Useless Constitutional Amendment Proposals: Abortion to Marriage
How many times have neoconservative pundits try to lull the credulous and easily galvanized grassroots of the mainstream conservative movement, into a frenzy to support the failed strategy of adding an amendment to the constitution in promotion of some social conservative agenda? You've lost count. Me too.
A couple of times when searching for "Ron Paul" on Google, there were some conservatives claiming the perfidy of Ron Paul on certain social issues because he does not accept the idea of the federal government implementing certain constitutional amendments. To say that Dr. Paul's views here conflict with "conservative" views is very questionable---at least from a more traditional conservatism. Defining conservative to mean support for the constitution and its ideals would be to support local versus national government. That would be a more traditional or "Old Right" conservative position. Correct?
There have been calls for constitutional amendments to ban abortion, homosexual "marriage" (a contradiction in terms), and flag burning. And every time the pundits got the Republican Party grassroots to delude themselves in believing that the Republican Party was actually fighting for them. The leadership of the often called "Stupid Party," despite what we sometimes may think, is not completely stupid. (I think it is more "Evil.") They know that these amendments never go anywhere. All they serve is the purpose of patting the heads of the Republican grassroots. These amendment proposals do nothing and go nowhere.
And that's exactly why the leadership supports them.
Sedulously observing (non-neo) conservative should see this. This is why these issues should be dealt at the state level, not a federal level. If it were possible, these issues should be decentralized even more. They should be decentralized all the way to local communities and family households. Being more an extremist, I would say that freedom comes from the individual. Let's put one's life into one's own hands.
Before a libertarian objects and gets angry at me, I am not saying that I agree with these ideas to ban x, y, and z...
I find the idea of banning flag burning the most ridiculous of ridiculous ideas. (See my entry on this here.) Good gosh. Thankfully the Bush administration has not pursued this. It might have been able to, right after 9-11 since the public was in its high war nationalistic spirit. Something, by the way, that is much interesting in studying how the democratic mob reacts. The State and the Bush administration failed miserably, and then Bush's poll numbers sky rocketed. . . .Hail to the chief!
In regards to homosexual "marriage," such "marriage" is a contradiction in terms. Two men cannot "marry" anymore than a father and his son. It is a "culture" of immorality and death. That is what today's Culture War brings us. So, no, I do not support government sanctioning it. We all should oppose any effort by the government to pervert the institution of marriage anymore than it has.
The State should have no authority to say that homosexuals (or whatever comes next in the minds of leftists) can "marry." All the State should do is get out of the business----entirely. This sinful and secular, Godless institution should have nothing to do with marriage. Instead, let's strengthen the Church, contract, and convent. Virtue is found in freedom. I wish more conservatives would understand that, like Mr. Pat Buchanan who I much like.
(See below for more thoughts on this subject.)*
Abortion, admittedly, is a far more difficult and emotional subject. It is a grossly immoral and sinful act, but should it be made illegal according to the rights that derive from property? Those very rights that sustain life? See the phrase “a right to life” is a misnomer. (That could justify socialism.) All you have is a right to your justly acquired property. A few things should be remembered, in my view. The first of which is that man can only truly seek virtue through freedom. The second of which is if (sadly) the majority of the public finds it acceptable morally, the thing that needs to change are ideas. Ideas do have consequences. They have consequences in a statist world and in a non-statist world. But a society without a state or a private law society does have its advantages.
[A leading libertarian scholar, Dr. Walter Block, makes the case that the libertarian view, properly understood, is in "the middle ground."]
In a free environment, unlike the present highly centralized statist environment, households could voluntarily arrange covenant relationships to discriminate against and ban abortion in their respected areas. Abortion would not go away completely, and it will sadly never go away completely (nor will it with the State), but it could at least be cut down more than it could possibly be cut down today. These types of arrangements are just not possible with Leviathan. In addition, it would not be subsidized coercively or collectively in a free society.
Conservatives, as Mr. Joe Sobran writes, see abortion as "an ugly thing, something that may not be entirely 'eliminated' but must be contained, condemned, and above all must never be accepted as normal." But looking to the State does not give us an advantage. Its one-size-fits-all bites back harshly, and almost always hurts social and cultural conservatives the most. **
In conclusion, short of ultimate privatization, politics should be decentralized as far as possible. This especially goes for public property. Prudence should help dictate how they should be run, so as they are not in a state of chaos or in a free-for-all making a bad statist world worse, when they are publicly "owned." Immigration would be an example. Or take education. Short of getting the government out of the picture entirely, it should be run and controlled at the most local level possible.
Those of the more paleoconservative view point should always fight for local control opposed to national. The Republican Party really uses amendment proposals to tell their supporters that they are doing something, while at the same time knowing that their proposals will go nowhere. They have figured out how to push the buttons of conservatives. And they know how to scare them.
One important thing to understand for this discussion, though, is that freedom allows people do do things in which you might not approve of. But that is freedom. Freedom is the ability to make wrong choices or even immoral ones. As has been said here at The Paleo Blog often, it is impossible to learn or grow otherwise. And it is impossible to truly pursue virtue.
To an outside observer, maybe I have a so-called "old fashioned view" of no sex before marriage (for example), but that does not mean it is within my right or anyone else to use the point of the gun to stop those individuals who do engage in that activity. On the other hand, such topics and discussions on social and cultural values are important and have to be thought about----even a free one. Not all choices or lifestyles are equal. Not all ideas or religions are equal.
A free and well-developed society must have the wisdom to not only recognize the importance of Liberty, but learn the best way to nourish society----to nourish civilization. With this comes a belief in a transcendent moral order; a actual structure of laws independent of man; an effort and understanding to uphold social continuity; a looking to the past to seek wisdom and to learn form the great minds of the past; an understanding (to the best of our ability) of the entire range of man's nature and existence; and so forth.
Man, for instance, still needs to learn how to brush his teeth in freedom. And a free society has to attempt to organize itself in the best way possible to promote capitalism, free markets, religion, community, family and its natural outgrowths.
------------
* Mr. Sobran also says, in the same linked-to article, this on homosexual "marriage":
Consider homosexuality. Whereas the liberal wants to impose "gay rights," by law and coercion, the conservative sees homosexuality as a defect, which to some extent can and must be tolerated, because it can't be "eradicated," but it can't rationally be exalted to the plane of normality; and he knows that all talk of "same-sex marriage" is nonsense, like trying to breed calves from a pair of bulls.
Speaking of homosexuality: It is not odd how left-liberals talk about how people are born with it? This may or may not be true. My guess is that it is partly genetic and partly environmental (e.g., a mental illness formed in a bad family environment). Both are factors or variables in different cases. But whatever the truth, the left speak of how it is genetic, but will condemn anyone---anyone who attacks their egalitarian ideology---who uses the same type of arguments in regards to genetics or inheritance when it comes to intelligence or differences between peoples (e.g., Dr. James D. Watson). Once anyone does, they will just be called a racist, bigot, and all the usual. Inquiry is not allowed in their definition of "free speech." Truthfully, I am not 100% sure what is wrong talking about differences. They are just generalizations or averages, nor do they imply the use of coercion, hate or anything of that nature. Well, my inquiring mind wants to understand the inconsistent views. They like what Darwin said in some parts, but not in other parts.
** Giuliani, by the way, was happy to support such in the past. Not only pro-abortion, but pro-pro abortion (!) because of his support of State funding. Ah, Mr. Conservative running on the Republican ticket. What a political party this is. A man who has had three marriages---the first being very peculiar. Has dressed up in drag for a gay parade... Hmmm, he really is the perfect guy for this party.
