On the Tendency of All Generations to Despair of Those Following

It is not a new thing for the old to decry the young as lazy, irreverent or immoral. My generation is rightly said to believe little and honor less. This is true, in so far as it goes. We do not honor the gods of community, chastity or charity which our fathers threw down. We were taught not to honor them.

When the 60's ended and the Boomers grew up, they mostly accepted the traditions against which they had rebelled in their youth, but with one difference: The fallen idols of the gods were dusted off and placed not on public altars, but private ones. A man came back to the faith, a woman took responsibility for her own career, but it was an individual, personal thing. And so they taught us to live as well.

Those of us who came of age at the turn of the millenium learned that each of us has a duty to his principles and to himself. We learned that integrity mattered in a man, and kindness to others mattered in groups of men. We were instructed to be good teammates and good coworkers, not good Christians or good citizens.

This does not excuse us.

But duties are not what I wish to write on today, and that discussion will keep. This morning I asked myself why else we see the past as better than the future. One reason among many catches my interest: We are ignorant of the future.

Human beings quite naturally know that the past better than the present, for they have experienced it. Of the future we can hardly know anything, but the last fifty years teach us that we will not live the same lives as our fathers. Technology and mores move so much swifter in our day than they did in our grandfathers' that it is difficult to imagine our own lives in ten years, much less those of our children.

Imagination is required to explore the land of the future, but nothing is necessary to predict decline. It comes easily and one finds new things to denounce the more he denounces. I know many men who proclaim the impending moral and political downfall of America--very few of them reinforce their jeremiads with anything more than spit and fire. Why is tomorrow the day we must fall? Why did we not fall during the 1960's, with the Sexual Revolution within and the Soviet Union--a mightier challenger than any today--without? Is our day the worst that has ever dawned? Think of the 1950's, revered as a golden age. Did anyone then predict--could anyone then have forecast, much less clearly explained the minutiae of life in the 21st century?


I doubt it.


The difficulty lies in imagining what shape new mores and new community might take. The Internet is not community, and yet because of it I can (and regularly do) speak face-to-face with my father on the far side of the world. Some imagination is required to glimpse the world in which our children may live, and imagination is in short supply among the scoffers.

It is not that forecasting the future is impossible, nor that the old improperly perceive the faults of the young, but it is interesting to note the reasons why men tend to gloom--for us to take a man seriously when predicting good things, we would require rising stocks or a crystal ball.

Political Salvation

I have recently heard from more than one friend the opinion that politics is at best a necessary evil in the life of a Christian, and preferably one to be avoided. This is foolishess. I refuse to discuss whether the salvation of men's souls is more important than their political salvation--I think that answer self-evident--what interests me is whether "political salvation" is possible, and if so, desirable.

Frankly, I think it is both.

As a Christian, what are our duties?


"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

The second commandment is the one that interests us here. Loving our neighbor is going to require learning how to live with him in peace--namely, it is going to require politics--and to carry out Christ's commandment well, we must have and study good politics. There is really no escaping it.

Freedom and law are great goods, well endorsed by the words of God and men both. It is childish and delusional to disregard an entire area of human life devoted to them and to think we are living well.

Yes, Hillsdale children, I'm looking at you.

Abortion and the Abolitionists of Our Time

"The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties . . . [in] this contest," he declared, "is, that the former consider ABORTION a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong. . . . The Republican party . . . hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that ABORTION is an unqualified evil to the UNBORN, to the BORN, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists . . . ; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger. . . They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in Gods own good time."

I find the parallels between American slavery and American abortion quite piercing, especially in the character of the abolitionists, both then and now. It is no mere coincidence that we forget today, as the abolitionists did 170 years ago, that the question is not one of the morals of "the other side." The question is not whether those in favor of the institution are moral men--their hearts and minds are as good as ours; their institution is legal, and no long-standing institution can be simply removed without regard for the means or the consequences of doing so, no matter how much we may desire instant and universal moral purity.

The question was then, and is now, whether the victim is a human being. If the slave is a man, with all the natural rights of man, then slavery is an evil. If the unborn child, too, is equal in his rights with you and I, then abortion is an evil.

But we forget all this. The new abolitionism makes all the same tactical mistakes as the old, with all the same uncharitable moral indignation. We denounce, we impugn, we forget that whatever else it may be, the institution is legal. But we have the example of the past to teach us.

Our fathers condemned slavery, but when they saw that they were then unable to abolish it, they put it on the road to ultimate extinction. I am for doing the same with abortion. I do not blame the pro-choice for their beliefs. If I did not believe life began at conception--had I been raised differently--who is to say I would not hold the same position? It is not a thing we can undo overnight, and it is legal. We must be prudent.

The path to the ultimate extinction of abortion seems to me one of convincing the hearts and minds of the people. Mores change with religion and with education.

Statesmanship is education, but I believe what matters here is to have many children and raise them well, particularly in their first decade of life. It will not do to make abortion a national issue, as if a single presidential election or judicial appointment will reverse Roe v. Wade and by that somehow put the issue to rest.

Understanding the Declaration

I used to believe in the natural inequalities among men as though men had different natures. I still believe men have different aptitudes, but I have come to understand the Declaration in the same way Lincoln does:

"I think that the authors of that noble instrument intended to include all me, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say that all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments or social capacity. They defined, with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal--equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances permit.

They meant to set up a standard maxim for a free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.

The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be... a stumbling block to those who, in after times, might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.

They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack."

That fairly well sums it up.

When the Declaration comes up, many take "self-evident" to mean that all men are born knowing it. This is a mistake, for almost nothing is self-evident in that way.

Self-evident, in the usage of the time, meant available to any man who will deploy the full and proper use of his reason in seeking it. Opinion, mores and interest can all get in the way.

Men are not born knowing the ratios of octaves, but they are self-evident. Double or halve the length of your string, and you will have an octave.

On the Indispensability of Majority Rule

"[Controversies arise,] and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them, whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such a minority...

A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.

Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissable; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism is all that is left."

Plainer truth is rarely spoken. Once one accepts the equality of all men, the permanent rule of a minority (whether of one or a few) is rendered practically impossible and principally unacceptable. Government by consent follows from a social state of equality, and equality cannot be undone without removing both Christianity and modern natural science from the face and memory of the earth.

If we wish to avoid anarchy and despotism, then, we must substitute the rule of a majority for the unanimous will of the whole people. Just government requires the consent of the governed to be ruled according to natural and eternal principles of right.

When the majority errs, or chooses wrongly, we must persuade our fellow citizens of their error and persuade them to choose rightly--and they us. It is, I grant, much harder, much more challenging, and much less convenient a task than convincing a sole ruler would be. Republicanism is difficult and prone to failure and abuse. The government of a republic requires a virtuous citizenry. Free men must be free to choose wrongly. That is the cost of republican politics.

No one ever said it would be easy.

What Political Philosophy Is

There are two great questions in political philosophy:

Is there more to human political life than power--are there immutable principles of justice on which we ought to base our politics? Is it really possible to rule according to such principles?

If so, then statesmanship is possible, but what is it? Many Straussians see the Founding as the creation of a political perpetual motion machine, answering all the questions and eliminating all need for statesmanship--prudent maintenance and administration are all that remain for us.

But the mechanics of government cannot run forever--they are only auxiliary safeguards to our liberty. We the people must forever be the primary and permanent safeguards of our own liberties.

If we are to be a republic; if we are to have self-government, we must reconcile the two great principles of our political tradition:

Government must be based on eternal principles of justice.
Government must be based on the consent of the governed.

This is the problem of republican government: the people must consent to just laws. The will and opinion of the people, then, must be guided by a love of just laws and from time to time this light must be renewed and rekindled in us by the voice of a statesman. We need a man with both a strong, clear conception of justice and the ability to persuade others of it as well.

The question is... when have we seen such men, and will one come again in our lifetime?

On Consitutions, part II

This post is my second in response to Matt Taylor's, here. The first, which provides background, is here. Matthew, I love you. You have conflated two wonderfully different things.

The constitutions of all nations change, but the Constitution of the United States of America is meant to resist change. It is neither a descriptive summary of the laws and mores of the nation, changing with every generation, nor the end toward which we strive. It is the vehicle by which we may have self-government. The following quote may help:

"The Constitution and the Union... are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of "Liberty to all"--the principle that clears the path for all--gives hope to all, and, by consequence, enterprize, and industry to all.

The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.

The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, "fitly spoken" which has proved an "apple of gold" to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple, not the apple for the picture.

So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken."

My friend, it is not the restoration of strict 1787 Consitutionalism, "big-C," that we must seek--for even in that time they were not all of one mind--but rather we must seek, as in every free and republican generation, to live well, by the principles of the Declaration.

It is not the picture, but the apple of gold we must seek. Good men in our time are not willing to die for parchment barriers--but good men in all times have been willing to die for freedom.