Silence Dogood Wire

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.

When an American considers a hero who personifies a real man, he will often ponder the great deeds of Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, or George Washington, to name a few. Both on and off the battlefield, these men showed a remarkable amount of courage and dedication to their country. But despite their admirable qualities, both the memory and the virtues of these heroes have come under attack. Not only are we told that our heroic ancestors were bigoted men, those who try to emulate them are viewed as a danger to society. 

 The U.S. military, which was once the most manly institution in the world, has been infiltrated by drag queens and critical race theorists. Additionally, men who mutilate themselves in order to look like women are praised much more than veterans who make sacrifices for this country. After all, we have an entire month of pride but only a single day is devoted to memorializing our fallen soldiers. Manliness used to be considered an admirable quality, now it is labeled as “toxic masculinity.”

Sometimes, manly virtue is even met with legal consequences. This was clearly illustrated when Marine veteran Daniel Penny restrained a violent lunatic on a New York subway. Not only was Penny indicted, his alleged victim- a man with over 40 prior arrests who tried to kidnap a minor and assaulted an old woman- was lauded as an integral community member.

It seems that our society is incapable of honoring or even accepting manliness. It is either scorned as being unnecessary or actively reviled for its supposed danger. On the occasion that a manly hero is injured while performing a heroic deed, our elites often bestow him with pity rather than gratitude or reverence. In our society, effeminacy is more esteemed than manliness. 

It is clear, however, that a society without manly men cannot survive. Free societies require the assertion of rights. Manly men must call for these rights to be respected. They must fight and even kill, if necessary. Right now, the Ukrainians understand this better than anyone.

No doubt manliness can be used for bad ends. But so can any other good quality including persuasiveness, athleticism, and even compassion. Yet our society has a unique dislike of manliness.

This dislike of manly prowess stems from the desire for complete equality which has overtaken our country. Writing in 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible; they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery.” Our democratic and increasingly irreligious country can not stand distinctions of any kind. This is clearly illustrated by the attack on the distinction between men and women, the refusal to recognize proper sexual mores (think pride month), and the removal of standardized test scores. Each of these developments is a form of cultural upheaval aimed at social equalization.

Standing in the way of this egalitarian onslaught is manliness. As the political philosopher Harvey C. Mansfield observes “Manliness must prove itself and do so before an audience. It seeks to be theatrical, welcomes drama, and wants your attention.” A manly person is assertive and demanding. A man is someone who tries to distinguish himself and looks down on those who don’t display equal manliness. It is not uncommon to hear a real man referring to an effeminate man with inappropriate expletives which refer to the female sex.

Manliness is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. It is aristocratic, seeking to distance itself from others and claim its rightful place in society. Gender-neutral liberals and woke leftists cannot stand such a noble quality, because nobility implies a hierarchy. Manly men are told to be more sensitive and passive in the face of an eroding culture and an expanding government.

Manly virtue, which is undemocratic, noble, and harsh, stands in the way of perfect equality. It maintains liberty, demands reverence, and defends what it sees as valuable. Thus, it is no wonder that our egalitarian, irreverent, and value-neutral society insists on effeminacy.

Olympias presenting the young Alexander the Great to Aristotle by Gerard Hoet before 1733 

Perhaps the greatest virtue of our day is self-expression. Being the authentic you is seen as the paramount task of any human being. Our society’s dedication to self-expression is most clearly apparent in the LGBTQ alphabet. It seems that each day a new letter is added in order to denote another uncommon sexual preference. Many have even attempted to ignore biology in the quest for greater individuality. Children have their body parts cut off and those who oppose it are accused of bigotry. “How dare you refuse to accept who someone really is,” they angrily shout.

Despite the general irrationality of these left-wing activists, they do touch upon a subject of the utmost importance; what does it mean to be an authentic human being? Many liberals pretend that they prefer to leave this question up to each individual to decide. But such an answer is meaningless. If to be the real you is doing whatever you want, then you are nothing more than your impulses.

Humans, unlike animals, have the ability to choose. This ability to choose, however, is not an end in itself. Choosing rightly is the goal of all human action. If this were not the case, then parenting would make no sense. One would merely allow children to choose whatever they wished. But even the most progressive parents typically don’t go this far.

The ancient philosophers provide a much better road to authentic personhood than modern progressives. They viewed the world in terms of an end or goal, also known as a telos. Humans, because of our unique status in the universe, also have a unique telos. Aristotle, perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time, believed that the goal of all human activity is flourishing. But flourishing is not some abstract concept that is different for all individuals. Flourishing is inherently linked to our nature as human beings. We cannot flourish by merely pursuing pleasure or nutritive growth because both animals and plants possess these faculties. Humans, unlike any other creature, possess reason. Thus, in order to flourish, humans must engage in rational activity in accordance with virtue. The good man, who lives a good life, will achieve flourishing by strictly adhering to reason and virtue. Aristotle’s ethical framework is not a mere suggestion. It is a profound insight that is linked to our objective nature as human beings. Flourishing is not a feeling but an objective state that is produced by adherence to reason and virtue.

Such an account of human nature and the good life is far removed from progressive calls for limitless self-expression. At its most basic level, self-expression resolves itself through the fulfillment of sexual appetites. What is the LGBTQ alphabet other than a list of sexual preferences? Self-expression is merely doing what you want to do without any rational forethought. Additionally, self-expression endorses cowardice. Courage is the ability to stand firm in the face of danger, in order to protect what you love. All courage has an element of fear associated with it as well. If there were no fear that accompanied courage, then it would merely be irrational risk-taking. 

Self-expression tells us that cowardice is just as worthy of choice as courage because it is an act of self-expression. Worse, it tells us that cowardice is better because we are expressing our true selves. By contrast , virtue ethics tells us that we are morally obligated to achieve the end of human life. We are commanded by our very nature to place restraints upon ourselves in order to fulfill our telos. The life of virtue is fundamentally a life of courage. It means renouncing our base passions and incorporating them into a well-ordered life. Self-expression, by contrast, is relativistic. It tells us that the mere act of choosing is worthy of praise. Self-expression is incompatible with both parenting and virtue.

In order to reinvigorate the moral foundations of our society we must reinstill a dedication to virtue in schools, the houseland, and in the public sphere. Self-expression is the desire to break restraints. But it is restraints which allow us to be authentic human beings by utilizing the best aspects of our nature.

One of the most important public policy debates in our country now centers around the issue of illegal immigration. A politically induced crisis is occurring at our southern border wherein millions of people are flooding into our country. Some are selling drugs and the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens has skyrocketed under the Biden-Harris administration. In 2019, there were two killings committed by illegal immigrants. Last year there were sixty two murders or manslaughters. Additionally, fentanyl has been flooding the nation, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. In 2021 alone over 70,000 people died in primarily fentanyl related overdoses.

Such horrific statistics led candidate and then President Donald Trump to say that Mexico is sending us people who “are bringing drugs, and bringing crime, and their rapists.” His forthright rhetoric gave the media a field day, calling him a racist and bigot. However, both they and the elites in Washington should not have been surprised. They ignored an important problem and people were angry.

Despite these grim crime statistics, however, only a small minority of illegal immigrants actually commit crimes. Many left-leaning media outlets were quick to point this out, as if it diminished the problem. It certainly doesn’t and those who allow open-border policies are partially responsible for the crimes committed by illegal aliens. But despite the relatively low crime rate, there are other reasons to secure our border. Even if an influx of illegal immigrants does not commit crimes, they do weaken the social fabric of our country.

In the early 20th century when millions of immigrants were coming to America, President Theodore Roosevelt said that “The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin…would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” He contended that America is only able to function as a diverse nation because people renounce their foreign cultures and become American. Further, he criticized the so-called “hyphenated American” who put a narrow ethnic grouping ahead of their identity as an American.

To many modern liberals, these words sound like nails on a chalk-board. They accuse  those who insist that foreigners be forced to adopt new practices and beliefs as being intolerant. In some measure, they are correct. We will not tolerate a set of practices which lead to the dissolution of our nation. Tolerance, they seem to forget, is a right which depends on the existence of a unified society. Those who come here must be committed to the American project, or tolerance will not last.

Our country is unique because individuals from foreign countries have come to this nation and willingly placed themselves within a different cultural heritage. I have no relatives who were here in early America and yet I view the Founding Fathers as my forefathers. I suspect that hundreds of millions of other Americans feel the same way. 

Allowing millions of illegal immigrants to flow across our southern border is not a recipe for internal harmony or social cohesion. Rather than promoting assimilation, this system encourages people to form ethnic enclaves to avoid law enforcement. Additionally, without rigid citizenship tests and language requirements, a diverse set of people will be unable to form a lasting political community.

A country has a right to regulate who will be granted citizenship. Those who violate United States law should not be granted amnesty for doing so. Rather than allowing millions of illegal immigrants to flood our southern border, we should be focusing on an immigration policy that encourages assimilation and self-sufficiency. 

Perhaps the most inspiring way of studying the past is to learn about the lives of great individuals who have exhibited courage and justice. Men like Horatius, who stood between Rome and the barbarians, or Demosthenes, who sought to rouse the people of Athens have a universal appeal. Great Man Theory, promoted by the English essayist Thomas Carlyle, holds that the great changes of history are largely owing to the exploits of a few exceptional individuals. Although it would be incorrect to ignore other facets of society, it is certainly true that history has been shaped by courageous people. Mass movements and economic crises are important, but their results are directed by great leaders. The American Revolution would likely have ended in catastrophe if George Washington didn’t emerge to harness the energy of the nation. Similarly, Europe would probably be submerged under Nazi despotism if Winston Churchill hadn’t rallied Britain to the standard of freedom and justice.

In addition to being true, the Great Man Theory of history energizes young people and gives them meaning in a world that seems to be governed by chance and forces beyond their control. This theory calls us to recognize and admire the contributions of heroes who built our societies. Additionally, it compels us to take up the torch of these Great Men and mimic them in their own lives.

But this glorious view of history is under attack by those who wish to tarnish the image of the individuals who built our civilization. Leftists seek to make us immediately associate Thomas Jefferson and George Washington with slavery while others seek to cast Winston Churchill as a selfish imperialist. One might ask; by what right do these individuals attack their moral betteres? The late historian Will Durant, whose famous 11-volume Story of Civilization ran to over 10,000 pages, noted the tendency of the mediocre to chastise the magnificent. He wrote that “Since it is contrary to good manners to exalt ourselves, we achieve the same result by slyly indicating how inferior are the Great Men of the earth.” Seldom does one see the founder of a nation attacking Washington or the liberator of a continent criticizing Chruchill. More often, those who have achieved little are the most eager to damn the great.

The propensity to tear down the statues of great individuals is a modern phenomenon that is largely the product of late-stage democracy which venerates equality at the expense of liberty. This danger was foreseen in the 19th century by Alexis de Tocqueville in his work Democracy in America. He believed “that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom…But for equality, their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible: they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism—but they will not endure aristocracy.” It appears that modern democrats have proven de Tocqueville’s hypothesis correct. Many cannot stand the natural distinctions which are brought about by truly great acts. They would rather go through life without a Churchill or a Washington than reap the benefits of their actions.

This way of thinking is damaging to both freedom and civilizational development because it removes the veneration of those who have brought about political and moral liberty. When we desecrate the memories of those who have fought for justice, their ideals fall by the wayside as well. One cannot have a Declaration of Independence without a Jefferson or a Constitution without a Madison. The builder is essential to the product.

In order to restore meaning to our society we must refuse to let historical nihilists tarnish the reputations of Great Men. When a person justifies their existence with an incredible life their sins become incidental and their virtues should be brought to the forefront.

Going forward, the policy of rational individuals should be one that acknowledges the importance of democratic politics and the inevitability of aristocratic social relations. Sometimes a man will rise so far above his peers that he constantly reminds us of our failings. A proper response to this is not to loudly point out his sins. Instead, we should channel what Alexis de Tocqueville described as a manly feeling of equality; the feeling that causes us to emulate our heroes and seek to attain their glory for ourselves.

Whether it was the Divine Right of Kings or deference to the democratic will, every society in existence has had some form of political morality. In more barbaric eras, where the strongest prevailed, this morality could be summed up as “might makes right.” As we have drifted further from our heritage, it seems that many individuals have forgotten this fundamental truth: a society must be based on a set of shared values.

Our values can be found in the Founding documents of our nation. Abraham Lincoln, the great proponent of political morality, likened the Declaration of Independence to an apple of gold framed in the silver of the Constitution. He believed that the Declaration contained our philosophy of government while the Constitution was a practical application of this philosophy. Those who attacked these principles were enemies of the republic and the free society which these documents produced.

Alongside this vision of political morality has been a resurgent belief in unlimited democracy. Politicians and citizens who don’t adhere to liberal ideas are often accused of attacking “our democracy.” This tactic is not just reserved to politicians in our country. Right-wing leaders such as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Hungary’s Viktor Orban have been accused of being anti-democratic, despite achieving widespread popularity in their respective countries.

The unstinting praise that is heaped on “democracy” is nothing new in politics and merely represents the return of political nihilism. In order to work, democracy must be bound by a constitution which represents a set of political morals. In our case, the Constitution represents the promise of liberty embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

In fact, the greatest political showdowns in American history have arisen from disagreements about the place of the democratic will within our society. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s opponent in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, embodied these disagreements in his defense of slavery. While Lincoln argued that slavery should be stopped regardless of the democratic will, Douglas routinely stated that he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or down.”

Douglas’s conception of political society was merely a resurgence of the “might makes right” formula of previous ages. In his view, no overarching theory of morality undergirded politics. The majority had the right to say what was just with no higher court of appeal.

The Founding generation would have scoffed at his dangerous and unAmerican rhetoric. In his famous pamphlet the Farmer Refuted, Hamilton heaped scorn on individuals who denied the existence of a higher morality. He lambasted his opponent for adhering to this dangerous political maxim stating that “Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he ran into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe.” Politics are unable to be conducted justly if people don’t adhere to higher principles of morality. In the absence of these principles, it becomes a Machiavellian game of power politics.

The readvent of the phrase “our democracy” is representative of the left’s shift towards political nihilism. While they disingenuously heap praises on the democratic will, they simultaneously attack our Constitution, the repository of political morality in our country. They wish to make the masses feel their power, unbounded by any restraints. In doing so, they hope to achieve more power for themselves and enact their ideological schemes without the restraints that are imposed by our apple of gold and frame of silver.

While the democratic will is certainly important in a free society, it needs to be viewed with a proper amount of skepticism. A majority opinion does not make a wrong into a right. Our country has prospered for over 250 years because our heroes have realized this fundamental truth. The democratic will must be bound by a system that protects the rights of individuals and ensures that our country does not devolve into mob rule. The maintenance of a free society requires that we recognize a superintending political morality. Without this recognition we will see the resurgence of the age-old maxim of “might makes right” and the advent of political nihilism.