Silence Dogood Wire

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?

During the first half of the 19th century one of the most perceptive minds pondered the future of democracy. After visiting the United States and examining our political institutions, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote his two volume masterpiece; Democracy in America. The first deals primarily with the particularities of American government and culture. In it, Tocqueville demonstrates that America was profoundly influenced by the religious and democratic spirit of New England townships. The second volume, published five years later, includes Tocqueville’s more sober meditations on the possible fate of democracy. Although he was a supporter of the new regime, especially in America, he also pointed out the potential dangers that come from within democratic societies.  

One of the most striking concepts that Tocqueville developed is called “soft despotism.” In the democratic age, he observed the weakening of social and familial ties coupled with a tendency towards the centralization of state power. The simultaneous impulses to become both more individualistic and more reliant on bureaucracy would lead to a new form of social control in which the government attempted to care for all of society’s needs. This new despotism “would be more expansive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them” (trans. Mansfield and Winthrop). Hence the term “soft.”

Whether or not we have reached the state that Tocqueville described, many indications of soft despotism could be listed. The government, for example, can regulate the amount of food you produce, even if it is only for your personal consumption. Additionally, from 1960 to 2019 the number of pages of federal regulation increased by over 100,000 touching numerous aspects of American life. Furthermore, Mark Zuckerberg, recently revealed that the Biden Administration pressured Meta into censoring content in the name of public safety. 

Indeed, if one surveys modern leftist thought, it appears their main goal is to bring about the nanny state that Tocqueville feared. California, for example, currently coerces retailers into promoting the left-wing narrative surrounding gender. Many want the government to influence every single aspect of an individual’s life. Although they might not intend to use the harsh methods of the Soviet gulag, their actions tend towards a greater centralization and expansion of the scope of government.

This tendency was recently put on full display when the surgeon general released a “General Advisory on the Mental Health and Well-Being of Parents.” No one doubts that parenting has always been a stressful endeavor. Literature from literally any period in human history that deals with parent-child dynamics will reveal this reality (along with many others). Despite this fact, no government in human history has ever concerned itself with the “mental health” of parents. There have been efforts to improve the economy, or other aspects of society that indirectly reduce stress, but caring about an individual mother’s stress has never been the concern of the government. 

In the past, this was reserved for people like grandparents, husbands (although maybe as likely to increase stress), friends, and the like. Perhaps this expansion in governmental concerns is a result of the decay in social relations and increase in isolation (which Tocqueville also warned about). After all, 43 percent of marriages end in divorce and nearly 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock. As responsible behavior declines, people rely on government to fill the gap and government is eager to grow.

Indeed, one can see the nanny state emerge in the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris. Aside from her actual policies (which are ambiguous) her campaign has all the features that signal a penchant for paternalism. She is presented as the candidate of “joy” and is fond of telling voters how her step-children refer to her as “Mamala.” Anyone who is moderately well-socialized probably wouldn’t fall for such nonsense. People with strong friends groups and intact families don’t need “joy” or “Mamala.” They need a competent leader who can deliver effective policies. 

In order to avoid the soft-despotism that Tocqueville warned about, there must be a two-pronged approach. In addition to reducing the scope of government, individuals must also take the necessary steps to support the lives they want to lead. Social bonds need to be reawakened in order to promote a fulfilling life that the government can never deliver. It is for this reason that proponents of limited government cannot exist without the help of social conservatives who promote family values. This was recognized by the great 20th century intellectual, Frank Meyer, who promoted Fusionsims; the idea that conservatives must promote both liberty and virtue. His efforts at National Review helped unify various strands of the conservative movement, culminating in the election of Ronald Reagan eight years after his death. In a 1981 speech, Reagan touched upon the profound influence of Meyer who “reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture.” The future success of America depends upon reawakening the wisdom of men like Tocqueville who understood that freedom depends on culture just as much as it depends upon political institutions.

Erik Drost, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

When surveying the modern political landscape one thing stands out: the unreasonableness of so many opinions. One can find mainstream figures who believe that men can become women, Hamas protests are totally acceptable, and it is fascist to ban pornographic books in public school libraries. Indeed, the modern leftist attitude is one of skepticism towards our ability to know right from wrong and truth from falsehood. To tell a person that right and wrong exist is to deny their lived experience and foist one’s own conception of the world upon them. Hence the new phrase “my truth.” We must keep an open mind to all perspectives because they are all equally valid. Proponents of this view would do well to follow the advice of G.K. Chesterton: “Do not be so open-minded that your brain falls out.”

Unfortunately, the problem of open-mindedness leading to perverse viewpoints has also infected certain segments of the right. Whereas the left displays skepticism towards our ability to understand objective moral rules, many conservatives have adopted an abiding suspicion of “official” narratives. The regime in power is viewed as being so corrupt that one must be skeptical of everything. Thus, popular commentators like Tucker Carlson frequently claim that they are merely asking questions in order to find the truth. While there is certainly nothing wrong with asking questions, one must do so with a firm moral compass beforehand. If one asks questions without a prior set of values then they will be unable to interpret the answers they receive.

Indeed, this spirit of uncritical open-mindedness was put on full display in a recent interview between Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson. Cooper, who hosts a so-called history podcast, attempted to rewrite the history of WWII with Churchill as a villain on par with Hitler. Cooper told Carlson that in order to provoke his podcast partner he “told him that I think — and maybe I’m being a little hyperbolic, maybe — but I told him, maybe trying to provoke him a little bit, that I thought Churchill was the chief villain of the Second World War.” He then portrayed the Nazi death camps as unfortunate accidents that were the result of improper logistics. Despite (or perhaps because of) all this, Carlson called Cooper “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.”

In light of his other statements, Carlson’s willingness to entertain such absurd and immoral ideas is likely a result of his profound skepticism. For example, he recently said that “the fact that these lunatics have used the Churchill myth to bring our country closer to nuclear war than at any moment in history disgusts me.” Apparently he came to the conclusion that because government officials say Churchill is good, he must be bad. Such fallacious reasoning is the mark of an uncritical skeptic who has allowed his brain to fall out and is a prime example of how unbounded skepticism destroys reasoning. Skepticism does not produce affirmative belief and leaves one defenseless against the depredations of the unjust.

The only people who are fit to relentlessly question the regime and the “official” narrative are those who have a deep and abiding moral sense. Without this, the questioner cannot filter out the true from the false and the good from the bad. Skepticism must never be the driving force behind any intellectual movement. Skepticism towards moral truths led the left to embrace moral relativism. On the right, a mere skepticism of the “official” narrative will lead to similarly dark places.

Upon even a cursory glance it is clear that we live in an exceedingly tolerant society. People are free to speak their minds, vote for third-party candidates, and pursue their own unique view of happiness. Indeed, we are heirs to a classically liberal tradition stretching back to John Locke that emphasizes individual rights over unjust state intervention.

This political philosophy produced tremendous benefits, including the prevention of tyranny and the flourishing of a free-market economy that lifted millions of people out of poverty. Liberalism, properly speaking, has been a force for great social good over the last few centuries. It kept politics immune from the theological disputes that wreaked havoc on pre-liberal societies and allowed people to live without fear of tyrannical coercion. Indeed, one could say that we have a politics of tolerance. Two people can have wildly different opinions and they must be tolerated nonetheless.

As liberal societies emerged, however, morality was not similarly tolerant. While people were legally free to say what they wished, it was clear to many that there is a right thing to say and a wrong thing to say, regardless of whether or not such speech is permitted. This attitude was largely informed by a Christian and classical worldview which held that there is an eternal moral law that governs individual and state actions. Children were not blank slates who could manipulate themselves into their own self-creation, but moral agents who needed to be tutored in correct action.

Unfortunately, as religiosity and philosophical literacy have declined the idea of tolerance has also seeped into the realm of morality. To criticize someone’s lifestyle is tantamount to denying their personhood. To tell a child that they cannot choose their own gender is to engage in harmful bigotry that forces some states to intervene.

In our day, moral discourse is almost nonexistent. The only time that moral statements are made is when someone tells another person “Don’t be judgemental!” The fundamental fact about morality, however, is that it is judgemental. Moral rules tell us that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live. In order to determine what was moral, the Greek philosopher Aristotle examined the natural function of man. He found that because man has reason, it was good for him to perform rational actions in accordance with virtue. To stray from this demand was not to pursue an alternative lifestyle but to violate certain moral principles. 

The recognition of these moral principles is not just important for individuals it is also necessary for the common good. If citizens are not virtuous enough to rule themselves, then how can they rule the commonwealth? A passage from the Federalist is worth quoting at length:

 As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, 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. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another. 

To be a self-governing citizen requires the virtues that have been handed down by our classical and Christian tradition. When tolerant liberal politics becomes tolerant liberal morality it corrodes the social order and paradoxically destroys liberal politics. 

Individual morality allows people to live justly and teaches citizens the correct uses of state power. Liberalism has had many political benefits but it is not a sufficient moral doctrine. In order to return to a saner politics we must recover classical and Christian virtues that inform individual life and reinforce the political order.

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.