Silence Dogood Wire

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.

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.