Silence Dogood Wire

After three weeks of honest coverage, the mainstream media is finally reverting back to its normal state of sycophancy towards the Democratic party. When the debate with former President Donald Trump illustrated their coverup of President Joe Biden’s mental decline, news networks began calling on him to step down, stating that he was incapable of serving for another term. Now that he has backed out of the race, President Biden has regained his old status as the patriotic old defender of democracy willing to put his country over personal ambition. While such flattery is clearly dishonest it pales in comparison to the media’s newfound obsession with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Indeed, their coverage of her resembles that given to a man named Barack Obama who ascended to the presidency in 2009. Despite clear evidence of his radicalism, the media presented former President Obama as the new hope of his country, ready to usher in an age of prosperity and tolerance. All but forgotten was the fact that his longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright had blamed America for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and said “God damn America.” Then Senator Obama deflected from these comments by stating that he didn’t think his church was controversial and that Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.” The difference between an uncle and a pastor, however, is that one does not choose their own uncle. You do choose the person who marries you and baptizes your children. 

There are other instances in former President Obama’s past that point to his sympathy towards radical positions. During a 1991 demonstration at Harvard, he encouraged his listeners to “open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.” Bell was the founder of critical race theory, a legal framework holding that the United States is fundamentally racist. Not only does CRT hold that America had racist laws in the past (a contention which nobody would dispute) but that our current legal framework and Constitution need to be dismantled. As early CRT scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic have written, CRT “builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism, to both of which it owes a large debt.” (from Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 2012 NYU Press). Both of these intellectual disciplines were heavily influenced by Marxist doctrines seeking to overthrow social norms through radical action.

Like all politicians, however, former President Obama was also an actor who was able to distance himself from his earlier radicalism in his race for the presidency. There can be no doubt that he was helped by a complicit media who lauded him as a hero.

The same phenomenon is happening today with the ascension of Vice President Kamala Harris. Like former President Obama, she has an exceedingly radical past. In 2019 an organization called GovTrack rated her as the most liberal senator at a time when Bernie Sanders was also a member of the senate. Since then, they have deleted the webpage in an attempt to boost Harris’ electoral prospects.

Similarly, the mainstream media has insisted that Harris should not be called the “border czar,” despite repeatedly insisting that she was tasked with stemming the flow of immigration in 2021. Now is a particularly strange time for the media to realize their alleged mistake. Perhaps they all simultaneously realized that their reporting was wrong. Even if one were to agree with the sycophantic talking heads, however, her past statements are still on record. She has said that she wants to decriminalize illegal border crossings and force taxpayers to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants.

Furthermore, the media routinely portrays Harris as a tough-on-crime prosecutor despite her fundraising efforts for the Minnesota Freedom Fund in order to bail out BLM rioters. Indeed, CBS recently denied this fact in what can only be described as an attempt to further her presidential prospects.

The efforts of liberals in the media to cover up Harris’ radical past represents a pattern that is consistent with their general treatment of the Democratic party. Rather than reporting on radicalism or condemning it, they attempt to polish the record of the candidate they are currently supporting. 

In addition to their outright denial of facts, mainstream news networks have also used frivolous puff pieces to make their preferred candidates seem more relatable. In 2008, for example, MSNBC ran an article with the headline “Barack Obama’s ‘Fist Bump’ With Wife Becomes Internet Hit.” The story was thinly sourced and was apparently an attempt to bolster Obama’s status as nothing more than a regular guy. A CNN story recently took a similar tack when describing Harris’ consolidation of the Democratic party. The piece described her as“wearing a hoodie from her alma mater, Howard University, workout sweats and sneakers” and claimed that “she also called her pastor.” These seemingly unnecessary descriptions are meant to give readers the impression that Kamala Harris is an everyday American rather than a radical professional politician. 

Fortunately, Harris is twelve years older than former President Obama was when he sought the presidency. This means that she has twelve more years of radical statements on record. Hopefully these statements will be viewed by the American people thereby thwarting the media’s attempt to rebrand her radicalism.

Last week viewers watched as the waves of Democratic misgovernment crashed against the shoals of reality. The CNN Presidential Debate featured an elderly President Biden attempting to justify his record on the economy and immigration. His occasionally spirited attempts to present President Trump as a threat to democracy and abortion access all but failed. Early in the campaign Trump made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t want the federal government to become involved in the issue of abortion. Additionally, he skillfully deflected from January 6 to focus on the issues that voters care about most: the economy, immigration, and national security. Even many liberals were forced to admit that President Biden was trounced by his opponent. As Biden struggled to articulate and defend his policies or a vision of the future, viewers were shown how untethered Democratic policies are from both philosophy and patriotism.

Much of American history has been guided by natural law philosophy; the idea that there are certain immutable laws governing our actions. These eternal laws are derived from the nature of man and his relation to his fellow creatures. Although religious people contend that these laws were laid down by God, they can be discovered by the exercise of our reason and then confirmed by Revelation. Cicero, the great Roman statesman, expressed this view of law beautifully in one of his philosophical dialogues. He stated that “according to the opinion of the best authorities law was not thought up by the intelligence of human beings, nor is it some kind of resolutions passed by communities but rather an eternal force which rules the world by the wisdom of its commands and prohibitions. In their judgment, that original and final law is the intelligence of God who ordains or forbids everything by reason” (trans. Niall Rudd). Through our participation in Divine reason, humans can discover laws that govern our actions. Proponents of natural law believe that the laws of a state must conform to a standard of justice that exists independent of and prior to the formation of any political community.

The Founding Fathers were profoundly impacted by the view that a government’s actions must conform to the standard laid down by “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” In an 1825 letter Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Declaration’s authority rests on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, & c.” Although they were sometimes modified, the expressions of philosophers like Cicero served as a basis for the American experiment.

As succeeding generations marched across the continent and the pressures of slavery began to mount, natural law philosophy continued to play an essential role in the flourishing of our Republic. Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the most eloquent exponent of natural law because he understood that it was wrong, by nature, for one man to rule over another without that man’s consent. He frequently made appeals to the Declaration of Independence with its invocation of certain inalienable rights. Ultimately Lincoln understood that “[w]henever this question [of slavery] shall be settled, it must be settled on some philosophical basis. No policy that does not rest upon some philosophical public opinion can be permanently maintained.” Either slavery was to be considered a moral evil or it was not. If it was a moral evil then it must be abolished and if it was not then the government had no right to prohibit it. Lincoln knew that half-measures and vascillations could only continue for so long. By defending natural law he contributed to a tradition that has raised mankind from the depths of barbarism and allowed civilization to prosper.

Even after the defeat of slavery, blacks still languished under the injustices of Jim Crow. In his attempt to further civil rights Martin Luther King Jr. did not have recourse to self-interest or violence but by following the same philosophy that had guided previous statesman and sages. His “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is one of the most beautiful philosophical expressions in history and sought to ground governmental policies in natural law teaching. Claiming that Americans had a responsibility to disobey unjust laws, MLK followed Thomas Aquinas in stating that “[a]n unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” By contrast, just laws are rooted in certain immutable principles of right and wrong.

The greatest triumphs in our national history were brought about by men and women with a firm conviction in the philosophical principles found in the natural law tradition and guided by faith.

The debate last night demonstrates that Democrats have essentially abandoned the idea of natural law. While they may occasionally invoke “rights” their use of the word is detached from the philosophical tradition that gave birth to it. This was illustrated during a particularly shocking moment when President Biden argued that leaving abortion access up to the states was akin to leaving Civil Rights up to the states. Although his claims likely won’t receive a second thought, his statement should have provoked outrage. He compared the ability to kill one’s unborn child in the womb to the freedom to live under laws that don’t discriminate based on race. One is the outgrowth of unlimited self-expression and the other is derived from natural law. One is based in self interest and the other is based in philosophy. A more apt comparison would have been the attempt to leave slavery up to the states. Like slavery, abortion is a violation of natural law. Not only does it sever the most basic natural bond in existence (that between a mother and her child) it sacrifices another human being to the whims of personal convenience. President  Biden’s statement demonstrates a full scale rejection of natural law that is closely related to his embrace of transgenderism. In his mind, there is no objective external reality. Bureaucrats and scientists can remake the world in their image without restraint. These ideas are in contradiction to those of the Founding which sought to create a state that respected a real nature law existing outside of the state. In short, democratic policy has become unmoored from philosophy.

A second traditional wellspring of policymaking is patriotism. By patriotism I mean a desire to improve the well-being of one’s fellow citizens. When this impulse becomes unmoored from  natural law it can become harmful. For example, Stephen Douglas wanted to ignore slavery in order to expand the Union and secure new benefits for white citizens. By detaching patriotism from philosophy he did not serve the interest of his fellow citizens. Oftentimes, however, patriotism and philosophy are closely linked. After all, those who have set American affairs on a philosophical basis (i.e. Washingotn and Lincoln) have contributed the most to the well-being of their fellow citizens. 

As Trump hammered President Biden on immigration it became abundantly clear how unpatriotic his party has become. While he may have made a few patriotic statements one can see that he is clearly not motivated by a desire to improve the lives of his fellow citizens. He cares just as much (if not more) about the foreigners flooding into this country. There has been practically no attempt to stem the flow of illegal immigrants who often strain social services which further disadvantages the poor. Indeed the Democratic party has an aversion to preferring citizens over foreigners. Doing so would be xenophobic and unwelcoming. As the late Henry Kissinger said “[t]he civic patriotism that once lent prestige to public service appears to have been outflanked by an identity-based factionalism and a competing cosmopolitanism. In America, a growing number of college graduates aspire to become globe-trotting corporate executives and professional activism.” At best, expressions of patriotism are now seen as quaint and outdated. We might aspire to defeat global challenges such as climate change but securing our sovereign border is unworthy of a citizen of the world.

Going into last week’s debate, anyone paying attention was already well-aware of President Biden’s personal struggles. The real revelation was the extent to which Democratic policy making has become untethered from the philosophy of natural right and a due regard for one’s fellow citizens. Their policies are now motivated by a cosmopolitan desire to remake the world in the name of liberating humanity while amassing power for themselves. This liberation will come at the cost of enslaving us to the barbarism that has characterized so much of human history.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (a 1992 case that upheld Roe v. Wade) Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” His flowery language was absurd and had no place in a legal setting. The laws against murder clearly demonstrate that defining “one’s own concept of existence” is not a fundamental right. Three decades later, the Supreme Court has finally overturned this decision, and determined that abortion is not a right guaranteed by our Constitution. But the reasoning in Justice Kennedy’s opinion still carries great weight with the American public.

Voters have consistently rejected attempts to restrict abortion and Republicans have suffered repeated electoral defeats over the issue. Although former President Trump won Ohio by eight percentage points in 2020, 56.6 percent of voters passed a state constitutional amendment to protect abortion access. Even in red states, outlawing abortion is an unpopular position.

This development would probably have been unsurprising to Alexis de Tocqueville. In the 1830s, the Frenchman came to the United States and observed the manners, habits and institutions of the American people. His work, Democracy in America, is widely regarded as one of the best books ever written on America. At the beginning of the second volume of the book, he noted that “of all the countries in the world, America is the one in which the precepts of Descartes are least studied and best followed…Americans never read Descartes’s works because their state of society distracts them from speculative inquiries” (trans. Lawrence ed. Mayer). Descartes was a French philosopher who subjected himself to radical doubt in order to determine what was true through the use of his reason. Tocqueville, meant that each American considered him or herself to be the sole standard of truth in the world.

For Tocqueville, however, there was a powerful force that prevented Americans from descending into moral anarchy; Christianity. During the Revolution, Tocqueville believed that Americans were able to change their existing laws without throwing society into chaos because “It was religion that gave birth to the English colonies in America. One must never forget that” (trans. Lawrence ed. Meyer). According to Tocqueville, in the America of the 1830s “Christianity itself is an established and irresistible fact which no one seeks to attack or to defend” (trans. Lawrence ed. Meyer). It was through habit that Americans accepted Christian doctrine and this preserved “a great number of moral truths derived therefrom” (trans. Lawrence ed. Meyer).

But we are no longer living in the America of the 1830s. In 2020, church membership fell below 50 percent for the first time in U.S. history. We live in an age that has become increasingly hostile to traditional religious belief and many major cultural institutions are anti-Christian. Thus, we no longer have a way of transmitting settled moral truths from one generation to the next.

In such circumstances the reasoning of Justice Kennedy is perfectly reflective of the American spirit. It is the philosophy of Descartes without the Christianity that Alexis de Tocqueville saw in early America. Indeed, Justice Kennedy’s statement that everyone has a “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” is merely a way of saying that each person is his or her own standard of right and wrong. Given Tocqueville’s observation it should not be surprising that the United States is one of only six countries (along with China and North Korea) that allows abortion up to birth. If each person is their own standard of right and wrong, then it is unjust to impose any restrictions upon them.

It is important to point out that Tocqueville was not merely a critic of American society. He profoundly admired our democratic institutions and system of government. However, he understood that our society was undergirded by a rich religious tradition that created an environment of productive individualism rather than destructive moral anarchism. Conservatives who wish to preserve the best of America must realize that their success depends upon the ability of one generation to transmit moral truths to the next. Without guidance, individualism is corrosive of morality, responsibility, and family life. But when guided by a spirit of benevolence, it is the greatest possible force for good.

Your Humble Servant,

Silence Dogood

In our increasingly confused era, classic stories have continued to come under fire for their lack of political correctness. The claim that Snow White is not feminist enough, The Jungle Book is racist, and warrior stories are too masculine are a few common critiques. In the name of shaping a more tolerant culture, leftists have created new storylines that reflect an alternative set of values. For example, an animated show called Cocomelon features a boy whose dads encourage him to express himself by wearing a dress and dancing. Another animated show on Amazon stars the princess of Hell. Satan is called a “rebellious dreamer” and the show features a number of scenes that are disturbing, even by Hollywood standards. Although it is labeled as eighteen plus, the show is clearly directed towards younger audiences. 

The individuals who create these new narratives are following the advice of the Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci who died in 1937. Upon seeing the failure of socialism to capture the minds of the people, he wrote that “In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” Gramsci understood that culture is a much more powerful tool for altering a society than outright political action. It is for this reason that the destruction of stories is the single greatest threat to American life. 

Stories provide guidance for our actions and teach us the virtues that we must emulate. It is by capturing the imagination of a people that stories can bring about profound societal change. In the American colonies, for example, one of the most famous stories was Cato: A Tragedy. First performed in 1713, this play recounted the life of Cato the Younger, who opposed Caesar’s dictatorship. Not only did this play entertain large audiences, it also inspired real life acts of heroism. Revolutionary spy Nathan Hale’s famous statement that “My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country” was directly inspired by this play. Additionally, Patrick Henry’s famous pronouncement, “Give me liberty or give me death!” can also be found in the play. Indeed, Cato was so powerful that George Washington had it performed for American troops at Valley Forge. It is not just children who learn through stories. 

The great Greek biographer Plutarch understood the importance of stories for illuminating the good character traits that people should aspire to. In his twenty four Parallel Lives, he chronicled the lives of famous Greeks and Romans. Not only did he show what they did in their remarkable lives, he also demonstrated the virtues that allowed them to succeed and the vices that held them back. Since it was written nearly two thousand years ago, these Lives have exercised a huge influence on Western society. Today, however, fewer and fewer people are reading Plutarch. Public schools are certainly not assigning his readings.

Nowadays, stories about self-sacrifice have been replaced by stories about self-indulgence. Rather than calling people to be heroic, stories rejoice in mediocrity. This is not a trivial development, but one that affects the very foundations of our civilization. The great French political theorist, Montesquieu, claimed that virtue- personal sacrifice for the common good- is the spring of republican government. Without virtue people will not demonstrate the character traits that are necessary to maintain a republic. If a person can not govern himself then he cannot possibly have self-government. America will not live or die by the politicians in Washington. It will live or die by the stories that we choose to tell.

By any metric, Americans today live in one of the most free societies that has ever existed. Property rights are secure, freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution, and we have the right to bear arms. For better or worse, we can live our lives in the manner we see fit. While government regulation might cripple some innovation it is nothing compared to the tyranny that billions of people currently live under. 

In the midst of all this freedom, however, Americans are apt to forget what is good. When someone says something objectionable we frequently shrug and say “well it’s a free country and they have a right to say what they want to.” Such a reaction, while often correct, can obscure the fact that we should have standards. The existence of freedom does not in any way diminish the existence of an objective good. And it is towards this objective good that we should orient ourselves. It is typically conservatives who recognize this fact and act accordingly. 

Governor Ron Desantis, for example, banned LGTBQ books that included pornographic content from schools. Perhaps the creators of these books should be allowed to publish what they want, but a good society protects its children and recognizes that those who create such content should be shamed. They might have a right to say what they want, but they have no right to be given an audience.

Mainstream liberals, by contrast, typically react with fury towards any attempt to enforce standards. Despite the fact that every book Desantis has “banned” can be purchased by anyone in the country, the press has slandered his initiative as a so-called “book ban.” They see Desantis as an enemy of freedom. In reality, he is an opponent of moral relativism.

Indeed, the dangers of moral relativism were put on full display when the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn repeatedly refused to condemn calls for the genocide of Jews. If I had to guess, I would say that these three women are not actually rabid anti-semites. Rather, their embrace of tolerance made them unable to distinguish between right and wrong. 

Of course, when it comes to protecting conservative speech they have no problem with suppression. But they suppress conservative speech in the name of tolerance. Because conservatives have standards (such as the idea that men cannot be women) elite liberals are eager to silence them in the name of inclusion. Thus, suppressing conservatives is not an aberration from their ideology but a fulfillment of it.

Yesterday, Iowa also experienced a case of destructive moral relativism when a judge blocked a law keeping sexually explicit books out of classrooms from kindergarten to sixth grade. Judge Stephen Locher referred to the law as “puritanical.” Again, I doubt that Judge Locher is an actual pervert who distributes sexually explicit content to twelve year olds. But his liberal ideology prevents him from acknowledging that such an action is evil. Because he has made tolerance his religion, he does not have the intellectual capacity to condemn evil.

The terrible people who want to introduce pornographic content to children, destroy Israel, and take away free speech are undoubtedly a minority in this country. The real danger comes from self-avowed liberals who allow these people a platform in the name of tolerance. While it may be unAmerican to take away certain freedoms, imposing standards is essential to the maintenance of a free and virtuous life. Those who forget this risk falling into the evils of moral relativism.

In 1925, the great poet T.S. Eliot wrote one of his most famous poems. Filled with dark imagery and somber scenes, The Hollow Men, ended with the lines “This is the way the world ends/This is the way the world ends/This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper.” Eliot’s words are an apt description of how a great civilization dies. Often, a slow process of internal decay precedes a final death-blow. The French, for example, lost World War II before it even began. After losing millions of men in the Great War, pacifism had become a dominant force that enervated the minds of the public. In such a state of despair, resistance to the Nazi war machine was impossible. Similarly, when writing of the Roman Empire, the great historian Edward Gibbon claimed that even if hostile barbarian nations had been wiped off the face of the earth, Rome still would have fallen due to its internal corruption. In every age, the task of a statesman is to identify the greatest internal threats to a society, in order to prevent them from destroying a nation’s resolve.

In the wake of the attacks on Israel, many Americans believe that the greatest threats facing our society are the individuals who support violence on college campuses and in cities throughout the country. While people are correct to fear these massive gatherings of malicious individuals, I would argue that this fear is largely unjustified. Unstable people can be whipped into a frenzy for nearly any cause, and while it is true that an increasing number of people in our society lack sanity, there is a much greater lack of conviction. Indeed, our society has always had groups of people that will take to the streets in favor of immoral causes. The real danger occurs when good people stand by and do nothing.

It is an unfortunate fact that America has been succumbing to indifference since at least the middle of the 20th century. The German-Jewish emigre Leo Strauss told an audience in 1953 that although the United States had  defeated Germany in World War II, they had succumbed to what he called characterized as the German “historical sense.” He believed that while Americans had once vigorously defended natural rights as embodying eternal truths, many now viewed our nation’s values in purely historical terms. These rights were now seen as historical amalgamations with no permanent value. One can certainly see this phenomenon on full display when politicians and judges claim that the Constitution can change over time and has no fixed meaning. 

Coupled with this historical relativism is a widespread pseudo-tolerance that is indistinguishable from indifference. Standards which were once commonplace have been thrown by the wayside in the name of greater autonomy. Strauss foresaw this development as well, writing that many liberals believe that our “inability to acquire any genuine knowledge of what is intrinsically good or right compels us to be tolerant of every opinion about good or right or to recognize all preferences of all ‘civilizations’ as equally respectable.” When we have lost faith in unchanging natural right, we are no longer able to judge the worth of different goals, and must accept all values as equally rational. Hence the prevalence of the phrase “my truth” which is nothing more than an implicit assertion that there is no objective truth. And just as individuals have “their truth” so do different societies. Thus, many people cannot make a rational distinction between the aims of a civilization like Israel and those of a group like Hamas. Without natural right we must bow before the altar of pseudo-tolerance and proclaim that all lifestyles are equal.

Any society that is so indifferent that it cannot distinguish right from wrong is doomed to succumb to cultural insanity and ultimately fail. It is true that America is a relatively tolerant country. But we did not become tolerant because we were indifferent to questions of right and wrong. Rather, our society’s tolerance emerged from a deep-seated conviction that some degree of tolerance is a good thing. Tolerance resulting from indifference and tolerance resulting from conviction should not be confused with one another.

Indifference breeds insanity and moral catastrophe. The Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton once remarked that it is foolish for one philosopher to burn another for his heresy; “but there is one thing that is infinitely more unpractical and absurd than burning another man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter.” Relativism inevitably leads to indifference, which leads to civilizational collapse. In order to perpetuate our society, Americans must reclaim their conviction in the existence of natural right. This starts by refraining from whataboutism and stating a simple fact: “terrorists are evil.”

Before publishing his famous and prescient attack on the French Revolution, Edmund Burke sent a letter to his friend in France criticizing the course of the Revolution. Although he was pessimistic about the prospects of liberty in France he admitted that “I certainly think that all men who desire it, deserve it.” Burke loved political liberty but feared that an inability to control oneself, would lead to personal slavery. To men who were unable to control their vices, he said that “a state of strong constraint is a sort of necessary substitute for freedom; since, bad as it is, it may deliver them in some measure from the worst of all slavery- that is, the despotism of their own blind passion.” Perhaps more than any politician of his day, Burke insisted that men must deserve liberty before they could be truly free. 

According to Burke, there are two types of freedom which exist side by side. The first is political freedom which many in the democratic west are familiar with. This form of liberty consists of the security of certain rights and participation in the political process. Despite the importance of this type of freedom, it is secondary and can only be had under certain preconditions. The second type of freedom which Burke insisted upon was freedom from vice. This liberty was beautifully illustrated by Saint Augsutine who wrote that “Humans were created in the image of God. True freedom, then, is not found in moving away from that image but only in living it out.” On this view, freedom only exists when a person has the capacity to reach their potential through the practice of virtue. A person who is unable to create meaningful relationships and engage with civil society is not truly free, even if he or she has certain political privileges.

Rather than being contradictory, these two notions of freedom are intertwined because a state cannot maintain free institutions if its people do not possess a shared moral framework that demands sacrifice in pursuit of the good. In Federalist 55 James Madison wrote that, although men are flawed, “So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” If citizens lack virtue they will be unable to maintain the free institutions that have been handed down to them. President Reagan was correct when he said that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.” The maintenance of freedom, however, does not merely consist of a few history lessons. Rather, it depends upon forming citizens who manifest virtue in their personal lives.

This second definition of freedom, though essential to the first, has been almost completely lost in our self-indulgent era. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words in Planned Parenthood v. Casey adequately sums up the modern feeling about liberty; “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Every person is now viewed as a wholly autonomous agent who cannot have any restrictions placed upon them. The root of virtue, however, is self-restriction. We live in an age where people believe that self-indulgence is a divine right provided to them by their political freedom. Perhaps they don’t understand that it is virtue which makes this political freedom possible.

The two aspects of freedom which Burke acknowledged in his eloquent writings are interrelated but distinct. It is the job of a statesman to balance them with one another in order to create a flourishing state. If a society concerns itself with rights at the expense of virtue it will not enjoy its rights for long. However, if a man attempts to make people perfect he will be similarly destructive. Sin is a part of our fallen nature and an attempt to completely eradicate it would lead to totalitarianism. Nonetheless, we cannot let our obsession with a flawed notion of freedom lead to the eradication of civil society.

In an age of extreme polarization, appeals to a less divisive past are commonplace. Many people wish to go back to an era when their fellow citizens held more moderate beliefs and showed a greater willingness to entertain different opinions. This feeling is particularly common among intellectuals who dislike the ickiness of our political fights. Many argue that we should ignore the moral issues that pervade our society and constrain our vision to economics and foreign policy. In doing so, they believe that we are more likely to gain a consensus, and avoid the partisan conflicts that have come to the forefront of our political discourse. One recently famous commentator named Richard Hannania called for the promotion of an “Enlightened Centrism” which leans libertarian. We see examples of this centrism in figures such as Barri Weiss or Peter Bogossian who reject wokeness but certainly aren’t conservatives.

While we must certainly welcome those who oppose left wing authoritarianism, we must also ask ourselves whether moderation should be our goal. Was the America of the 1990s truly better than the era we are living in now? It was much less polarized, but the seeds of many of our discontents were sown in the 1960s and left untouched for years. Now, conservatives are beginning to fight back against the radicalization of our culture and the destruction of our ethical norms. Such a fight entails an increase in polarization, but such polarization isn’t necessarily bad. Sometimes, taking a polarizing position is the correct course of action and the only one that accords with both morality and good politics. 

It is important to remember that in addition to being one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln was also our most polarizing. He was so polarizing that eleven states seceded from the Union. It was men like Lincoln’s opponent, Stepehn Douglas, who were calling for moderation. He wanted to ignore the question of slavery and focus on the expansion of the United States. Far from being an extreme partisan of slavery, Douglas’s position was quite moderate; he wanted to leave the question of slavery up to the voters of each state. By contrast, Lincoln wanted to use the power of the federal government to eliminate slavery.

Lincoln’s unswerving condemnation and resistance to the expansion of slavery certainly helped bring about the Civil War. But can we really say that it was Lincoln who caused the Civil War? When conflict occurs over an injustice, it is generally the guilty party who is at fault, rather than the man who calls out his wrongs. False moderation obscures our political discourse and prevents us from resolving fundamental issues.

As we contemplate the state of our political discourse we should keep in mind the words of the famous political philosopher and Lincoln scholar, Harry Jaffa who wrote Barry Goldwater’s speech for the 1964 RNC presidential nominating convention. In response to accusations of partisanship, Goldwater told his audience that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” 

Justice and freedom are the sole measures by which we should judge our opinions. When we conform our ideas to fit what is “moderate” we do a disservice to what is right. After all, moderation is relative, whereas certain truths are self-evident and eternal. If the truth elicits a polarizing response, it is the advocates of falsehood who are guilty of partisanship. 

Almost anyone who spends time studying politics will come to the conclusion that it is serious business. For better or worse, politics deals with fundamental questions such as, “Do human beings deserve liberty?,” “Will property be secured?,” and even, “What is a human being?” These are not simple questions but ones touch at the very heart of the human experience. Abraham Lincoln, who was perhaps the greatest statesman of the past 200 years, understood the necessity of answering political questions correctly. When he argued against Stephen Douglass on the morality of slavery, he was not play-acting. Rather, he was attempting to alert his country to a grave and mortal sin and rouse them to action.

Evidently, not all political questions are as great as the existence of slavery. But this does not change the fact that politics will always be concerned with fundamental issues. It is not merely a game to be played by those who enjoy the exchange of ideas or the feeling of power. In his Politics Aristotle claimed the state aims at the highest good of human life. Such a serious aim should be dealt with by serious people.

Despite the importance of politics, however, our disputes can be mitigated by two important factors; namely, religion and constitutionalism. Religion is essential because it both humbles and elevates us. It humbles us by highlighting our own inadequacies but elevates us by ensuring that our endeavors have meaning and are governed by a supreme moral law. Constitutionalism is also necessary, because it solidifies a country’s fundamental structure and principles into a rigid document.

Despite their importance, these two bulwarks of a free society are under attack. Although they pay it occasional lip-service, the left has practically no respect for the Constitution. They adhere to the maxim of the progressive president, Woodrow Wilson who claimed that “The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straitjacket”… “There were blank pages in it, into which could be written passages that would suit the exigencies of the day.” In other words, Wilson and his current followers believe that they can alter the Constitution to align with their interests. Not only is this arrogant and tyrannical, it eliminates the possibility of political stability. If the structure of our regime is not predetermined, then each generation must force their new vision upon society. This is certainly not a situation in which civilized discourse is likely to occur.

Additionally, in many areas of the country religion is not only seen as a farce, but as something that must be removed from public life. Take the example of the Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Nearly every major left-wing figure was adamantly opposed to his right to religious freedom. Over 200 Democratic members of Congress submitted a brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the sam-sex couple. Among the supporters were Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer and House Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (NBC News). The left no longer adheres to an “agree to disagree” attitude. Their actions demonstrate both a disdain for freedom and rejection of religious values.

When people lament our current polarization and vitriol, they often forget to ask why we are polarized. Or, if they provide an answer, they typically engage in milquetoast virtue-signaling wherein they vaguely point fingers at both sides. While both sides can be wrong, one will almost always be more wrong than the other. When prominent figures take this supposed moral high ground, they forget a fundamental truth; politics is a serious business and people are right to take it seriously. It is not an arena for play-actors or drifters without principles. Politics is a place where fundamental questions of human life are put into practice. While we may be forced to compromise, we should never abandon basic moral truths. Nor should we forget that compromise is only possible under certain conditions.