The options for dealing with the national debt presented in the Report mentioned my last post quietly highlighted a hard reality. There is no way to prevent the debt level of the United States from crushing the nation's economic prospects without addressing the public financial burden associated with Social Security and Medicare benefits for the elderly. Such programs are part of our society's efforts to address the age old challenge of all human societies- how to care for children, the infirm and the elderly. However, since the original Report to the President of the Committee on Economic Security transmitted to President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, U.S. efforts have been based on the assumption that, "in this man-made world of ours", the God ordained natural family is inadequate to deal with the challenge.
This inadequacy purportedly relates to the fact that in the "man-made world" the family's material sustenance depends on the income individuals derive from participation in an artificial economy, characterized by large scale industrial and other human enterprises. This income dependency has largely replaced reliance on what they can produce by activities such as agriculture that involve direct interaction with elements of the natural world. According to this reasoning, even with the best intentions and cohesiveness, the family unit cannot secure sufficient income to be proof against the vicissitudes of life in the "made-made world." Government therefore has to replace the family as the locus of provision against misfortune.
That original report claimed that the "task of reconstruction" the nation faced as a result of the misfortune we call the 'Great Depression' "does not require the creation of new and strange values." In the American context this was, at the very least, a disingenuous declaration. The United States of America was not founded on the notion of a "man-made world" but that of a world made by the Creator God who endowed all men with certain unalienable rights. The aim of government is to secure these individual rights, not the individual's material welfare. To be sure, the idea of right includes the individual's responsibility to care for God's gift of life, including all that is necessary to sustain the body, which is its material form. But the idea of human welfare was not confined to meeting its material requirements. It involved, above all, the individual's responsibility to do right, i.e., to carry out the actions required to fulfill the natural law, which encompasses all the determinations of the Creator's will that make human existence possible.
The natural family, as defined by the predisposition toward procreation (to be fruitful and multiply) is the primordial focus of this individual responsibility. Though its activities involve actions indispensable for the material security of its members, the bonds of family are not simply ties of material selfish interest. They involve the active acknowledgment of obligations that subordinate material self-interest to the good of other members of the family and the family as such. Given the sacrifice involved in fulfilling these obligations (up to and including giving one's life for their sake) material calculation cannot ultimately be the motive for doing so. Rather it flows from the conformation of the individual's will to the overall will of the Creator as it relates to the life of each family member, but also to human life as such. This conformation of the individual's will to the benevolent will of the Creator, (as well as the feelings or emotions associated with it), is the true essence of family life, which we call love.
As expressed in the life of the natural family love is not simply an emotional connection between individuals, though it cannot exist apart from the determination of the individual will. Nor does it simply involve the reflexive subordination of the individual's will and existence to that of the family as a whole, for that would invalidate the individuality of each person's loving commitment to the family. As the individual accepts and respects what is required for the existence of the family as such (and that of each of its members,) so the family respects what is required for the existence of each individual as such, including its uniqueness. Though somewhat paradoxical, this mutual respect is the essence of true family unity. This unity is a covenant of love constituted and sustained by the will of the Creator. It emerges as all members of the family come together to accept and carry out the Creator's benevolent provisions for the possibility and sustenance of human life.
Love thus informed by respect for the will of the Creator substantiates the culture of voluntary self-sacrifice that contributes to reliable fulfillment of the mutual obligations family life entails. What people do for the sake of love they do of their own free will, even while preserving the natural bondage that defines and characterizes the family as a whole. This unique fusion of bondage and freedom, of individual choice and natural obligation, is the essence of the distinctly human community. Like the distinctive atomic structure that marks the molecules of a material substance, it marks the family as the indispensable building block of all the more extensive communities that, because they respect the prerequisites of humanity, are properly understood to be human communities.
In this sense the natural family is literally the building block of human society. If, as the original Social Security report implies, the "man-made world" strains the family beyond its capacities, then by threatening the family the "man-made world" poses a threat to the humanness of society (i.e., that which is distinctively human about it.) In response to that threat, the "welfare state" (socialist) approach started during the New Deal substitutes the coercion based activity of the man-made institutions of government for the love based actions of the God endowed natural family. That is to say, it simply surrenders to the threat. The surrender is couched in terms of material necessity. But since the necessity is "man-made" it is contingent upon the human choices responsible for what has been made. Those choices therefore give rise to the threat to the family and the consequent dehumanization of society.
In response to a man-made problem the socialists propose reliance on man-made institutions that cast aside the distinctively human basis of the community. The destruction of the family is therefore not an accident of material circumstances, but a purposeful sacrifice of human being as it comes from the hand of God (human nature) to make way for a world of human making. In the "man-made world" humanity is no longer recognized as such because man has superseded himself, asserting God-like responsibility for the nature of all things, including, of course, his own.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that man is the matter and maker of the state. Though for rhetorical purposes the socialists present the exaltation of the state as a function of compassion, it appears more accurately to be a function of self-idolizing pride. It allows man to believe that he is indebted for what he is to no one but himself. But a debt owed to ourselves is no debt at all. It represents no external constraint upon the will, and involves no acknowledgment of the limits or boundaries of our potential. For the sake of what we will ourselves to be we may therefore expend ourselves without limit, becoming on our own account all that we wish to be, no matter what the cost.
In keeping with this arrogant assumption of limitless potential, socialism dissolves the loving bondage of family life in order to unleash a tidal wave of self-worshipping pride that culminates in hateful bondage and self-destruction. The assumption of human self-sufficiency replaces the acknowledgement of our dependency on God's love for us. Mechanisms of coercion and fear replace the willingness to be the agents of that love toward one another. The self-sacrifice that is naturally the free gift of love becomes instead the coercive imposition of sacrifice, by one human being upon another (abortion, starvation of helpless innocents like Terry Schiavo, etc.); and one generation upon another (abortion, death panels for the elderly, the imposition of livelihood destroying debt upon future generations, etc.)
This prospect of fear and coercion, though desperately tragic, is not without hope because it is of our own making. What we are doing to ourselves, we can yet and still undo. We can turn away from (repent of?) the ideologies, policies and actions responsible for it and let our God-endowed nature once again take its course. In the next and last article of this series, I will offer some thoughts about what this might involve.
Sadly, that debacle was simply an episodic manifestation of the deeply structural economic vulnerability created by the dissolution of America's moral fiber. I was led to ponder this recently as I read Jerome Corsi's WND article Forecast: Debt to dwarf GDP:
"The debt level of the United States is unsustainable, something has to give," said Rudolph Penner, former head of the CBO and co-chairman of a report issued last week by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration.
"The panel suggested four different solutions, varying the mix of entitlement program spending and tax increases in the policy alternatives." All the alternatives involved some mix of national restraint in the form of lower spending, higher taxes, or reneging on promised Social Security and Medicare benefits for the elderly. It's ominous that "all four budget alternatives were constructed with a view to keeping the U.S. debt on what the panel considered a sustainable ratio of 60 percent U.S. debt to GDP." Apparently the panel gave no consideration to any alternative that would place the debt slavery of the American people on a path toward extinction.
fully funding almost all U.S. governmental debt obligations (including state debt) as the new Federal government was launched, and borrowing to finance the Louisiana purchase, the ratio of debt to GDP under U.S. Presidents who were leaders during the Founding period fell to below 10% from a high of 35% in 1792.
The purpose of setting a strategic goal is to discipline the planning process. The implementation of plans, however, depends on the effective discipline of the people who must carry them out. Thanks to the delusions of socialist (Keynesian) economics, after WWII the U.S. government abandoned the strategic goal of debt reduction. Thanks to a politics based on those same delusions, the American people were encouraged by self-serving political leaders to abandon all semblance of personal discipline as well. This culminated in a "we can have it all" approach to government finance that gradually corrupted the whole financial system.
For the last two generations the American people has behaved like the spendthrift heir of fiscally responsible parents, indulging in a debt financed spending spree. We have squandered the moral capital of international trust and confidence accumulated by the generations before us. This has partly been the result of materialistic self-indulgence. But ironically, it has also partly resulted from the moral impulses of compassion. The problem is that there is a lie at the heart of the supposed good intentions. The lie is revealed in the preference for government as the instrument of compassion. It allows people to bask in the warm glow of doing good while avoiding any real personal involvement or commitment.
For example, the natural plan for social security rests on the simple premise that, as parent are obliged to take care of their children, so children are obliged to take care of their parents. On the one hand, this plan requires parents who work and sacrifice for their children, and children who respect the example and authority of their parents. On the other hand, it requires children who accept the work and sacrifice involved in caring for their aging parents; and parents willing enough to forego the pride that would otherwise prevent them from accepting some degree of dependence upon their children.
Simply by reestablishing this natural and age-old system for mutual self-reliance, we would slow the demand for government entitlement, increase the stock of human and material help available to every individual in need, and alleviate the fearful sense of vulnerability that leaves so many prey to the notion that their personal security depends on the government's authority and largesse. The symbol of the successful acceptance of the sharing and mutual obligations, constraints and sacrifices the natural family system involves is the coming together of the generations under one roof, grandparents and parents, children and grandchildren making room and mutual provision for one another as the givers and receivers of example and care.
How have we become a people for whom the prospect of actually living in such a household subtly offends our sense of personal freedom, aspiration and pride? I'll further explore the ramifications of that question in my next posting.
- Has no differences in principle with the socialist minded Democrats;
- Embraces the substance of Obama's socialist agenda, but "opposes" Obama by criticizing his implementation of socialism, especially when it comes to fiscal matters;
- Agrees in principle with the Democrats on the fundamental issues of justice and morality but employs the deceptive rhetoric of personal opinion to evade the questions of public law and policy they involve. Such issues include child-murder and other abrogations of the unalienable right to life, as well as the rejection of the God endowed rights of the natural family.
The RINO clique pushes the view that only candidates who focus on bread and butter pocketbook issues stand any chance of winning. Money and jobs are all that matters. But money is only a means. It represents the power to procure material effects, including of course the work (jobs) of other people. By insisting that political differences be reduced to disagreements about money and jobs, the RINOs tacitly embrace the notion that human political communities can be formed and maintained on a strictly materialistic basis. But this implies that the individuals who make up the community can also be dealt on a strictly materialistic basis. It further implies that for political purposes, human beings are no better than chattel. Therefore human communities are simply pools of human resources, to be built up or drawn down as administration requires. Like the use of gravel in landscaping, the arrangement and use of these resources involves no moral considerations, and therefore gives rise to no moral conflicts.
Both the RINOs and the socialist Democrats subscribe to these views. They operate from a common perspective; one that makes politics, legislation and policy-making no more than different aspects of social engineering. By redefining every political contest to focus on money and jobs they encourage people to redefine themselves and their aspirations in terms that conform to their role in the administration of things. Pesky ideas of intrinsic worth and dignity are pushed into the background with a view to eliminating them altogether. Of course, this also eliminates the real basis for self-respect, replacing it with a false sense of self-esteem built upon the possession and enjoyment of things. Instead of identifying themselves with the moral substance of actions for which they can take responsibility, people are content to identify themselves with external things, which are at best empty, perishable symbols of their pride. Made hollow by their preoccupation with these things, their consciousness of the interior source of their dignity grows ever weaker, until it is entirely dependent upon the presence or absence of those external things.
At this stage, people become the ideal subjects of the corporate, socialist administrative state that is the ultimate goal of the RINOs and the socialist Democrats. They become dependency minded, unable to imagine life or action outside the government centered and fabricated framework the social engineers have constructed for their habitation. For them, freedom has no meaning apart from the sense of security they feel when all the government services they depend on seem to be in place. Of course, they can never really experience this "freedom", as their sense of dependency is continually teased and manipulated to keep them in subjection to the masters of their state. Like drug dealers, the social engineers administer relief only in order to encourage dependency.
For many Americans the prospect of life under the completed dominance of this socialist, administrative state is repugnant. As they understand the Obama faction's open dedication to achieving it, they are rising to oppose such a fate. Sadly for them, the RINO political theatre is showing the same movie, with a less obviously offensive trailer and soundtrack. The RINOs accept the approach that redefines politics to exclude the moral issues that arise from the self-evident truth: human beings are not things. They are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights arising from their responsibility for right and the actions they are obliged to take to fulfill that responsibility. Money and jobs are not the salient issues. The salient issues involve justice, responsibility, and respect for individual rights. The proof of this priority lies in the hard fact we are even now inescapably confronting: we shall find no solution to the economic crisis America faces unless we are willing to address the foundational moral crisis from which it springs. Come back for more on this point in my next posting.
Response 1:
I've notice that some people praise my stand of faith, God and principle to the skies until I maintain the stand beyond the point where they are willing to compromise the fundamentals. We are just shy of reaping the ultimate, deadly fruit of years of listening to the lesser of evils crowd, yet many still fail to see that the first time we sacrificed what we knew to be right to their expediency we made the triumph of Obama and his minions inevitable.
We can yet turn things around, but it won't be by making the same deadly mistake.
I find it ironic that some people think they're defeating Obamacare by electing someone who embraces its worst aspects. True, Brown promises he won't vote for the bad proposals unless they wear a Republican label ( as they did in Massachusetts), but the only thing the label guarantees is confusion and disarray among the conservative forces that should oppose them no matter what party label they wear.
So let's see: When Obama proposes to destroy liberty, conservatives should rally to oppose him by voting for people who will only support the destructive proposals when a Republican (like Romney) proposes them. We're to believe this constitutes being practical and pragmatic.
Of course, it actually sets things up so that liberty can be destroyed with conservative acquiescence, simply by adorning it with a Republican label. I know that by some convoluted logic there are people who see this result as a victory, but I doubt that our morally deprived and government enslaved grandchildren will live in a world that justifies celebrating it. The only thing I'm sure of is that this is a perfect way to assure that no consistent proponents of liberty (real conservatives) ever get elected, which is precisely what the manipulators of the present sham two party system intend.
I am by the way a fundamentalist, not a purist, when it comes to liberty. Where the house of liberty is concerned, I'm perfectly willing to temporize and compromise when it comes to the color scheme in the rooms, the furniture, the rugs, even the kitchen appliances. But when people propose to blow up the foundations, I won't pretend to see a difference between the people who want to use plastique and those who prefer old fashioned dynamite. Not when our faith tells us that standing firm in God's will is the only way we can expect Him to help us avoid having to live among the ruins of our freedom.
Response 2
What point is there in unifying around lies? They started by telling us we should support people who were pro-life but quiet about it; then, it was people who spoke as if they were pro-choice but were really pro-life; then people like McCain, who started out pro-life and changed in order to pursue his Presidential ambitions, running on a pro-life record but acting behind the scenes to prevent pro-life action. Now we're supposed to tout someone who isn't pro-life, but unashamedly "pro-choice" on child murder; who says he's against Obamacare, but supports its most objectionable features; who claims to believe in the people's right to respect the natural, God ordained family but accepts elite dictatorship on gay marriage in his own state as settled law; who openly vaunts his intention to play the bid-for-power game with the Dems.
We're not at the beginning of a process of lies and betrayal. We're in the midst of the crisis brought on by allowing ourselves to be gulled time and again. We let it be known that we would choose the lesser evil, so now it's all that's offered to us. What's worse, it's all some people want to see or hear about. As a result, evil becomes the standard, and anyone not willing to accept that must be driven out.
On the key moral issues there's little daylight between Brown and Scozzafava. So why the enthusiasm is his case? Because the hint of victory wipes out all allegiance to truth?
Like King Lear in the famous Shakespeare play, many people want to reject and drive out the ones who insist on speaking to them truthfully. Lear turns against the daughter who is loyal to his sovereignty, and listens instead to the two who tell him what he wants to hear in order to gain power and then overthrow him.
Over the years since Reagan left office, this has consistently happened with the conservative base of the GOP. People drive out the voices who reason from conservative principles to conservative conclusions in light of the facts. Then they wonder why they have no good choices for leadership. Now it seems that the only way to get support from some conservatives is to advertise your willingness to betray what they profess to believe. I guess they want you to prove you're sly enough for politics- if you call the competition to see whose the cleverest deceiver "politics". I'm not that clever. I guess faith makes me foolish. So does experience. When I ran against Obama in Illinois, I called him a hard line communist because that's what the facts make clear. Many in the GOP characterized that as intemperate because Obama "sounded so moderate." After years of accepting deceit from lesser evils, they no longer made the facts their guide. Yet truly to defeat Obama we must restore the standard of truth that refutes and defeats the preference for human fabrication (idols) that is the heart of Obamanism. I will go on trying to rally people to that standard whatever it takes.
- Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion. - Education
I am passionate about improving the quality of our public schools. Accountability and high standards are paramount. I support choice through charter schools, as well as the MCAS exam as a graduation requirement. I have worked to ensure that all children have access to a quality education. I am a strong advocate for the METCO program, which provides lower income students with broader educational opportunities. - Marriage
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.
The imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts was not based on "the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their representatives." It was the result of a judicial opinion thereafter imposed by the fiat order of then Massachusetts Governor Romney. In doing so Romney ignored the fact, clearly noted in the opinion itself, that it had no force of law unless and until the legislature chose to enact it.
On his site Brown also says that he is "opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in the Congress and will vote against it." Yet in almost the same breath he says that "in Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law." Now the 2006 legislation signed into law by then Governor Romney included a provision that required all Massachusetts residents to purchase health issuance, and provided for government funding of abortions (state funded $50 co-pay abortions for those who qualified.) In both respects, therefore, Scott Brown supports in substance two aspects of Obama's health care proposal that have been most troubling to conservatives. One casts aside the principle that limits government's power to dictate the economic decisions of the individual. The other uses government power to implicate all individuals in a practice that for many violates a paramount rule of conscience while overturning the doctrine of unalienable rights that is the basis for republican government (i.e., limited government based upon the consent of the governed.)
As far as I can tell from his campaign site, I agree with Scott Brown on a majority of other issues of major concern to the country. If I subscribed to Michael Steele's absurd "80-20" approach to voting, I would heartily encourage Massachusetts voters to support him. Readers of this blog know that I do not agree with Steele. It makes no sense to trust one's health to a doctor who rightly prescribes remedies 90% of the time, when the remaining 10% includes inevitably fatal drugs or procedures. Brown errs on key issues that involve just such fatally flawed positions. Of course the victims of his errors include not just individuals, but the soul and liberty of the nation.
Scott Brown's candidacy typifies the fatal flaw the Republican Party label now represents. Though in fact opposed to Obama on the details of some policies, on issues essential to the survival of liberty he actually embraces the fatally flawed departure from moral and political principle that clears the way for those who wish to destroy the moral and institutional foundations of constitutional government. The label promises remedies, but the bottle contains a few sugarcoated poison pills in key areas.
Some people have suggested to me that Joseph Lewis Kennedy (not part of the Kennedy clan, a libertarian running as an independent) offers a better alternative. Because of his name he may be siphon support from the Democrat among ignorant voters who think they're supporting one of their clan idols. But this Kennedy appears to embrace the brand of libertarianism that, by failing to defend the moral foundations of liberty, promotes self-destructive licentiousness instead.
If there were a real conservative in the race in Massachusetts people in the "lesser of evil' crowd would say he or she had no chance of winning. Of course, as long as we allow their arguments to prevent moral conservatives from uniting beyond what they truly believe, the spoiler effect of the Republican Party means that we will never know. The "lesser evil" drives out the greater good, leaving us with no choice but evil in some guise. I suspect that the conservative plurality would win in really contested three way races, even in a State like Massachusetts.
I know many voters who profess Christian faith who would rejoice to see that outcome. They would thank God for the miracle. The sad fact though is that their own lack of courage and conviction prevents it from happening. Faith can move mountains, but only after those who profess faith allow it to move their own hearts. I pray that the Massachusetts situation isn't a harbinger of the 2010 elections, for that would mean a strong showing by the GOP that left us with a bunch of national legislators who don't disagree with Obama about the immoral, liberty killing, socialist cliff we're driving over. They just think we ought to use a different vehicle and drive toward the deadly drop at a slower speed. Unfortunately, in what now is the ever shorter run, that leaves constitutional liberty just as dead and gone.
Update: (1/18/2010, 11:04 PM)- Scott Brown's stated intentions seem to justify my position. Consider what he says in this article in the Boston Herald. It's worth reading all the way through. Quite an eye opener. The GOP sure needs another Senator who'll vote for judges like Sotomayor. That's alright, since Brown says he'd vote for a pro-life nominee, (whom Obama is sure to propose someday.) How admirably even handed of him! Of course he may have spoken as he did just to curry favor with Democrat voters. If so, who's he lying to- them or the conservatives so anxious to get him elected? But why worry? There's a chance he'll betray the other guys rather than be true to his own stated convictions.
Sure, and the name Arlen Specter rings no bells.
I know that by now some of you have seen or heard about Glenn Beck's deceptive tirade on the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office of President of the United States. I will respond in my appearance tonight on Stan Solomon's show (cpnlive.com at 7:30 PM EST.) Join us.
As Clausewitz also observed, "military activity is never directed against material force alone; it is always aimed simultaneously at the moral forces which give it life, and the two cannot be separated. But moral values can only be perceived by the inner eye... Since danger is the common element in which everything moves in war, courage, the sense of one's own strength, is the principal factor that influences judgment." The morale of an army or of a whole people during war cannot therefore be sustained apart from their moral perception, which necessarily involves their perception of their own moral position relative to the enemy. Sane people do not by and large sustain difficult and dangerous efforts they believe are unjustified. In large scale conventional warfare, the clear and present threat to their survival may be sufficient justification. But in the terror war, individual engagements directly affect only a relative few. For the rest, the threat to their survival as a whole is an abstraction. With the right kind of leadership, it can become a moral and emotional reality. But that requires an intelligent, capable and sustained articulation of the strategic vision that clarifies for the "inner eye" both the physical and moral reality of the threat.
With respect to the terror war Islamic forces have been waging against the United States, G. W. Bush proved incompetent at articulating this strategic vision, but at least he tried. Because his agenda and world view are so consistent with those of the forces brought against us, Obama has never made any attempt to do so. On the contrary, he has consistently slandered the United States with a pose of self-flagellating (as regards the nation) and self-righteous (in regard to himself) apology for supposed American acts of domineering injustice that, he implies, naturally result in hateful acts of carefully planned violence against the American people.
Since he is a wholehearted advocate of the leftist critique of American liberty Obama's conscious validation of the moral position of its enemies comes as no surprise. What surprises some is the fact that a famously staunch conservative like Ron Paul blames U.S. for violence. In a recent TV appearance we find him "blaming terrorism on the U.S. presence around the globe. 'They're terrorists because we're occupiers,' Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said on the Larry King show". Of the motive for the recent terror attack he said "We bombed Yemen 2 weeks ago….He (the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) did it because of the bombing." Ben Stein, also a guest on the show, correctly noted that Paul's statement has no basis in fact since "there is no U.S. occupation of Yemen or Nigeria" and Abdulmutallab "had already been mobilized and had even bought his Northwest ticket before we struck." Moreover, as noted in the WND account of the show, "Reports confirm that there was an air strike by Yemeni jets-and possibly some from Saudi Arabia", not U.S. forces.
Apparently Ron Paul believes that seeking cooperation from other states in striking against terrorist camps makes us "occupiers". In a similar vein, because after repelling Iraq's invasion of Kuwait during the first Gulf War, the U.S. did not invade and occupy Iraq, our role as occupiers somehow explains the 9-11 terror attacks. We are in the wrong because we dare to defend others. We are in the wrong because we dare to ally with others in order to do defend ourselves.
Such illogic cannot rightly be described as reasoning. If we make it the basis for dealing with terror, we end up asking ourselves, as Obama apparently does, what we can do to appease their righteous anger at our misdeeds. We end up looking for ways to do their will. Clausewitz would recognize that as a victory, for them. They could never achieve it without assistance from purblind politicians on both ends of the American political spectrum. Thus, tragically, they overcome their supposed opposition to one another, acting in concert as the mortar and pestle of defeatism, slyly grinding away the morale and safety of the nation.
Posts
