| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 49° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
May 25, 2005
Battle of our principles
Because so many seem not to understand the full implications of the current debate raging in the U.S. Senate, it may be time to provide some perspective on the difference in values of the opposing sides. They are substantial and irreconcilable because they are opposite views of the nature of the human condition. To understand why Senators Durbin, Reid, Leahy, Kennedy, and Daschle chose to create an artificial constitutional crisis to prevent any originalists from being appointed to federal appeals courts, it must be accepted that the nominees are not opposed because of a lack of qualifications or intellect. Rather, it is because they choose not to blind themselves to reality. Here's an example of what infuriates liberals. Writing some 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is the road to serfdom. He was right of course, but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Mid-western farmers and militant senior citizens. It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse, whether you call it socialism, communism or altruism, has changed not only the meaning of our words, but also the meaning of our Constitution, and the character of our people. Government is the only enterprise in the world that expands in size when its failures increase. Ayn Rand similarly attributes the collectivist impulse to what she calls the tribal view of man. She notes: The American philosophy of the Rights of Man was never fully grasped by European intellectuals. Europe's predominant idea of emancipation consisted of changing the concept of man as a slave to the absolute state embodied by the king, to the concept of man as the slave of the absolute state as embodied by the people; i.e., switching from slavery to tribal chieftain into slavery to the tribe. Socialism concentrated all the wealth in the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice; reduced peoples to misery in the name of shared resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created the modern world's most un-egalitarian societies in the name of equality, the largest network of concentration camps ever built for the defense of liberty. Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture, which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. The foregoing were excerpts from a speech given by Janice Rogers Brown, Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court and one of the judges so adamantly opposed by Democrats in the Senate. These words and her renunciation of the policies of the New Deal and Great Society have eclipsed her top rating by the American Bar and Jurist Associations. Not even being a black woman re-elected to the California Supreme Court by a huge majority will deter the opposition from branding her as extremist. This should have been anticipated since the last conservative black jurist appointed to the Supreme Court has been personally attacked and belittled endlessly for his "extremist" views. Those attacking Justice Clarence Thomas never, and I repeat never, use his legal opinions to denounce him. Senator Reid tried to say he thought his opinions were stupid, but had to retract those ill-advised comments after admitting he had never actually read any of them. Therein lies the heart of the matter. This entire debate is a fabrication of issues by minds trained to legally confuse anyone who hears them. What they have all lost sight of is who they are supposed to be representing in this trial of the millennium. They were not elected to protect the government and all its programs, or the bureaucracy that keeps it growing, but the liberties and private property rights of the people. Regretfully, it appears some have forgotten their duty and oath. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
