Silence Dogood Wire

Immediately after President Trump broke the left’s stranglehold over the judiciary, prominent Democrats began warning against the dangers of a conservative Supreme Court. Shortly before the Dobbs decision Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that the Supreme Court is “dangerous to families and to freedoms in our country.” However, such criticisms were heard well before the Justices decided to overturn Roe v. Wade. During the 2020 election, for example, then-candidate Biden refused to disavow court packing. Indeed, were they in the majority, Democrats would have no scruples about permanently altering the balance of power in this country. 

A common critique leveled against the Justices is that they are supposedly radical conservatives. This is an odd criticism given that the Supreme Court was clearly liberal for the past 60 years. In the eyes of the left, however, judicial decisions are nothing more than an extension of one’s ideology. They see justices as issuing opinions, purely based on their liberal or conservative leanings. Thus, when a Justice doesn’t adhere to left-liberal orthodoxies, leftists seek to use their political power in order to intimidate and alter the Court. However, a more helpful framework for examining the Supreme Court comes from judicial philosophy rather than political ideology. 

Judges who are labelled conservative typically adhere to the philosophy known as Originalism. Indeed, every “conservative” Supreme Court Justice is an Originalist. Judges who subscribe to the Originalist method of Constitutional interpretation generally attempt to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, the theory’s most famous proponent, argued that “that the provisions of the Constitution have a fixed meaning, which does not change (except by constitutional amendment): they mean today what they meant when they were adopted, nothing more and nothing less.” Thus, Scalia believed that the individual whims of judges should be as limited as possible. Rather than altering the law to fit their own personal convictions, Originalists seek to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution. For this reason Justice Scalia once said that “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” 

Hence, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was not made because the Justices are all conservative Catholics who morally oppose abortion (although this may be true). Rather, the Court held that the Constitution never included a right to abortion. The majority opinion demonstrated that “[f]or the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.” The Justices came to the obvious conclusion that the Constitution never enshrined a right to abortion.

Anyone who reads the Constitution with a shred of intellectual integrity could come to this conclusion. Indeed, even those who hope to legalize abortion should recognize that the Constitution says nothing about the issue.

Far from arbitrarily implementing their own views, the Originalist Justices sought to uphold the rule of law by adhering to the original meaning of the Constitution.

On the other side, however, liberal Justices are clearly engaged in a project of ideological change. These judges reject Originalism and are broadly grouped as Living Constitutionalists. Although Living Constitutionalists come in different varieties, they all argue that the Constitution changes over time. Thus, a Constitutional provision that means one thing today can mean another tomorrow.

Professors and judges often couch this view in poetic jargon to make it more palatable. While arguing against Scalia, for example, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, said that “‘the Constitution’ speaks across the generations, projecting a set of messages undergoing episodic revisions that reverberate backward as well as forward in time.” While amendments may alter the Constitution, it certainly does not project alternative “messages” that “reverberate.” 

Living Constitutionalism opens the door to rampant bias because judges inevitably interpret the Constitution as changing in a manner that fits their ideological preferences. Thus, liberal judges always argue that the Constitution becomes more liberal over time. Living Constitutionalism destroys the rule of law by giving precedence to the will of judges over the actual meaning of the Constitution. 

Indeed, a brief survey of the judicial landscape demonstrates that leftists project their own pathologies onto the Supreme Court. For the last 60 years, liberal Justices have placed their own priorities above the law. The “conservative” justices are merely reversing this trend.

Oftentimes, academics couch their novel theories in sophisticated language and vague examples to make their ideas more palatable. This is nowhere more apparent than in the field of constitutional interpretation. 

For most of American history judges were supposed to merely interpret the law, rather than provide their personal opinions. When describing the judicial system in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton distinguished the Supreme Court from other branches of government; “It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment…” The judiciary can neither make new legislation nor enforce its decisions. Thus, it must adhere to the letter of the law in order to perform its function well.

In England, 18th century jurists also advised judges to defer to the law, rather than their personal wishes. Sir William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England had a tremendous influence on the Founders as well as the development of American law, stated that “it is an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same point comes again in litigation: as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion; as also because the law…is now become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to alter or vary according to his private judgment or sentiment.” Because England has no written Constitution, Blackstone’s conception of the law is somewhat different from ours. He stresses, however, that personal beliefs should not factor into a judge’s legal decision.

Sir Edward Coke, whose image graces the doors of our Supreme Court, made similar observations over a century before Blackstone. In a passage of his reports, he includes a phrase in Latin which translates to “It is better to judge according to the letter of the law than according to one’s own knowledge and feeling. Ignorance in a judge is a great mischief to the innocent” (trans. Sheppard). Hence, judges who misinterpret the law to fulfill their own wishes do a disservice to their profession.

In contemporary times, the inheritors of this restrained judicial tradition go by the name of Originalists. The doctrine of Originalism was perhaps most successfully expounded by the late Justice Antonin Scalia who argued that judges should interpret the Constitution in light of its original meaning. He once said that “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” Justices are not meant to tell us what they want the Constitution to say but merely what it does say. According to Scalia, Originalists essentially “believe that the provisions of the Constitution have a fixed meaning, which does not change (except by constitutional amendment): they mean today what they meant when they were adopted, nothing more and nothing less.” Such notions are quite straightforward and common-sense.

Originalism is the doctrine that most of the “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court subscribe to. Far from promoting their personal politics these justices merely interpret the original meaning of the Constitution (which happens to be too conservative for many people).

It is a testament to the success of originalism that those who oppose it are broadly grouped as Living Constitutionalists. Although they come in different varieties, they all argue that the Constitution changes over time. Apparently, the laws have a way of becoming more favorable to the left as time passes. Such a view is often expressed with the obscurity and pseudo-profundity of an academic. While arguing against Scalia, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, said that “‘the Constitution’ speaks across the generations, projecting a set of messages undergoing episodic revisions that reverberate backward as well as forward in time.” While amendments may alter the Constitution, it does not project alternative “messages” that “reverberate.” In seeking to alter original meanings, Tribe, like so many others, has recourse to poetic jargon.

Fortunately, these seemingly dry academic debates are brought out into the open during actual cases. We are able to see judges using particular theoretical frameworks and how their judicial philosophies influence decision-making. United States v. Jonathan Skrmetti provides a perfect opportunity to see how anything other than Originalism leads to absurdities.

This case, which is currently being litigated, will determine whether or not Tennessee’s law against child transgender surgeries and hormone use is unconstitutional. During the oral arguments, the non-originalist Justice Sotomayor interjected when the Tennessee Solicitor General claimed that transgender treatment causes harm by saying “I’m sorry, counselor, every medical treatment has a risk. Even taking aspirin.” It appears that Justice Sotomayor is so desperate to follow her personal whims, that she is willing to compare deliberate mutilation to taking aspirin. 

Similarly, the newest member of the Court, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson compared banning transgender surgeries to outlawing interracial marriage. She claimed that arguments in favor of Tennessee’s law “sound in the same kinds of arguments that were made back in the day, 50’s and 60’s, with respect to racial classifications and inconsistencies. I’m thinking in particular about Loving, and I’m wondering if you’ve thought about the parallels…as to how this statute operates and how the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia operated.” It is Justice Jackson’s willingness to place her own convictions above the law that led her to make such a plainly absurd statement. To a clear thinker, racial discrimination has nothing to do with preventing the sterilization of children. Rather than interpreting the text of the Fourteenth Amendment as it was originally intended Justice Jackson hopes to distort it in order to benefit her ideological allies. 

When reading these arguments one is exposed to the intellectual bankruptcy of Living Constitutionalism. Rather than adhering to the letter of the law, leftist judges prefer to force their own will upon the American people. But as Hamilton said, they are supposed to “have neither FORCE nor WILL.”

It is fitting to end with a quote contained in Sir Edward Coke’s Reports: “Meanwhile, farewell Reader; and remember that whoever mocks the genuine sense and force of any law, by scheming or craftiness, is to be considered a violator of the law” (trans. Sheppard).

Most people with a basic understanding of economics recognize that tariffs raise the price of goods and inhibit international commerce. If the government taxes goods, at least some of the cost is passed onto consumers. Furthermore, exorbitant tariffs can raise the price of goods to a height that makes it disadvantageous to produce them in another country.

For centuries, astute political and economic observers have demonstrated the economic downsides of tariffs. The famous 18th century jurist, Sir William Blackstone, described the effects of import duties on the English consumers: “These customs are…a tax immediately paid by the merchant, although ultimately by the consumer.” In order to make up for tariffs, importers raise their prices. Consequently, Blackstone argued that  “these imposts, if too heavy, are a check and cramp upon trade; and especially when the value of the commodity bears little or no proportion to the quantity of the duty imposed.” Thus, tariffs tend to be economically inefficient. They inhibit trade and raise prices. This does not, however, mean that tariffs are entirely negative. In Blackstone’s day, for example, they provided necessary revenue to the crown. 

In our neo-liberal era, however, elite economists and politicians all but abandoned the use of tariffs. These taxes were viewed as antiquated inhibitors to the workings of the global market. In the age of free-trade conservatives welcomed the resultant increase in commerce and liberals embraced the new era of globalization. Thus, President Trump’s support for tariffs was met with skepticism by individuals of all political backgrounds. When he announced his plans, mainstream media outlets eagerly pointed out that such a move would cause higher prices. Conservatives, on the other hand, assured their liberal counterparts that the president would not actually implement tariffs across the board. 

Indeed, if President Trump intended to use tariffs for purely economic purposes, his plans would be ludicrous. Massive tariff increases inevitably dislocate international trade and raise the price of goods. In purely economic terms, tariffs cause harm.

Unfortunately, however, we do not live in a purely economic world. This was amply demonstrated by the outbreak of World War I. Prior to the war, Nobel Peace Prize recipient Norman Angell published a book called The Great Illusion arguing that a major war was economically irrational. In an interconnected world, war cost too much for both the victors and the vanquished. Nonetheless, these considerations did not prevent the outbreak of a global conflict. Countries are motivated by more than purely economic interests. In our world, the Ayatollah is motivated by Islamism, Putin is motivated by Soviet revanchism, and Xi is motivated by Chinese nationalism. Their views are not purely economic. 

The United States also has interests related to national security that are not immediately economic. Halting the flow of illegal immigrants, for example, is an essential task of the incoming president. Thus, he threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico unless they agree to stem the flow of immigrants and drugs. Ideally, President Trump’s threats will remain hypothetical. However, Mexico’s refusal to cooperate would justify such tariffs.

China’s global ambitions also threaten U.S. interests. While stealing foreign technology, China has used its status as a member of the World Trade Organization to spur massive economic growth. Furthermore, the statist economy of China inhibits the ability of American companies to compete with certain industries. For example, experts say the Chinese government plays an important role in EV development by “propping up both the supply of EVs and the demand for them.” While the U.S. as a whole may have a more effective capitalist economy, it is difficult for specific industries to compete with Chinese companies that receive substantial government assistance. Tariffs can be used to offset this imbalance.

 China’s aggressive and totalitarian ambitions also threaten U.S. interests. For many years, the prevailing wisdom held that China would democratize as it became globally interconnected. Such sentiments now appear to be as naive as those of Norman Angell. One is reminded of a Vladimir Lenin’s observation that “[t]hey [capitalists] will furnish credits which will serve us for the support of the Communist Party in their countries and, by supplying us materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers. To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide.” Clearly, the United States’ interests include the curtailment of China. Tariffs can serve as an important impediment to the economic rise of hostile powers.

President Trump, like a typical dealmaker, knows how to use leverage. From his public statements, it is clear that he views tariffs as a means to an end. By reviving discussions about tariffs, he reintroduced an important strategic tool. 

Even a cursory look at modern society reveals a distinct lack of cultural conservatism. Traditional moral norms once seen as essential are now viewed as impediments to individual self-expression. The stereotypical nuclear family no longer exists for many Americans. For example, as of 2010 every state legalized no-fault divorce. Relatedly, the CDC found that nearly 40 percent of children were born out of wedlock in 2022. Such a radical alteration in the body politic signals a similar shift in values. Thus, coupled with the decline of social conservatism is an absence of cultural conservation. Cities around the country make a habit of removing monuments of famous American heroes. In 2021, New York City removed a statue of Thomas Jefferson from city hall. Two years later, Revolutionary War hero Philip Schuyler met a similar fate in Albany. Sadly, many consider our historical inheritance a burden rather than a blessing. Our lack of cultural conservation is disturbing because culture is inherently conservative. Successive generations accumulate knowledge in order to distill enduring wisdom. Dissociating from the past leads to a disintegration rather than a renewal of culture. 

While the dislocation of family life and the removal of statues may seem to have little in common, they both serve a common purpose: liberating the individual. Discarding history frees us from the burdens of the past and erasing familial norms frees the individual will. By contrast, traditional mores restrain individual action and encourage gratitude towards those who make our lives possible. Thus, the rejuvenation of individual responsibility and American history both require the restoration of a traditional moral outlook. 

It is quite common for conservatives to remark on the necessity of a moral reawakening but their rhetoric is occasionally uninspired. It often contains prohibitions rather than affirmations. Hence the stereotype of the religious person as a boring teetotaler. While this generalization is unfair it points to the lack of success that has followed attempts to restore cultural norms. No one wants to give up a life of adventure for what is viewed as a dull existence. The image of the ascetic Chrsitian whom Edward Gibbon described as “embrace[ing] a life of misery, as the price of eternal happines[s]” probably comes to mind for many people. Thus, any rejuvenation of a Christian ethics requires a healthy dose of humanism. Proponents of  a God-given moral order must also affirm the capacity of individuals to effect change and attain a sense of meaning. 

At this point in our history, the study of Greek and Roman heroes is a necessary antidote to our moral malaise. Plutarch’s Parallel Lives are a great place to start. These short biographies examine the lives of Greek and Roman statesmen in pairs. At the beginning of his Life of Aemilius Paullus, Plutarch describes the ethical purpose of his work; “I treat the narratives as a kind of mirror and try to find a way to arrange my life and assimilate it to the virtues of my subjects.” Plutarch recognized that reading about great men is not only entertaining, it forces us to reflect on our own conduct. Moreover, Plutarch did not conduct his inquiry with the cynicism of the modern historian. Although his heroes were flawed, he claimed that their examples “equip me…to repel and keep at bay anything pernicious or malicious or contemptible my association which those I deal with may bring, because I calmly and composedly turn my thoughts away from such aspects towards exemplars of unparalleled worth.” Examples of human greatness encourage us to emulate virtue and illustrate the adventures associated with upright conduct. While the romance of Cleopatra and Antony is often romanticized, the reader of Plutarch recognizes that Antony’s lust was his least interesting trait. Only when he inspires his troops like a man does he command admiration.

Even Suetonius’ salacious biographies of the Caesars provide moral instruction to the attentive reader. His writings show that the unfettered desires of a prince can lead to incredibly dark places. On the positive side, however, the example of Augustus reinforces the value of studying history. After restoring the statues of great Romans he stated that “[t]his has been done to make my fellow citizens insist that both I (while I live) and the leaders of following ages shall not fall below the standard set by those great men of old.” Thus, both Plutarch the philosopher and Augustus the political leader recognized the need to study great actions. 

Rediscovering classical heroes helps imbue individuals with a sense that their lives have meaning. Plutarch’s vivid descriptions of moral virtue show that far from leading to boredom, personal restraint leads to adventure. His heroes changed the course of history through patriotic service and a willingness to accept the burdens of responsible citizenship. Thus, nearly two millennia later, they can still serve as a mirror for our souls.

Whether or not Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he will undoubtedly be remembered for his major impact on the Republican Party. He broke with the establishment on issues ranging from tariffs to Middle East policy to the need for welfare reform. Moreover, his populist rhetoric is a far cry from the more polished manners of both George Bush Jr. and Sr, the two previous Republican presidents. For this reason many conservatives reacted with indignation when Trump was nominated in 2016. After all, what could a poorly spoken political outsider have to offer? The success of President Trump’s first term silenced many of these doubters. His tax cuts stimulated the economy and his aggressive instincts cowed our enemies. Moreover, despite questions about his social conservatism, he delivered a staunchly originalist Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade. All considered, even his critics were forced to admit that he succeeded.

Nevertheless, some still cling to the idea that Trump is a deep threat to our republic. He ruffled many powerful feathers and dashed the ambitions of well-connected people. Despite being supposedly “low energy,” Jeb Bush is still an important member of a powerful American family. President Trump’s insults probably factored into George Bush’s decision not to endorse a candidate in this election. The one time influential Congresswoman Liz Cheney also saw her political career go up in smoke in response to Donald Trump’s tirades. For better or worse, her vote to impeach President Trump and her work on the politicized January 6 committee angered Trump and his allies. Apparently it angered the voters too. She lost her 2022 House primary by a nearly 30 point margin. Now she is actively campaigning against Donald Trump in support of Kamala Harris.

When Cheney initially lost her seat much of the conservative intelligentsia lamented the fact that a courageous stateswoman had been railroaded by Donald Trump’s antics. Implicit in their critique was the idea that the voters had been fooled. Apparently, Cheney was a principled conservative, unwilling to bend to the whims of a deranged president. 

Cheney’s most recent actions reveal the falsehood of this view. Far from being a principled conservative, she is willing to sell out her ideals in a quest for revenge. Cheney recently endorsed Colin Allred in his race against Senator Ted Cruz. Before his senate run, Allred was a far left Congressman. His lifetime Heritage Action score is 2 percent, meaning that he almost never votes with conservatives. By contrast, Senator Cruz has a 92 percent score. In the past, Allred criticized President Trump’s immigration plans as “racist” and promised to tear down the border wall. Furthermore, in 2023 he voted no on the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.” The Act was designed to prevent men from competing in girls’ sports. In short, Allred’s ideas are antithetical to everything Liz Cheney did in the past. 

Indeed, Cheney’s support of Allred demonstrates that she is not a staunch defender of conservatism. Rather, she is willing to sell-out all Republicans in pursuance of a personal vendetta. If she truly wanted to revitalize conservatism she would not attempt to replace Senator Cruz with a radical leftist. Ultimately, Cheney’s recent actions reveal an important truth: Wyoming’s voters were right.

Anyone who pays attention to politics can agree that the story of Kamala Harris is truly inspiring. Her family came from Kentucky, where she spent much of her childhood, and she grew up in a small town in Ohio. At an early age her father and mother separated, and she was legally adopted by her stepfather. She never had a stable father-figure, however, because her mother constantly contracted dysfunctional and abusive relationships. Indeed, Harris’ mother became abusive and addicted to drugs. Without the support of her Mamaw and Papaw, Harris might never have survived childhood. Nonetheless, she went on to join the Marines, graduated from Ohio State University in two years, and then attended Yale Law School. Despite her insular upbringing, she married an Indian man, thereby crossing cultural boundaries in a typically American fashion. Her story is an example of how hard work allows people from even the most dire circumstances to achieve the American dream.

J.D. Vance, by contrast, is a phony. He touts working-class credentials by pointing to his birth in Oakland, despite spending most of his time in Berkley. After all, his parents are two successful UC Berkley PhDs. Indeed, his father eventually became a professor at Stanford. Then, at the age of twelve, Vance and his mother moved to an affluent neighborhood in Montreal where he spent the rest of his adolescence. After returning to the United States, he graduated from Howard College and UC Hastings law school. As an ambitious young professional he got his start in government after starting an affair with a married woman named Willa Brown, a mover and shaker in California politics. Despite his laziness and incompetence, he continued to rise due to the patronage of his lover. Now, at the age of 60, he is seeking the presidency following his dismal performance as Vice President – a position he only got because he is a white man. While failing to stem the flow of illegal immigration, he also covered up the senility of his boss…

Oops! I wrote the first part of this essay after reading the New York Times and Washington Post. They all said Kamala had good vibes so I just assumed she was the poor kid from Appalachia. Maybe I should start thinking for myself.

A quote that is often falsely attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville says that “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” While the great Frenchman never made such a remark, it is certainly relevant to our current political situation. During the recent Vice Presidential Debate, for example, the moderators poked and prodded the candidates to see who could provide the American people with the most direct benefits. There was little talk of limited government or the fact that our national debt has surpassed thirty-five trillion dollars.

The quote is also insightful, because it points to a peculiar advantage that the left has gained in recent years. The modern political landscape allows them to engage in outright bribery. President Biden’s recent decision to cancel 4.5 billion dollars in student loan debt perfectly illustrates this dynamic. Less than a month before the election, he announced the cancellation of debt for 60,000 public service workers and used the occasion to brag that his administration had forgiven loans for more than 1 million Americans. He also ignored previous Supreme Court rulings that challenged his ability to unilaterally cancel debt without the approval of Congress. To put it mildly, President Biden’s decision to violate Constitutional norms while announcing his plans right before an election raises important questions about the ethical use of presidential power. 

Vice President Harris’ recent “plan for black men” is an even clearer example of using bribery to seek election. The VP claims that she will provide one million fully forgivable $20,000 loans to black men while helping them enter the new industry of legalized marijuana sales. In essence, Harris is telling black men that if they vote for her they will receive weed and cash. Apparently, she is also willing to revive racial discrimination to accomplish these goals. Unfortunately this is the level to which self-government has descended in this country.

In addition to its moral bankruptcy, another problem with the bribery method is that it benefits incumbents. President Joe Biden is able to deploy the resources of the federal government (i.e. the American taxpayer) to influence an election. By contrast, when a citizen uses their own money to support a candidate, they are threatened with potential legal action. This happened to Elon Musk, who just announced that he would randomly give $1 million every day until the election to a random person who signs his America PAC petition. NBC’s Kristen Welker indignantly reported the information to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro who encouraged law enforcement to “look at” Elon Musk. Such indignation was not present when President Biden took other people’s money to support Kamala Harris.

Throughout American history, many politicians have used unsavory tactics to get elected. Whether they received campaign contributions from shady groups or packed unnecessary pork into spending bills, politicians have never been perfectly  moral creatures. This is the first time in our nation’s history, however, that bribery has been used so openly. Responsible Americans must reject this trend and demand that if politicians are going to spend money for votes, they must use their own.

J.D. Vance. Taken by Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

In a typical academic setting, debates must revolve around facts. We expect debaters to come prepared with evidence, logical statements, and well-reasoned conclusions. Anything else is unnecessary and distracting. Politics, by contrast, often requires more than straightforward argumentation. In a political setting, even the most compelling logic is typically unsuccessful if it is not accompanied by emotion. 

J.D. Vance clearly understood the emotional aspect of politics during his October 1 Vice Presidential debate with Tim Walz. While Vance clearly knew his facts and made compelling arguments, he also used emotional appeals to accomplish his objective. He put his rhetorical skills on full display in an exchange with Walz about abortion. 

After rebuffing the outlandish accusation that he and Trump want to set up a national pregnancy registry he said “And, you know, I grew up in a working class family in a neighborhood where I knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn’t have any other options. And, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. And I know she’s watching tonight, and I love you. And she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn’t had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship. And I think that what I take from that, as a Republican who proudly wants to protect innocent life in this country, who proudly wants to protect the vulnerable is that my party, we’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American People’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us. And I think that’s one of the things that Donald Trump and I are endeavoring to do.”

While delivering these anecdotal remarks Vance became visibly emotional. He made clear that he cares deeply about the issue and understands the suffering of those who make such heart-wrenching decisions.

Some conservatives were disappointed that Vance seemed so apologetically pro-life. Indeed, his arguments were markedly less pro-life than those of Republican candidates in the past. His goal, however, was not to demonstrate his pro-life bona fides on stage. Rather, he was trying to win over a demographic that is typically hostile to the Trump camp: suburban women. In a close and short election season, this required the use of emotion.

The entire American population, including women, have been fed emotional left wing arguments about the necessity of abortion for decades. These arguments never seek to logically refute pro-life ideas but often point to exceptional cases or resort to name-calling. 

It is for this reason that Vance’s use of emotion was so effective. Rather than engaging with unreasonable people, he sought to counter them by using their own currency. This was effective because, even at an emotional level, the pro-life side is inherently more compelling. Encouraging women to carry their baby to term is much more noble than lauding abortion as a fundamental human right. As little as 30 years ago even Bill Clinton was forced to treat abortion as a necessary evil. 

Although it is irresponsible for politicians to rely solely on emotion, effective rhetoric is necessary in the political arena. Good ideas need to be backed up by pathos. Last week J.D. Vance put on a debate masterclass. He showed his listeners how one can avoid alienating undecided voters while refusing to concede certain principles. Although the election is still a month away Vance’s masterful use of emotion may be enough to put Trump over the finish line.

In modern parlance, when the word natural is used in connection with human beings it tends to refer to our automatic desires. It is natural, for example, for men to desire food, drink, and sex. In our permissive culture, acting on such desires is also considered natural. Eating too much is so natural that we must develop drugs to slim down and casual intercourse is so natural that abortion-on-demand is an indispensable right. Man appears to have been born to satiate his individual desires.

This low and pessimistic view of human nature was put on full display at the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics. While mocking the Last Supper, a man painted in blue sang about the glories of nudity. Drag queens then strutted provocatively down a red carpet. The message of the performance was clear: the restraints that civilized society places upon us are unnatural. Only when we reject our civilization can we become our true and natural selves.

This sentiment is not new to the modern age, but has been echoed for centuries by men who would tear down society for their own fulfillment. In a scene from Joseph Addison’s popular 1713 play, Cato: A Tragedy, a general named Syphax tells Prince Juba that the Roman virtues he is attempting to emulate are unnatural:

What are these wondrous civilizing arts,

This Roman polish, and this smooth behaviour,

That render man thus tractable and tame?

Are they not only to disguise our passions,

To set our looks at variance with our thoughts,

To check the starts and sallies of the soul,

And break off all its commerce with the tongue;

In short, to change us into other creatures,

Than what our nature and the gods designed us?

According to Syphax, the mores and manners of society are nothing more than impediments to individual fulfillment. Man is not defined by his calm adherence to virtue but by the passions that rouse his soul. Such a view is common among many members of contemporary society. The entire sexual liberation movement argues that man is defined by his desires and any civilizing restraints are unnatural and oppressive.

In contrast to this low view of humanity is a more robust conception of human nature that was promoted by the philosophers of classical antiquity. According to such figures as Aristotle, man was not defined by his desires but by his use of reason. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle seeks out the meaning of happiness by looking into the natural function of man. Indeed, he asks his readers to ponder whether man is “naturally ‘without work’” or whether he has a natural goal (Trans. Bartlett and Collins). Aristotle concludes that mankind is unique in its possession of reason and thus we achieve the human good through “an activity of the soul in accord with virtue” (Trans. Bartlett and Collins). In other words, men achieve happiness by fulfilling their natural function which includes the exercise of reason and the practice of virtue. Thus, it is not only bad for a man to unthinkingly indulge in his passions, it is also unnatural. 

Aristotle’s view of nature provides a standard by which we can judge human actions. This idea was developed even more explicitly by Cicero who lauded the beauty of nature. When examining the laws he wrote that “We must clarify the nature of justice and that has to be deduced from the nature of man” (I.17 Trans. Rudd). In other words, moral injunctions can be determined by examining what a human being is. Cicero also agrees that reason is what makes mankind unique. Indeed, because men participate in reason, by nature, they can also discover laws that are grounded in nature. For Cicero, it is clear that “we are born for justice, and that what is just is based, not on opinion, but on nature” (I.28 Trans. Rudd). Nature is not merely the indulgence of spontaneous desires but the cultivation and perfection of reason. As Cicero continues in his influential work On Duties, “Nature and reason…have thought all the more that beauty, constancy, and orderliness ought to be preserved in decisions and deeds; and they caution lest anything is done improperly or effeminately, or in all opinions and deeds, lest anything is done or reflected upon lustfully” (I.14 Trans. Newton). Human nature guides man to truth, beauty, and goodness, rather than the fulfillment of subjective desires. 

The road to recovering a culture of sanity requires rediscovering this empowering view of human nature. Humans are born into a moral universe that can be discovered through an honest examination of our unique nature. The human experience points towards the naturalness of moral virtue and the unnaturalness of vicious conduct. Furthermore, an honest conception of human nature has important theological implications. If man is a rational creature designed for virtue, then perhaps the universe has a governing principle. If, however, man was born to fulfill his appetites, then the universe is as chaotic as his changing passions. Our entire culture rests on an honest answer to a simple question: what is human nature?