"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the councils of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Edmund Burke, a British Member of Parliament during the period of the American Revolution, said this. His observation frames perfectly the battle between conservatives and liberals in America today.
I submit as both praise and condemnation of conservative thought, those who inhabit the spectrum of conservative thought begin with the premise that government, in all forms (except, perhaps, a theocracy), is bad, ruinous, tyrannical in nature, doomed and designed to rob from man individual rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Praise be owed to the conservative thinkers out there who seek to defend the rights of individuals to choose their own futures, their own fortunes, and, in some cases, their own failures. As French President Sarkozy reminded Americans during his speech before Congress (Nov. 7, 2007), in America "the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent. America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance." This first and rare second chance at success is due much to those conservative thinkers who seek to protect the right of the individual to pursue his own dreams unfettered.
Condemnation also be owed to those in that school of thought who are so reluctant to give up any rights owed to the individual, that they ignore the realities of the unchecked "men of intemperate minds" (Burke). To paraphrase slightly our English friend Mr. Burke, "It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that when morons repeatedly speed recklessly through a school zone, the government must write a law, hire cops, patrol streets, levy fines, employ a legal system with clerks, lawyers, bailiffs, judges, and restrict the freedom of not only said moron (with tickets, revocation of drivers license, and/or jail time), but also everyone else who might want to drive over 15 mph in a school zone...during the summer, when no children are in sight. This all paid for by money that was taxed from my wallet."
I submit as both praise and condemnation of liberal thought, those who inhabit the spectrum of liberal thought begin with the premise that government is an equal, if not better, tool of restraining appetites and passions than self-imposed discipline.
Praise goes to the liberal-minded thinker who recognizes the need for government to act as a check to men who do not put chains on their own appetites. Those who recognize that while the freedom of speech is dear, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is probably something government should seek to prohibit; that while the right to bear arms is indeed an individual right, lunatics and criminals (felons) should be prohibited from possessing such (however feeble it may seem to actually enforce these laws).
Condemnation goes also to the liberal-minded thinker who view government in all its blessed largesse as the answer to all of society's problems. If they're unemployed, give them money (as if the possession of money is the answer; "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish"); or, perhaps, making traffic move at 15 mph (on all roads) so as to prevent any chance of a fatal collision.
All told, however, few conservatives and few liberals are truly deserving of condemnation for their philosophy's sins because, for the most part, most conservatives allow and recognize the need to put SOME restraints on personal liberties for the good of the whole; and most liberals also recognize that simply giving things away and regulating individual liberties does not often (or ever) solve the underlying problem.
No, we who wander somewhere in what I call "The Realm of Reason" recognize that with the shifting character of the American citizen comes the need to adapt the government in order for society to exist (again, see Burke). Burke clearly defines the formula that balances the ability of man to restrain his own passions (exercise responsibility) with the need for government to do it for him. Without which, society cannot function.
We (huggers of the middle ground - both moderate conservatives and moderate liberals) are not deserving of the condemnation described above. That condemnation is laid squarely at the feet of the absolutist conservatives and liberals. Those who have departed from rational discussion on any issue brought before them (that, in the case of absolutist conservatives, would limit, in any way, individual liberty; or, in the case of absolutist liberals, leap at every opportunity to lunge government into every facet of our lives); these are they who deserve condemnation, for they are those who depart from "The Realm of Reason."
We must guard against these people. Observed Jay Winik, "In the vortex of this debate, once the battle lines were sharply drawn, moderate ground everywhere became hostage to the passions of the two sides. Reason itself had become suspect; mutual tolerance was seen as treachery. Vitriol overcame accommodation." This was written in the beginning pages of his book on the Civil War. (Winik thoroughly demonstrated, by the way, that it was Lincoln, REMAINING IN THE MIDDLE - and earning the scorn of nearly everybody - who kept this country together.) Those who hold the sentiments of vitriol and suspicion for those who have differing opinions (conservatives vs. liberal), are those who can bring us down. These are they who deserve condemnation.
With Burke's remark, then, we see a moral imperative. Man (and women, my dear ladies who are reading this) must be responsible. As Mr. Sarkozy suggested, "America's strength is not only material strength, it is first and foremost a spiritual and moral strength." Morals place chains on our passions. Morals teach us (as individuals) to help the poor so that government doesn't have to. Morals teach us to to be sober of mind, not reckless in deed, etc.
Morals also teach us that work is good, and sloth is not. Merely thinking moral thoughts is not enough. For those of us who squat in the middle ground (both conservatives and liberals), who look at the nutjobs not only on the other side, but also on our own side, and do nothing other than silently condemn them - we, too, are guilty of something. We are guilty of sloth. We are guilty of allowing the lunatics run the asylum.
The politicians who pander to the lunatics in their party (even if only in word, and not in deed) do it because those lunatics are generally the only people who donate to campaigns, volunteer to knock on doors, show up at rallies, spend time stuffing envelopes, making phone calls, and posting yard signs.
__________________________________
The Point (a few):
1) be responsible, so government doesn't have to do it for you (and thereby rob you of your freedoms).
2) be reasonable and respectful of those who are on the other side of the spectrum; they, like you, are helping to keep Edmund Burke's balance.
3) fight the lunatics on your side, and on the other side, by getting involved. Volunteer to make a few phone calls on behalf of a candidate (or cause) that resides within "The Realm of Reason." Don't allow the rare Lincolns of the world be viciously attacked from both sides because you won't speak up and do.
No comments:
Post a Comment