Progressivism and Relativism

The subtitle to this blog reads "A look into the heart of political philosophy" and that is what I would like to do. I know that not everyone looks at politics in the way I am going to outline, but I think it is important. There are deep philosophical assumptions that lay the foundations of both conservatism and liberalism. If we don't understand these roots, we won't really understand what means to be a conservative or a liberal, and furthermore we won't understand where these political philosophies will ultimately lead us.

Put as simply as I know how, liberalism is rooted in progressivism which is rooted in relativism. Relativism denies absolute truth which therefore makes it the enemy of all religion. Our founding fathers explicitly stated that religion was absolutely necessary to the success of this country. Following this train of thought, one can only conclude that liberalism, left unchecked, will ultimately destroy this country.

Let me explain. Modern liberalism is a branch of progressivism. Progressivism believes that a society can only improve by evolving and changing into something better. This has nothing to do with productivity and technology. Instead, it refers to economic policy, morality, political structure, and the definition of rights. It defines successful progress based on equality of outcome and not on equality of opportunity. It for this reason that collectivism and progressivism go hand in hand. The only way to improve our society is to make everyone equal, regardless of individual input. The individual is second to the collective, and therefore individual rights may be sacrificed for the greater good. It is easy to understand why the extreme version of liberalism is socialism. Progressivism ascertains that change is inevitably a good thing and that the "old" ways of doing things go quickly out of date and become detrimental to the development of a society.

All of these philosophies require a fundamental belief in relativism. Relativism proclaims that there is no absolute right and wrong. Instead, right and wrong must always be framed in the context of a specific perspective and in a specific time. What's right for you may not be right for me. And what was right for me yesterday may not be right for me tomorrow. The obvious danger of this is that we are all left to make up our own rules. This is why liberalism constantly challenges the moral status quo and even supports the moral decay of our society. Since everything is relative, we can't look to the past for any sort of guidance and we certainly can't encourage any one particular brand of morality. With relativism, we must simply live in the moment and tackle today's problems with whatever feels right today.

Now, it doesn't matter which religion you are associated with, if you are religious in any way, shape, or form you are immediately offended by such thinking. Our founding fathers understood that religion would be the glue that holds our society together because there is an absolute right and wrong. And even if you don't believe in any religion, there is an undeniable natural law that holds everything together. Nature teaches us that there are consequences to every action and that those consequences are universal. Gravity works the same for every person, from every perspective, and across all time. Shouldn't that mean something to us?

I believe I have sufficiently digressed into the realms of philosophical thought that it is time to sum things up in terms that relate to the real world. You see, the beauty of conservatism is that it is so simple. It is founded on principles and values that are held as self-evident and universal. It Is rooted in natural law and a belief in an absolute right and wrong. Change is not always a good thing, and progress doesn't always mean improvement. The individual will always be more important than the collective.

Conservatism is the belief that our founding fathers got it right, and that to stray from what they established will inevitably destroy what they built. I truly believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans are conservative in they way the live their lives, in the fundamental political and social philosophies that they subscribe to, and in the principles and values that they hold dear. Unfortunately, too many have been successful tricked by a power hungry government and a corrupted media.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798

Torture and Waterboarding

This is one hot topic. It seems like everyone wants to chime in, so of course I will too. There are so many problems with this debate that it is hard to know where to start. First, is the problem of defining torture. Second, is defining the rationale behind these interrogation techniques. Is the only question really whether or not we extracted useful information from suspected terrorists? Finally, we are seeing a fundamental debate whether or not constitutional privileges should be extended to non-US citizens. Of course, the main stream media sets the premise of the debate, as they always do, as if some of these issues are not debatable. I disagree.

When you imagine some of the most horrific means of torture human beings have been subjected to, ask yourself these questions- is it possible to to endure any of them without long-term physical repercussions? It it possible to endure any of them repeatedly without dying? Most probably the answer is no.

Encarta dictionary defines torture as the "infliction of extreme physical pain." The issue with waterboarding, and other similar techniques, is that there is no extreme physical pain nor lasting damage. They are, in fact, means of inflicting psychological pain rather than physical pain. Reports of suspected terrorists being waterboarded several times a day for weeks on end (and living to tell about it) proves that it really isn't dangerous nor fall under the text book definition of torture. I argue, therefore, that waterboarding is not torture in the terms that were enunciated by our founding fathers. Surely, having tasted the brutality of the British Empire, they understood real torture in a way that we can only imagine. I even think they would laugh at the idea of waterboarding being torture.

The FBI and the CIA seem to contradict each other in terms of the effectiveness of waterboarding. The question of whether or not we are getting good information through the implication of these techniques is important and should be asked. I argue, however, that we should be asking more. Every manager knows that sometimes you have to fire an employee for even a small infraction in order to send an important message to his/her organization. What type of message do we want to send to people all over the world who would seek to destroy us? These people would kill our friends, our spouses, and even our children if they had the chance. When they watch us debate over whether or not splashing water in their faces is OK, I think they too must be laughing at us. They wouldn't hesitate for a second to cut our heads off if they could. And they have, at least to our brave soldiers.

Finally, are we obligated to offer constitutional privileges to every human being on the planet? I don't think so. Here is my reasoning. The United States stands as a beacon of hope to the world and an example to all other nations. Since this country was formed, we have extended welcoming arms to people everywhere. We ask very little from those who seek our country to provide a better life for their families. We ask that they learn English, that they be prepared to work hard and embrace our values, and that they enter this country legally. And by doing so we seek to extend our constitutional privileges to everyone, but those privileges have always come with a price. What rights do those who have done nothing to earn those privileges, and in fact seek to destroy those very privileges for the rest of have? None. It seems to me that those who believe that breaking the law is the same as trying to destroy the institution that creates the law are very naive.

In short, I don't have a problem with waterboarding. I know there are those who think we should all experience it before we say that, but here is the thing: I am not a suspected terrorist involved with evil organizations. Have we ever asked those who support capital punishment to experience it themselves? Do we force supporters of new prisons to spend a few years in jail? No! So don't be ridiculous. It is so easy for some to stand up and proclaim moral superiority by attacking the people who try to make us safe, but when that day comes that we have legitimate evidence that the next September 11 is on the verge of happening and we have in custody someone with suspected information, what wouldn't you do to get that information? It's time we start using some common sense.

Founding Father quote of the day

The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.

George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

Debate and Respect

What type of country are we turning America into when we refuse to civilly tolerate disagreeing opinions? How long can we give any validation to people who claim to fight for what they perceive as tolerance when they openly and spitefully hate those with opposing viewpoints? The notion that you can fight intolerance with intolerance is about a juvenile as Kindergarten.

What the media has allowed to happen to Miss California is so amazingly appalling that I have been left literally speechless. And that does not happen very often. The sad thing of it all is that they so completely misunderstand why Miss California (and the majority of Americans) believe in traditional marriage. For those of us who believe that marriage should be between a man and women, it has everything to do with principle. It is about preserving the institution of marriage and the sanctity thereof, and has absolutely nothing to do with gay people. It isn't about hating anyone or denying anyone rights. In fact, we don't believe that marriage is a right at all, rather that it is a supreme privilege.

Of course, those who disagree turn it completely personal. To them, it all about hate, bigotry, and some type of vendetta. And because they refuse to meet us on the same intellectual playing field, they will never understand why we believe what we believe. So while they preach tolerance out of one corner of their mouths, they spit hate out of the other. Of course, the main stream media plays right along and intentionally lets them misrepresent our position. Oh, and is there any wonder that so many main stream news sources are tanking right now?

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, and from what Miss California has said neither does she. What I do have a problem with is when other people establish inaccurate premises which put forth untrue assumptions about what I believe, think, or feel. These types of debates are pointless and destructive. Americans have to rise above this. Our founding fathers fought tooth and nail against one another, but they understood that they were fighting on the same side. Their debates were intellectual, intelligent, and philosophical. They weren't personal, slanderous, and petty.

The example with Miss California simply highlights one of the most hypocritical hallmarks of liberalism. With liberals, you can believe in whatever you want, but if you disagree with them then you are immediately a hateful bigot (and probably insane). You can say whatever you want, but if you aren't politically correct then you are an insensitive pig. You can do whatever you want, but if you aren't environmentally conscious, then you are an irresponsible killer. Being bi-partisan means agreeing with them and being tolerant means accepting their viewpoints. They tote democracy, but leave no room for any debate.

There seems to be a serious lack of respect in this country, and the truth is that it comes primarily from the left. Go listen to what Miss California said. She said she glad she lived in a country where we can have our own opinions, she asked for forgiveness from those who would be offended by her opinion, and she honestly and sincerely stated what she personally believed. There was no hate, no intolerance, and no evil in her answer to that question. Now, go listen to Perez Hilton and others call her a stupid b***, degrade her physical appearance, and say other things that are so offensive that I won't even elude to them. The only good thing to come from this is that these hateful gay activists are shooting themselves in the foot. No one feels any sort of sympathy for them or their cause after hearing their terrible comments. And quite frankly, no one should.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin (attributed), at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776