Am I a Glenn-Beck-ificator Too?

So I got in a debate with some libertarian-types who were bemoaning the state of our country.  "How did we get here?", they ask.  "If we could just pull the government out of everything then our creative abilities would be set free to solve everything and we would reach the state of libertarian nirvana!"  So I pitched my now fairly firm belief that this is IMPOSSIBLE unless we start rebuilding the family and other institutions to take care of the social welfare needs of society.  Something has to take its place!  I added a bit about my view that social liberalism and its views on sexuality (I think I called it sexual anarchy in the debate) are incompatible with a free society.  Social liberalism participates in the destruction of families, churches and other institutions that HAVE to be strong if we ever hope to get off the government teat.  Here was Smitty's response:

SMITTY:You're a Fruit-Bat. What a bunch of Bunk. No wonder Mormons are persecuted... the sh** you're peddling doesn't square with reality.

You just invent non-sense to square with your non-sensical views. You just throw around terms; 'Leftist', 'Liberalism', 'Welfarism'... you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. This is the Glenn Beck-ification of American discourse. You just talk sh**.

Individualism is what the US is all about. Just because one is individualistic doesn't mean that they are anarchists.

The Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.. and sexual morality laid down by Mormons, would be a pretty comical, but deserving fate, for an America that would subscribe to your vacuous prattling.

Who are you, to be fit to determine what a 'norm' or a 'standard' would be?... You believe in 'fairy tales'... and follow a Religion invented by a two bit Con Man...

Anyone who brings 'sexual morality' and 'family values' into a conversation about the Constitution, is clearly a Dogmatic Bunko Salesman.

The Pea-Brains that are proliferating at an alarming rate...who follow to the nit-wittery that you subscribe to, are the primary reason the United States is becoming a laughing stock.


SAM: Pretty good for an ad hominem attack Smitty but you didn't even address anything I talked about, and I don't even think you tried to understand what I am saying.

In his initial post Occam despaired the loss of the constitution due to the fact that the government is doing too much for us now. A HUGE chunk of that is related to social welfare expenses. I see a direct connection between the breakdown of institutions such as the family, the church, community institutions and the rise of the government to fill those roles. Maybe that is a stretch...it seems pretty obvious to me. Anyone who wants to advocate a decline in government expenditure on welfare, but not propose anything to fill the void is kidding themselves. I'm proposing some things that are necessary to fill the void.

I'm all for an 'individualistic' society. Fine. But there are social welfare needs that can only be addressed collectively. We either choose to come together as individuals, or we let the government take over those social welfare needs. And when we give the government control over greater and greater pieces of the national wealth we shouldn't be surprised when they do things we don't agree with.


SMITTY: You post bunk.. I throw To-Mah-Toes... there are no rules.

There's no sense in debating your assertions. You put forth no evidence or logic... you simply make sh** up and present it as fact.

Like everything you post.. it's circular logic.. you believe things.. and you speciously substitute your beliefs, for something that could be debated.

Your POV is not an argument... you offer no facts to be debated.

This is the state of American discourse... people pull stuff out of the a** and run with it, as if it is something for debate... or as if they are seeking some sort of 'understanding'...

Basically, ideologues push their Dogma.. until you the shoot them. would I bother to have a debate with Mohammed Atta? Osama Bin Laden? Pat Robertson? Marshal Applewhite? No. There's no point in debating dogma or faith or non-sense...

You would just keep presenting more bunk.. and more dogma.. and more of your self acclaimed assertions, as being some sort of evidence... it would be pointless.

You get the point.  The more I thought about it though, he's kinda right.  I do just make assertions.  Most of my assertions are extensions of my gospel testimony.  They aren't open to refutation.  Now do not misunderstand me...there is nothing wrong with bearing a testimony or even advocating political postitions based on spiritual testimony of truth.  But, as Elder Oaks reminded us in his speech at BYU Idaho last fall,

"...religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."

Smitty's criticisms of my argument actually reminded me of the criticism that the BYU professors (cited in an earlier post) made about Glenn Beck:

"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."
I find in [Beck] a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."

 So I suppose I am a bit of a Glenn-Beck-ificator...no apologies but definitely a wake up call to do better!

The Libertarian Illusion

Libertarianism is on the rise in America. As conservatives are faced with the prospect of greater government involvement in the health care system they instinctively turn to their limited-government roots. As they search the political landscape for someone, anyone, with whom they can relate they find the only thoughtful breed of conservatives left: libertarians. I must admit, I hear the siren call of the libertarian message and have to talk myself into not joining their crusade. There is a part of me that yearns to believe their message. Libertarians are fantastic at pointing out many of the problems in our society. Whether it relates to American foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, the welfare state, the educational system, etc. I could go on. So many keen insights, all derived from the libertarian commitment to individual liberty.

So what is my problem with libertarianism? As I said, they are great at pointing out societal defects, they are terrible at solutions. Essentially what they say to EVERY problem that exists is that it's the governments fault, and if we simply got the government out of the way, problems would fix themselves. That's pretty much it. The public happiness and societal good is negatively correlated to the size and reach of the government. Those on the libertarian fringe even theorize that government is not necessary at all. All government functions could be privatized and the resulting anarchist state would naturally morph into a type of utopia.

So I like the idea of getting government out of our lives. In fact I love the idea. That is why libertarianism appeals to me so much. The problem is, I think the government is running our lives because we let them in. We want them there. And by letting them in, we have grown dependent on them. And I don't mean just those who collect food stamps, or live in government subsidized housing. I mean all of us. Take our foreign policy as an example. Our founding fathers spoke pretty clearly about not intervening in the political affairs of other countries. Just look at the mess we have made in the middle east by not following that counsel. So why do we interfere? It's simple: Americans want the goods that come from the countries we interfere with. In the case of the middle east, it's oil. I recently listened to a book by Andrew J Bacevich entitled The Limits of Power:The End of American Exceptionalism.  Mr. Bacevich is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and a tenured professor at Boston University.  He patiently explains that although we didn't invade Iraq on behalf of Big Oil, if there was no oil in the middle east it would have zero strategic significance to us.  Without oil the middle east would be RWANDA. We wouldn't care about it AT ALL. Remember the genocide in Rwanda in the 90's? If we are really so concerned about promoting democracy and coming to the aid of our fellow men, why didn't we help out with that one? It's because we had no national or economic interests in Rwanda. Our leaders are aware of the political fallout that would occur should the steady supply of cheap energy from the middle east be disrupted, so they oblige their constituents by engaging in immoral wars and building up a ridiculous foreign police force to maintain stability in the region.

I use the middle east as an example, but we could point to virtually every place where the government is inappropriately involved and find ourselves staring in the mirror when looking for the real culprit. And when the government gets involved for any extended period of time it becomes like a cancer that can only be removed by damaging other vital organs in the process. As an example, if the welfare state were brought to an abrupt end the resulting instability and public uprising could easily threaten a worse calamity than the present state of affairs. History teaches us that such episodes of instability threaten our liberty. Just look at the times in American history where the State has expanded the fastest: the Civil War, the Great Depression, and 9-11. Uprooting the cancer may lead us even closer to killing the liberties that we still enjoy.

So now for the solutions. John Adams famously said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If you've read any of my previous posts you realize, no doubt, that I am a hopeless idealist. I sincerely believe that the solutions to our problems are really quite simple, but they require individuals to return to traditional principles and a proper moral understanding. Do you want the United States to stop nation building and maintain a more modest foreign policy? The solution lies in Americans becoming more moderate in their appetites and grateful for what they have. There might be a painful transition, but we may very well avoid any future stings that are sure to come from incessantly kicking the foreign hornets nests. Do you want the welfare state to come to an end? The solution is not in uprooting the government, the solution lies in Americans rebuilding the institutions of marriage and the family. The solution lies in Americans turning back to God and rebuilding their churches and charitable institutions. When those institutions are healthy again, demand for government will decline.

Do you want to help your country remain free? Build a strong marriage, love and support your family, get back to church, donate your time and means to charitable causes. Live within your means. Work hard for a more prosperous future, but be grateful for what you have. Set a good example to your fellow citizens and do not hesitate to raise your voice in support of vital moral issues. As English philosopher Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

A common question posed to defenders of traditional marriage is, "How would gay marriage hurt your marriage? What does it matter to you?".  Many of us are stumped by the question.  The following post is an attempt to answer this question:

The answer is: it doesn't hurt my marriage (if I were married of course!).  But changing the definition of marriage to include same sex partnerships will hurt society and potentially my freedom.  Government support of traditional marriage implicitly supports the particular family structure that emerges from such marriages.  The structure of mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandfather, grandmother and so on is the natural institution that flows from the foundation of marriage. When such marriages remain intact, this 'family tree' can become quite large where each branch has a blood tie to other branches of the tree with a resulting natural affection and concern for each member's welfare.  To quote Professor Robert P. George from Princeton, "This structure is the original and best department of health, education and welfare."

If government were to support gay marriage, they would essentially be withdrawing their support of this traditional family structure.  Children are not a natural extension of gay relationships, so if government supported the formation of gay 'families' they would be supporting the idea that it is perfectly healthy and morally neutral to willfully bring children into a non-traditional family setting.  They would essentially be saying that there is no ideal family structure.  It is true that single mothers exist, gay couples end up with children from previous relationships or through invitro, and other alternative family situations arise.  But should government be encouraging  these scenarios?  Are we really to believe that a position of neutrality would produce no ill effects on society as a whole?

As indicated in my previous post 'A Defense of Traditional Marriage', such natural institutions as the traditional family are critical if we are to maintain the American ideal of limited government.  As the family structure breaks down,  someone must step in to fill the role.  Politicians are only too happy to fill this role as they can secure power in governmental spheres by promising to take care of the victims. This leads to the deprivation of liberty in various forms.  I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that come most easily to mind:

1) Property rights violations.  Politicians begin participating in schemes of wealth redistribution to care for the poor and the needy.  Although they are trumpeted as acts of fairness, these schemes are really the inevitable result of a people who have failed to take care of their own.

2) Loss of religious liberty.  Marriage and the traditional family structure are pre-political  institutions.  Government did not invent marriage, but government has chosen to promote and recognize this natural institution in every culture we are aware of.  When a legal definition is pitted against a pre-political and religious definition, attacks on religious liberty are certain to follow.  Take the example of Catholic Charities in Boston.  This group was forced out of the adoption business because church leaders refused to allow adoption to gay couples.  Rather than compromise their religious convictions, they gave up their adoption license.  Gay marriage activists have, and will use anti-discrimination laws to whip the masses into line.

I would appreciate it if anyone can challenge my assertions, or post arguments supporting the idea of gay marriage.  If I am missing something, I would like to understand the other side of the argument more clearly.