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!

Ron Paul vs. Sarah Palin

I found this article on the Huffington Post today, Ron Paul vs. Sarah Palin for the Soul of the Tea Parties.  From the opening paragraph:

"There's trouble brewing between the Ron Paul libertarians who staged the the first modern tea party in 2007 by dumping tea into Boston Harbor, and the neocon war hawks led by Sarah Palin who are furiously trying to hijack their message."

I am currently less sanguine about the prospects of a Ron Paul style libertarian regime solving our country's problems than I was in 2007.  But I am convinced that Dr. Paul is principled to the core and really is trying to help the country.  And I am MUCH less sanguine about the prospects of a completely unprincipled neocon style regime effecting any real change. That is a recipe for Bush 2.0.

The Tea-Party movement casting out Ron Paul?  The guy whose followers started the Tea Party movement a few years ago??  This is a great example of the Republican establishment putting the kibosh on an effort at real change.

Encore! Law and Morality Part II

My post yesterday was a bit heavy going so I thought I should throw something up today in case I scared anyone off :-)  Since my original post entitled 'Law and Morality' was such a hit (I got zero comments) I figured this might be a good chance to refine my views.

I am aware that my blog is turning into something of an outlet for the views of Robert P. George.  He really is one of my heroes and I am sorry for inundating my readers (all 3 of you) with a constant deluge of Catholic philosophy.  But that is the kick I am on lately, so deal with it.  I am reading a couple of books by Dr. George right now and he is certainly changing my views on the propriety of legislating personal morality.  I'll use an example to illustrate:

As explained in an earlier post (Law and Morality), in my more libertarian days (like 3 weeks ago...yeah I'm that unstable) I considered racial discrimination laws to be immoral because they violate private property rights.  Why shouldn't someone have the right to do what they want on their own property?  If the general populace finds it vile that a business owner excludes blacks, the populace will not patronize that business and it will lose money.

While I still may think that it is more prudent for the government to refrain from legislating on racial discrimination issues, I do not regard it as immoral for the government to do so.  I have come to believe that the whole idea of denying the government the right to 'legislate morality' is a 'practical absurdity' (in the words of Obama).  As Obama said in a 2006 speech, "Our law is by definition a codification of morality."  The rights that libertarians do esteem as appropriate for government enforcement (defense of life, liberty, property) are so esteemed based on a moral claim.  Why are libertarians okay with the government enforcing these moral issues, but not other moral issues?

In the pre-civil rights era, there were states that actually had laws on the books that were meant to promote racism.  These laws were clearly unjust.  They were not unjust, however, because they legislated personal morality.  They were unjust because they embodied a false morality.  A racist morality. 

There may be prudential reasons for denying the government the power to regulate certain aspects of personal morality, such as:

• A concern that the power of the state will grow excessively as a consequence
• A high cost to enforce, with minimal or questionable returns on the investment (the war on drugs would be a good example of this one)

I do not believe that one can claim that it is immoral for government to legislate on matters of personal morality though.  I think it is better to say that in particular areas of morality it is not prudential for the government to legislate.  It is a matter of practical judgment.  And what is prudent in one epoch or what is prudent in one culture, may not be prudent in another epoch or culture.  The foundational questions when considering a particular piece of morals legislation are:  Is the morality being considered for legislation correct?  If so, is it prudent to regulate this particular moral truth?  In many cases we may answer yes to the first question, but no to the second. 

As members of the LDS church, we often sense that morals legislation deprives people of agency.  It is often mentioned that, "It was Satan's plan to destroy agency.  Forcing people to do good is exactly what Satan wants."  I have determined (with the help of a friend, and you KNOW who you are:) that this is a misunderstanding of scripture.  Read the verses again: Moses 4:1-3

1 And I, the ^aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That ^bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the ^cbeginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will ^dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely ^eI will do it; wherefore ^fgive me thine honor.

  2 But, behold, my Beloved ^aSon, which was my Beloved and ^bChosen from the beginning, said unto me—^cFather, thy ^dwill be done, and the ^eglory be thine forever.

  3 Wherefore, because that ^aSatan ^brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the ^cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be ^dcast down

Satan made at least two mistakes:

• He rebelled against God.  God had already presented his plan, and Satan thought he had a better idea.  This was Lucifer's pride
• He offered to 'redeem all mankind that one soul shall not be lost'.  To redeem means to make amends for wrongdoing.  It means to remove the consequences.  No where do the scriptures tell us that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man by trying to 'make them do the right thing.'  Instead, it seems, he sought to destroy the agency of man by promising to remove the consequences of their bad decisions.  He was telling God's children that they could come to earth, do whatever they wanted, not repent, and still be saved. Since this plan was clearly an illusion, God recognized that Satan was setting a trap for His children whereby they would become Lucifer's slaves.  And we can see that those who did follow Satan are enslaved to him.  I highly doubt that Satan is currently depriving any of his followers of agency by employing a tactic whereby he 'forces them to do good.'  Their 'loss of agency' is reflected in their inability to make choices whatsoever.  They are completely in Satan's control.

The idea that morals legislation takes away agency is a mistaken interpretation.  Man is not being controlled by the law.  The law is a teacher, and man still has the choice whether or not to obey the law.  Those who follow Satan and lose their agency have no power of choice whatsoever.  To claim that laws remove agency when legislating personal morality, one would also need to claim that laws prohibiting murder remove agency.  But clearly people can still choose to murder. 

So to repeat, laws are only immoral when they embody a false morality.  That being said, it may very well be prudent for us to deny the government power of enforcement in certain moral spheres.

Law and Morality

After finishing my last post, the voice of Robert P. George was ringing in my ears.  If you have read any of my previous posts about marriage, you know what a fan I am of Professor George.  He has made headlines recently as one of the authors of the "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience" (link here), and as the subject of a piece in the New York Times Magazine December 20th entitled "Robert P. George, the Conservative-Christian Big Thinker" (link to article here).  Professor George is a tenured professor at Princeton where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties, and the philosophy of law.

In my last post I castigated racial-discrimination laws because they violate private property rights.  I was not arguing that racial discrimination is okay.  I was arguing that government should not regulate this because it is a matter of moral interpretation and not the place of the government.  Here's a clip from a talk that Professor George gave to BYU students in 2008 (link to speech here) where he comments on this topic of law and morality (italics added):

 "It is a profound mistake to suppose that  the principle of limited government is rooted in the denial of moral truth, or a putative requirement for governments to refrain from acting on the basis of judgments about moral truths.  For our commitment to limited government is itself the fruit of moral conviction.  It is a moral belief.  It is not a belief founded on the idea that nobody can know the moral truth.  Quite the opposite.  It is an assertion of something held out to be 'the moral truth.'  This conviction is ultimately founded upon truths that our nation's founders claimed as self-evident, namely: that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  At the foundation is the proposition that each human being, every member of the human family, possesses a profound, inherent, and equal dignity simply by virtue of his nature as a rational creature. 

Now to speak of truth frightens some people today.  In the type of University environments that I usually spend my time people get very nervous when you talk about 'the truth'.  They evidently believe that people who claim to know the truth about anything, and especially about moral matters, are fundamentalists and potential totalitarians.  But as my friend, Professor (??), has patiently explained, those on the other side of the great moral debates make truth claims all the time.  They assert their positions with no less confidence and no more doubt than one finds in pro-lifers or defenders of conjugal marriage.  They proclaim for example, not as some mere matter of abstract opinion, but as something true, that women have a fundamental right even to elective abortion.  They maintain, with all the conviction you can have when speaking something you believe to be true, that love makes a family.  The question then, is not whether there are truths about such things as the morality of elective abortion and the nature of marriage.  The question in each case is, "What is the truth?""

So regarding my stance on private property rights, I think Professor George would ask me this: Why should the government respect property rights?  I would answer that it is wrong for the government, or anyone else to tell me what to do with my property.  In other words, I would be asking the law to recognize my moral right to my property.  Since we have established that I am okay with the law enforcing this particular moral truth, why am I opposed to the law enforcing another moral truth? Namely, the truth that all men are created equal, regardless of their race, and deserve equal treatment as such.  Even on someone's private property.

Darn this Professor George and his superior intellect.  So now I ask myself these questions:  Are there certain moral truths that the government should enforce, and others that it should not?  If so, how does a society determine which moral categories are fair game for legal enforcement?  And beyond that, what happens when laws enforcing morality come in conflict with each other (i.e. private property rights vs. right to not be discriminated against)?  I think a strict libertarian would answer that since the government derives its just power from the consent of the governed, the government can only enforce morals on the citizenry that an individual, in the absence of government, could enforce on his neighbor.  In other words, people can only lend to the government powers that they themselves possess.

For example, we all recognize stealing as wrong.  If my neighbor steals one of my cars, I have the right to force my neighbor to give it back to me.  Since I posess this power, I can empower my agent, the government, to take the car back for me.  Now think of a racial discrimination example:  What if I observe that my neighbor never lets black people on his property.  Do I have the right to force him to let black people on his property?  It does not seem so.  Therefore I do not have the right to empower my agent, the government, to force my neighbor to allow black people on his property.

It is for this reason that libertarians limit the powers of government to the defense of life, liberty, and property.  It all seems quite reasonable until you start reading where this logic takes you by hard core libertarians.  A few years ago I was listening to a libertarian podcast entitled Free Talk Live.  The host of the show was defending abortion, and even infanticide if I remember right, on the grounds that an embryo, or small baby is not yet a rational creature with the capability of defending its rights.  Therefore, an infant cannot logically empower its agent, the state, to defend its rights.  Therefore the infant is not guaranteed protection under the law.  Or something like that.  Like I said, it gets pretty bizarre.

I think Professor George would argue that the libertarian view is nonsense.  He would agree with President Obama that, "our law is, by definition, a codification of morality. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." (link to Obama speech here) In his talk to the students at BYU, Professor George says this:

"We must not adopt a merely pragmatic understanding, or speak only of practical considerations, in addressing the pressing, morally charged issues of our day.  Sound positions cannot be effectively advanced by citizens and statesmen who are unwilling, or unable, to engage moral arguments.  That is why we should, in my opinion, rededicate ourselves to understanding and making the moral argument for, for example, the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, and the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman. 

Our task, as I see it, should be to understand the moral truth, and speak it.  In season, and out.  Speak it lovingly, speak it civilly.  Engage those with whom one disagrees in civil discourse, open to hearing counterarguments.  Open to hearing the other side's point of view.  Yes, speak it lovingly, speak it civily, but speak it firmly, and vigorously.  Because so much is at stake."

Elsewhere, Professor George has written (article link here):

"Christians and other believers are right to defend their positions on key moral issues as rationally superior to the alternatives proposed by those who have abandoned traditional moral principles.  Opponents of these traditional principles can be shown to be stuck.  Not because they have been beaten over the head with the bible, but on the plain where they have made the argument: the plain of rationality."

I am not certain which moral categories are, and are not, fair game for legal regulation.  I do know that law will inevitably represent a 'codification' of public morality.  Since it is impossible to keep the law out of the moral sphere, it is imperative that we strive to ensure that the law embodies the moral truth.  It is imperative that we are able to articulate the rational argument for traditional morality.  LDS scripture teaches us about an ancient civilization facing similar circumstances:

"For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted."    Helaman 5:2

Laws become 'corrupted' when they embody a false morality.  We should rededicate ourselves to understanding the argument for traditional morals because, as Professor George stated, "so much is at stake."

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."