He set his hand against God, denounced Him as a hoax, and, as an addendum, promised to abolish all "eternal truths," to erase "freedom, justice … religion … [and] morality," and to eradicate those twin trouble makers (the family and private property) from off the face of the earth. (3) Men, he said, and only a few select men at that, were the only true gods, henceforth and forever. Truth and morality would now be relative.

He put this all down on paper. He founded a revolution based on these principles. This revolution, first spawned by the self-justification of the ‘liberty' he had found by violating the law of chastity with a married woman, was the starting point of the most horrific adventure in mass murder, slavery and poverty in the history of the world.

Perhaps you've guessed it by now, though ‘historians' and ‘educators' have hidden the lesson. The boy's name was Karl Marx. The philosophy he founded was Communism. You see, freedom without moral responsibility, never really is an exercise in liberty at all.

MensNewsDaily contributor Steve Farrell is a pundit with Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, the editor of The Liberty Letters, and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose." Help support Liberty Letters by getting your copy today

Footnotes

1. Holy Bible, Galatians 6:7.

2. Newton, Sir Issac. This is Newton's third law of motion.

3. Marx, Karl. "Communist Manifesto"

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Not far removed from Marx's elitist man-as-God theory (meaning, more particularly, Marx or the ruling class or the state as God), of all the popular takes on religion in law in America that miss the mark, none is more pervasive, none strike closer to the root, than the worship of the Humanist God of Democracy – the Almighty Self.

The fall into the trap of extreme individualism, or self-worship, is ever one of the dangers of social democracy. And as God, religion and traditional morality are pushed to the fringes by socialist revolutionaries and ‘reformers' of every stripe, this new God becomes democracy's natural by-product, indeed, its most distinguishable feature.

One need not be a prophet to perceive that we live in a time when "everyone has [turned] to his own way" to the worship of his own individualistic idols. (1)

We know those idols. They are wealth as ‘the beginning and the end,' higher education, political power, physical pleasure, endless entertainment, incessant idleness, and feral freedom – or that freedom that rejects all laws, religious principles and social customs that rebuke or check self-interest, pride and boundless pleasure.

Collectively, we know these idols as the God of Self, and the central conveyor of its catechism as public education (2), for generally what is taught there advocates just such a god. It is in America's schools and universities that we find ‘feel good' curriculums that focus on promotion rather than performance, condoms rather than chastity, abortion rather than accountability, student choice rather than parental consent.

There we find health professionals who contend that masturbation, premarital sex and homosexuality provide a "normal, healthy" release valve for the constant pressures of peers, parents and puberty.

There we find school psychologists and administrators whose job it is to ensure that those youth engaged in any of the above are never burdened with guilt; and likewise, there we find those who labor to de-fund any club, fire any teacher, ban any book, and scorn as ‘homophobic' any person who contends sex is for husband and wife only, because it might occasion guilt in the transgressor (Heaven forbid!), and intolerance and violence in everyone else.

There we find textbooks that brainwash children into believing that laws which permit the less favored, the careless and the idle to rob the property of the more favored (via government transfers) are ‘just,' because every human being has the right, so they say, to be protected from error and to be shielded from the refiners fire.

There we find children and young adults being taught about a strange kind of equality, one that takes (as but one example) the tried and true equal right for each to express their moral and political views in public, one tyrannical step beyond common sense, to the demand that every man, woman and child's beliefs be treated as equally valid. To put it more bluntly, if such aired beliefs are deemed politically correct, to be preferred and protected, then if not, too bad!

And there we find students encouraged, like the good communists the National Education Association and the ACLU would have them be, to rat on their parents if these parents at any time seem overly restrictive or less than capable of providing for their varied and unlimited wants.

All of this and more our children are taught in nearly all of our state schools and colleges as the natural heritage of democracy, a democracy our forefathers supposedly gave them.

But a democracy – the Founders gave them not. It was a republic. For while a republic reverences self-government within the bounds of fixed and settled laws, applying those laws equally to all; a democracy encourages every man to be a law unto himself, thus pitting every man against the law, every man against his fellow man, every man against his family, and every man against God himself. Every man becoming, by and by, above the law, and a partner to anarchy and anarchy alone.

That is not to say that in the short run, the worship of this ‘God of Democracy' doesn't make a man admirably rugged, self-sufficient, productive and wisely suspicious of centralized control in government – if he and his fellow citizens are well educated and morally grounded from the start – for it may. But what of future generations? What happens when a people are so fiercely independent, so focused on their own rights, their own property, their own prosperity, that they forget God, forget family, forget all the old loyalties, neighborly duties and government limitations? Who then, what then, will guide them and check them in their boundless, silly and selfish pursuit of self?

In 1832, the insightful Alexis de Tocqueville prophetically warned:

[If I were] to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the [Unites States]. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest – his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not – he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of float happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances – what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.

The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till [this] nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. (3)

Did not de Tocqueville hit the nail on the head? Is this not, ironically, where a self-centered interpretation of liberty is taking our nation – on to statism and the weakening of self-will? It is disturbing, then, to be told, not just by socialists on the left, but by many free-market economists and libertarians on the right, that self-interest is the highest, nay, the only moral principle; that Christianity – with all its talk about love of neighbor, and its annoying insistence that a few ‘thou shalt nots' actually belong in the law – impedes our happiness, our liberty, and our prosperity! How can they in good faith teach such a thing? After all, what shall we call a system that democratically defends self-interest in one breath, and makes war on religious principle, moral persuasion and a few good fixed laws in government, in the next breath, other than the rule of the jungle by consent?

And is it not true that traitors, tyrants, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, sycophants, protectionists, and covetous welfare recipient (idlers) all are in pursuit of self-interest as well?

So what is the solution?

Alexis de Tocqueville knew it. The freer a nation, he taught, the more individualism needs to be "combat[ed] by the principle of interest rightly understood," or what was commonly known by our Founders as "enlightened self-interest."

This principle "held as a truth," the Christian dogma, "that man serves himself in serving his fellow creatures, and that his private interest is to do good." Or as Montaigne said long ago: "Were I not to follow the straight road for its straightness, I should follow it for having found by experience that in the end it is commonly the happiest and most useful track." (4)

In such a society, self-interest is realized through virtuous living, and self-interest is kept in check by a common standard of morality and law inspired by the One God of Heaven – a general standard, by which all laws should be judged – a standard by which every human being may know that his liberty goes this far and no further – a standard that reminds us that no man lives in a vacuum, that every choice has a consequence, and that each choice should be tempered with a responsible consideration of the needs and rights of others.

Christ taught that they who seek their lives shall lose it, while they who lose their lives in His service shall find it. (5) True liberty, therefore, can be found only among a people who, by in large, exercise their agency in such a way that ‘number one' is someone other than themselves. Christianity's charge that love of God is best evidenced by love of neighbor (6) is a good practical starting point.
NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, the editor of The Liberty Letters (visit libertyletters.mensnewsdaily.com), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose."

Footnotes

1. The Holy Bible, Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 56:11; Jeremiah 25:6-7; Deuteronomy 5:7-10

2. Inspired by "Humanist Manifesto" author John Dewey, who is considered "the father of progressive education," the model set up as the beau ideal for modern educators by certification boards and the universities that must comply with those boards.

If we expect to understand just what is going wrong with American education, we must begin by understanding what the International Socialist Review said of progressivism in its Summer 1957 republish of a 1939 paper, "The Rise and Fall of Progressivism." Progressivism, they noted, is an attempt "to apply Marxism-Leninism creatively to the problems of American politics."

One must remember, in this regard, that the Leninistic approach to Communism is no less violent and complete in its final goal of tyranny, but that its so-called claim to fame is that it is more futuristic, more third way, more willing to use whatever ploy, whatever short-term measure possible to achieve ultimate victory over the free world than did a Stalin, for instance. It is, supposedly, less reactive and more proactive in doing whatever it takes, by whatever means necessary, in a given situation. It will even boast of being all for democracy, as Marx did, in that it employs numerous "feedback mechanisms" on the local and national level.

Though the feedback may reform (perestroika) the current approach in some way, it must ultimately strengthen it, and there's the catch. However, at times it will go even further and permit dissent, even for extended periods if deemed necessary – or periods of openness (glasnost) – in part to bring secret dissenters comfortably out in the open, and then comes the purge.

Thus, what we foolishly perceive as movement in the direction of freedom, or equal rights, is something far, far different to an ‘in the know' progressive. He has something else in mind.

3. Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," Vol. 2, pp. 332-333 4. Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," Vol. 2, p. 129

5. The Holy Bible, Mark 8:35; Matthew 16:25; Luke 9:24; Luke 17:33; Matthew 10:39

6. The Holy Bible, Mark 22:38-40, Mark 12:30-31

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Things are not always as they seem. Marxism's war on religion presents evidence-a-plenty that this notion is true.

From both the left, in the name of Social Democracy, and from the right, in the name of Secular Government, Marx's Atheistic teammates have pushed, shoved and pressed upon religion in public life until a bipartisan squeeze has effectively crushed what was once publicly pervasive into the less than popular enclave of that which is now publicly suppressed.

Christianity, today, though tarred and feathered, spit upon and lied about, has not given up however, and thanks be to God has begun to grow up, wake up, and in many instances live up to its duty to fight back.

Good news.

But not necessarily good enough – for while many Christians have come to table fully arrayed in the armor of God, with faith and reason, love and patience, perseverance and persistence, moral courage and good works, doing what ever it takes, and then some, to slow, check, and at times, reverse our nation's amoral freefall into possible oblivion; there are other Christians, some of them Christian ministers, sad to say, that are among our worst enemies, whether by intent or not.

They are the sort who, when the going gets tough, look not to themselves or to God, or to both, but to the state to bail them out, or lift them up, or even in fairly good times to move them forward (in their careers), as if God and His congregation, and their own two strong hands aren't good enough to take them where they need to go, to do what they need to do, without a state subsidy, or a dole, or a handout, or a cushy cushion.

That's a problem. For there are also many in the state, or a great number who are vying for power within the state, who are more than willing to oblige whatever beggar comes along in rags or in robes, if it means more votes, more recognition, and for the very few dedicated ideologues among them, an advancement of the ubiquitous revolution of Marx & Lenin.

Enter Compassionate Conservatism, a ‘safe' middle ground approach, call it an ‘inclusive' approach if you will (for it has a little bit of something for everyone), that mixes the best of Communism (come again? – ‘its charitable nature,' they say) with the best of Capitalism (‘its efficiency'); and discards the worst of both (Communism's sluggish bureaucracy; Capitalism's heartlessness; – we lessee-fairists are all ‘dog eat dog Scrooges' you know!), with it seems, this hidden goal, in the short run to exploit yet another group for a few million votes, and in the long run to undermine Christianity.

Mind you, few will see it that way, or plan it that way, some going so far as to actually believe they are doing Christianity a good turn, and serving God in the process. It matters not. Results are results. If you plant nothing but a stinking dead fish in the soil, you're not going to produce golden ears of corn. Socialism is socialism is socialism, even when the smiling socialists sell wings, halos, hymnals, and harps, and read "Christianity Today" in their leisure.

The ‘New' Strategy

The new strategy is essentially an old one (as most new strategies are), excavated and resurrected by the Monks of the Third Way (Compassionate Conservatism's 1990's forerunner). It goes something like this:

‘If you can't beat them, join them.' Better yet, tweak that; throw in for good measure, ‘If you can't beat them, cajole them, bribe them, promise them, pray with them, sing Hallelujah with them, and finally say unto them whatever they want to hear so long as they vote for you, and join hands with you in a prayer for sweet, compassionate Uncle Leviathan.

It's just socialism with a progressive, twist mind you. Nothing to fear.

And it's bound to work. In fact, it IS working.

The Sales Pitch

To purchase the national soul – even with something so delicious as a free lunch – requires considerable skill, and an A-1 sales pitch. Compassionate Conservatism has one. Here it is: ‘We like you. We trust you. You're the backbone of our country, the first line of our defense, the traditional source of welfare to our poor. And, you know, we say this from our heart of hearts, you did it better than the federal government ever did back in the old days, through volunteerism, through a faith-based approach, through genuine love. You know this is true. So do we.

‘Times have changed, however. Not as many people contribute to private charities as in the past. It's a shame. We know you're struggling, and could use a little help.

‘On the other hand, times have changed with the federal government as well. We've grown too large, too impersonal, too inflexible for this business of helping people. It's made many Americans cynical about government welfare programs. I can't blame them. We need to fix welfare. We need your help too.

‘There are just some things that you do, that we could never do, that personal touch, that local, close to the problem, common sense solution, and the ability to not only feed the stomach, but heal the soul.

‘Nevertheless, while we're not very good at that – it's not our job! – there are things we do, do better. Like ‘raise' money, provide organizational skills, and tap into a vast network or ‘advisors' and ‘experts' who have seen what has and has not worked.

‘Maybe now you're seeing what I'm seeing. It's becoming increasingly clear that we need each other, that it's time to put away old ideas of how things work, that it's for the government to stop thinking its job is to hinder the church and it's time for the church to stop thinking its job is to fear the government. We can work together and make for better times and a better America than we've ever seen before. We'll give you the tools you need to succeed with your mission. In turn, you'll provide the personal touch, ingenuity, and faith, to help us better fulfill our mission. Thus, by our meeting half way between private and public, between too little government and too much government we can prove to the world for the first time in history that government can be the friend of all, and the enemy of none.'

Somebody hand me an American flag and a Holy Bible; I'm feeling patriotic and religious all at the same time!

The Lure

The pitch is obviously a good one, ‘we've finally wised up, we need each other, so let's be partners with well defined roles. We'll do what we do best. You'll do what you do best. That ever unreachable Utopia is finally within our grasp.'

Yet, there's still something suspicious about this for many, something eerily dangerous about combining God and Mammon even when the message and its messenger is a smooth one.

We need a big prize to lure in Peter's big fish, and his myriad schools of little fish. The lure is quite familiar, as well. Tried and tested. Dyed in the wool – with a new twist: An assortment of bribes and bridges to the ‘needy,' though the needy are not your typical pack of peasants from the past, rather they are now churches, charities, private schools, state and city governments, corporations, and ordinary, run-of-the-mill, hard working – but tight on funds – groups and individuals, to include parents fed up with the quality of the schools they send their kids too. You know, the ‘working poor,' or the ‘worthy poor'; or the otherwise economically strapped through no fault of their own, poor – big time businesses included, who because they employ ‘the working poor,' can't be permitted to fail, lest we all fail.

And so what could be a better solution, a more laudable solution, a more American solution then a kind, gentle, and prosperous benefactor to unload an array of ‘free' goodies, with this intent only, to lend a ‘helping' hand to the backbone of America, to ‘help' them help themselves, and in turn, ‘help' their neighbor, and ‘help' America?

Sign me up! I'm standing at attention! The Stars and Stripes march again! The state has returned to its roots, with a fresh, smart, intelligent, progressive 21st Century approach! Hurray!

Remember, we are not talking about food stamps for the slothful, medical coverage for illegal aliens, soup kitchens or free housing for dead beats derelicts (though mind you, none of these programs are going away). No, just a Santa Claus-like list of ‘free' facilities, ‘free' text books, ‘free' teachers, ‘free' police officers, ‘free' training, and ‘free' schools for those who will make good use of them, in fact better use of them then the federal government ever could.

And regarding the schools, the benevolent benefactor, who will insure ‘no child is left behind,' permits parents to take their pick between charter, Christian, or secular private schools – after all, this newly enlightened benefactor believes in defending our right to ‘free' choice, and well, competitive markets even in public institutions.

A mixture of compassion and competitive markets is what it's all about. Balance, balance, finally some balance.

A Sure Sale

Let's admit it. This was a brilliant stroke. Offer to ‘save' those in the private sector still struggling upward against the disastrous effects of socialism, by inviting them to stop fighting socialism by partaking of the spoils themselves, of course, being ever careful not to state it quite so bluntly. Yet come on, think about it. What could be smarter? As the noose tightens around the neck of each newly dependent pastor, parent, professional, and private administrator, each will be equally wrapped up in gratitude that the rope was ‘free;' their captors, compassionate; and the program vaguely capitalistic.

The Moral Premises of Compassionate Conservatism – Just in Case

Still, even with such a good pitch, and such shiny lures, not every fish in the sea snaps at the first sight of the lure. Besides, men are not fish. Men think! Men have principles! And well, beyond that, getting back to the thinking idea, some men think harder than others. There is a class of this sort. We call them, or wait a minute, they call themselves ‘the intellectuals.' Money matters little to them. Influence and praise do. They love to be flattered, love to have their ears tickled, and love to have politicians pay them public homage.

So for them a confession of sensible premises, a creed, if you will, is presented at the alter as an intellectual offering. With words like these, they pray:

Private enterprise, private charity, and local decision making is best, and when complimented by civic virtue, collectively represent the foundation stone of America's success story. Amen. Private citizens and private corporations in the interest of human progress ought to be free to pursue their economic, educational, and moral affairs with relatively few fetters placed upon them by government. Amen

Freedom, however, requires responsibility. Amen.

Therefore, all private citizens, corporations, and churches are bound to exercise their liberties without infringing upon the rights of others. Amen and Amen.

So far, so conservative, so sensible, and so Very Holy. Who could object? The intellectual conservative's ears are tickled. Homage to their god is paid. But here the homage ends. Buyer Beware!

Conservative, Christian, Jew, Entrepreneur, Parent, State and Local Government beware! ‘Freedom,' says the Compassionate Conservative, ‘also requires another type of responsibility, thus:

All private citizens and corporations are not only bound by right-protecting negative laws, ‘the thou shalt nots,' but are likewise expected to perform certain good deeds, ‘the thou shalts' or positive laws, for in behalf of their neighbors, their community, and their nation.

Compassionate Conservatism calls this civic duty, or more hauntingly as is done at the U.N., in Russia, and in China, this is about ‘civil society.' And while the duty to do good and to be civil sounds somewhat like the Christian call to service, or early America's plea for civic virtue, it is neither, for there are two key differences:

1. Civic virtue and Christian religion persuade. Civil society and Compassionate Conservatism demand. 2. Civic virtue and Christianity look to the Sermon on the Mount. Civil society and Compassionate Conservatism looks to the harangues of Karl Marx.

Not surprisingly, Compassionate Conservatism, for all its trust in the individual and the local decision-maker, possesses an intrinsic distrust for human agency. It is not willing to let go and trust man to serve man. It feels compelled to intervene and make up for man's moral shortcomings. Liberty must be ‘coached,' charity must be subsidized. And virtue, trouble abounds there. For one virtue above all others must be instilled in us by them, ‘tolerance, tolerance, and more tolerance!' Tolerance is the code word of all code words in this faith, and suffice it to say Compassionate Conservatism's, Third Way definition of tolerance is not the rational Biblical one which teaches us to "hate the sin but love the sinner," but the fanatical Marxist one which censures those who would dare to call sin, ‘sin.'

This new brand of tolerance legalizes debauchery in favor of social progress, and demonizes orthodox religion in favor of social solidarity.

Compassionate Conservatism, therefore, in substance is destined to be cruel and despotic. It preaches life, but denounces "litmus tests.' It preaches love of neighbor, but steals from the rich to give to the poor. It praises private industry, but sends them subsidies and ‘advisors.' It defends free markets, but erects elaborate regional regulatory schemes. It claims that we need more local government, but labors for the new world order. It cries for greater accountability, but outlaws negative campaign speech. And it clamors for Democracy, but demands that citizens ‘Shut up and vote!' as they now do in Canada.

As for the truly poor or handicapped, those who socialists have coddled and crippled for generations, they are stuck now as young single mothers, unprepared to face the world, simultaneously charged by Compassionate Conservatives to choose between the communist obligation to work, and the parens patria mandate to watch over their children.

Welfare will still be available, but short lived. Reliance on self and family will be encouraged, but monitored. If the mother fails, Third Way Compassionate ‘Boy's Towns' have been suggested, which will scoop up either the hungry or the neglected children left behind. The state, therefore, wins the prize it forever coveted. Such is compassionate reform. Mother works for the state, the child, by and by is owned by the state.

Claims, Claims, Claims

Third Way Compassionate Conservatism claims to deeply believe that re-enthroning private enterprise, private charity, local decision making, and civil society are noteworthy long term goals.

But there is a catch. In the short run Compassionate Conservatism believes that we must first work with things as they are, not as we wish them to be. Thus, their solution is for the federal Government to stimulate that which is private and that which is local back to life through the ‘compassion' of federal block grants, federal advisors, and federal government private partnerships. (1)

These grants, advisors, and partnerships are to be directed to everything private and everything local to help people help themselves, as already noted, with one whopper of a promise: They will ‘forever only help, and ‘forever only advise.'

Time to Think Clearly

You don't say. Are we honestly supposed to believe that purse strings are not purse strings? There's a cloud-cuckoo-land theory for you! But history, common sense, and the law counter with fact, logic, and precedent, that ‘purse strings have been, are now, and always will be purse strings!'

How could we forget that one of the very things Compassionate Conservatism sets its eye on – saving education – was subverted by the very same kinds of federal aid programs designed back in the 1960's for the ‘poorest of the poor, in the poorest of the poorest schools,' with the very same promise, to ‘not control, but only aid' state and local schools in their compassionate duty?

We should not forget. We should remember.

We should remember the 1963 Supreme Court decisions of Engel v. Vitale, and Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schemp got away with banning God, the Bible, virtue, and the religious side of U.S. history from the public classroom, because federal aid to those same schools gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court exercised that jurisdiction.

We should remember, the U.S. president at the time defended these same two decisions, using a line of rationale Compassionate Conservatism blindly ignores: "That which the government subsidizes, it has the right to control."

It has. It does. And it will.

What responsible parent would not do the same? Money parents pay out to dependent children is not given without terms, limits, and a checkup system in place. Parents ‘trust, but they verify.' All worthy stewards do. The state will do the same; you can count on it. Could any point of history, law, and common sense be clearer?

The Predictable Result

Alexander Hamilton warned 213 years ago: "Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid." (2)

It is common sense. For any of us to believe otherwise is to miss the mark with religion in public life, to vainly imagine in our hearts that the road to the New Jerusalem is paved in federal green. Let it be known from this moment forward, such a one who believes in this, has abandoned all logic, reason, historical sense and faith for a horde of emotion, irrationality, speculation, and superstition.

Doles undermine free agency, and are paid for via legal theft. Thus, Compassionate Conservatism – that name shifter of Third Way, Futurism, even progressive Marxist-Leninism roots – is not conservative and is not compassionate. It is but the latest in a series of schemes designed to derail the last remnants of true conservatism and true compassion. If we are then to stand by America and stand by our religions, whatever they may be, we ought to reject Compassionate Conservatism and its state appointed, state subsidized, and state dependent ministers with all the energy of our souls.

Footnotes

1. This idea of government private partnerships was one of the leading proposals by Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes in his "The Death of Lessee-Faire."

2. Madison, James. "The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787," Friday, June 22, 1787, Alexander Hamilton speaking.

MensNewsDaily.com contributor Steve Farrell is a pundit with NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, editor of the Liberty Letters, and the author of the inspirational novel, "Dark Rose."

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell