« Small point of Poli-Sci Geekery: | Main | game girl advance: Armistice Xbox »
May 13, 2005
I hate to do this to a good man...
In an otherwise nice post, Mr. Weidner veers off on a tangent about "Leftists" that is just plain weird:
If you are a Leftist, you MUST be anti-American. You MUST oppose the idea that is America, because that idea is utterly opposed to (1)collectivism and statism, and opposed to the (2)belief that our rights are granted by government, or that the (3) interests of 'society" are worth the sacrifice of the individual. Many Leftists won't honestly acknowledge their enmity, but resort to sneaky formulas. and claiming to be "against nationalism" is one of them. It's a lie of course, none of them are bothered by French nationalism, or Swedish nationalism.... (numbers in parentheses added by me)
Huh?
There are a couple of points to each claim, A) that modern "leftism" embraces these claims, and that B) American Political Thought rejects them, or claims the opposite of what the point is. At least one of these claims is false for every point.
Point (1): "collectivism" and "statism" need better definition. Specifically, we need to know if he means that "there are some (non-defense) things the state can do better than individuals", or "anything an individual can do, a state can do better". If the Former, then perhaps he should look to the history of publicly funded navigational improvements (the canal systems), the publicly funded irrigation of the Midwest, or any of the dozen other ways Governments improve the lives of their citizens. If the latter, well, even the (few) Communists I know are convinced that markets are good things...
Point (2): It is true that a prominent Democrat once wrote "that they [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" Of course, that Democrat was Thomas Jefferson, and he wrote it in the Declaration of Independence. So let’s take this a bit at a time...
Rights are "Endowed by [man’s] creator". Now, the "creator" could be "God", or "the Gods", or "the blind forces of evolution". The argument is the same-- rights are intrinsic to the human condition. The rights are "secured" (that is, made safe) by government. The rights that come from being Human are "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" We call these "natural rights"...
Now, what about all the other rights, the "non-natural" ones like the "right" to vote? Well if they aren’t intrinsic to Humanity, they must come somewhere. That somewhere is either Society or the Government. Since the Government is the expression of a Society’s will, they amount to the same thing. So, yes, some rights do, in fact come from Government. Some of those rights are even in the constitution...
Point 3: Don’t we tell soldiers this all the time? Don’t we ask young men and women to go forth and die for our nation all the time? During the World Wars, our people would have been fine had we not gotten involved, but America would have been shattered as a concept. Did society not beg, exhort, and threaten it’s members if they didn’t "sacrifice" in its name? Bah!
Posted by Andrew at May 13, 2005 11:48 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.punningpundit.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/709
Comments
1. Of course there are things government does better than individuals, but that doesn't make for an "-ism." Leftist thought is always some variant of socialism, and ALWAYS prefers that the state make the decisions, rather than the marketplace. If you think that way, you are in opposition with America, which is the leader of the idea of empowering individuals.
2. Regardless of where our rights come from, America is the symbol and the leader of the notion that rights cannot be given or taken away by the state. Even if God himself came down and said he had no position on the question of rights, Americans would still tend to think of their rights as inalienable. We embody that idea, which puts us on a collision course with leftist thought.
3. Our soldiers are not fighting for "society." They are us, they are our society fighting to defend the Constitution and our freedom. They are the "common defense." We would never accept the idea that they, or anyone, can be killed for "the good of society," the way Mao justified killing 5 or 10 million "landlords."
Posted by: John Weidner at May 16, 2005 12:37 PM
Fsck time-
Thomas Jefferson was not a Democrat, he was a "Republican."
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/AmericanMajorParties.html
http://www.edgate.com/elections/inactive/the_parties/
Posted by: Rand. at May 20, 2005 10:04 AM