Conservatism - Judeo Christian Foundations

Two key ideas are essential to the existence of a functioning democracy.  One is the notion that there is a higher law that all - from the highest office-holder to the lowest citizen - is subject to.  The other is that belief that every individual has "inalienable rights" that are "endowed by their creator” and as such are not granted by nor taken by the state.  The twin anchors of the rule of law coupled with the security of basic human dignity provide for the necessary checks on human corruption to make democracy viable.  Our US Constitution was intended to limit the powers of centralized government on one hand and to prevent the chaos of mob rule on the other. There was intended to be a balance between law and freedom.  

This is why those who wish to denigrate the “Christian” roots of our form of government not only miss the mark historically, but enable the continued erosion of Western civilization and hasten the death of Constitutional democracy.  Jefferson, Franklin and Washington need not have all been explicitly “Christian” by evangelical standards to understand that Laws that are not based on unchanging universal truths are inevitably malleable tools in the hands of tyrants, and that individual rights dependent only on the whims of those in power have no lasting relevance at all.  Without a generalized belief that there was an eternal and good Creator who stood behind the very concept of Law and in whose image individuals are made, the balance between form and freedom is impossible to articulate, much less maintain.  If foundational standards change and shift the definition of “rights” must also change.  (More)

It was once largely understood that with “rights” comes the responsibility of self-restraint, the responsibility of citizens to police themselves not only to be obedient to a higher law but also to provide for the common good.  While each person has the right to defend himself and his interests as an individual, there was an understanding that the rights of others must also be respected and that in certain matters, the needs of the community require a willingness to defer one’s own interests in the service of the community.  (This is distinct from having community imposed on the individual by the state or the elite).  The moral consensus that enabled flawed humans to self-police made the need for government enforcement of law an occasional matter rather than a constant requirement. 

It does not matter that this self-policing was imperfect, in the general Judeo-Christian worldview, all human endeavors are imperfect because human beings are morally, spiritually and intellectually flawed.  The entire point of limited self-government is that apart from even an imperfect self-restraint, corruption increases and chaos spreads requiring drastic police measures to maintain order.  And the more state power is required to establish order, the closer one is to totalitarianism.    

Though the 50s are often maligned as a phony memory of an Ozzie and Harriet fantasy utopia, it was a different era.  Many of us who grew up in the troubled 60s remember quite well living in communities where doors did not need to be locked because we had no reason to expect violation of our property and children played in dark wooded areas with no significant fear of muggings, abduction or molestation.  We trusted that our community was committed to a basic consensus of decency and respect.  When most people behave decently there is much freedom and little need for bodyguards or police patrols. 

What has happened in my lifetime is the erosion of that moral consensus.  Right and wrong as moral standards were first individualized so that we were led to believe each person chose his or her own morality.  As the 50s and 60s gave way to the 70s that individualism led to moral confusion and cultural upheaval.  What followed as a response to individualism was a postmodern move to ground right and wrong in the transient traditions of each community or tribe.  

But these two developments both involve cutting loose morality from a transcendent foundation and have resulted in a turning on its head of the basic understanding of “rights”.  No longer are rights intrinsic to human identity, rights are instead a byproduct of membership in a particular group and are based on the position of that group in a broader culture so that rights have become a pretext for one group to seek to gain advantage over another.  There remains no universal standard, only an array of competing tribal customs which lead inevitably to tribal warfare.  

So individualist relativism has gradually given way to the relativism of the mob.  Whether it is due to a mere cynicism about the motives of politicians or a loss of belief in truth itself, the common consensus of values that enable self government has been largely discarded.  Now we witness a myriad of attempts to organize and mobilize diverse communities to ward off the building chaos at best and seize advantage and control at worst.  We have reached a stage where without a consensus about basic truths we have only competing tribal interests, and the result is endless conflict severed from larger common values.  In this environment we lose twice, because not only is the common good abandoned, but individual protections are trampled beneath the wheels of group conflict.

And no clearer evidence of the complete lack of moral restraint can be found than the tactics of Saul Alinski that specific interest groups increasingly adopt.  “Community Organizing” is often a euphemism for fanning the flames of anger and resentment within a subgroup to motivate radical activity.  To do this, grievances must be inflated, the “other side” must be portrayed as pure evil, and in one of Alinsky’s more chilling recommendations, the dictum that “people hurt easier than institutions” leads to callous and vicious character assassination as part of both the strategy of attack on the establishment and also a trigger for the motivation of the disenfranchised mob.  Individual business, government or community officials are thus slandered, demonized and verbally brutalized in public sphere until they cave to pressure.  The foot soldiers marching for a particular cause are not permitted the decency of seeing the enemy as human, for that would dilute the strategic value of an identifiable target.  

Individual thought on these tactics is forcefully suppressed.  Those within the organized group who are not totally committed to the cause are bullied into submission.  Black conservatives are labeled “uncle Toms” or “not really black”.  In the case of Labor unions, non-Union workers become enemies of the collective and face verbal threats and at times physical assaults.  Even lower ranking union members are seen as expendable and often become pawns in the pursuit of power, forced to advocate a cause that goes against their own self-interest – such as inflated contracts that result in layoffs.  Advancing the power of the group matters more than looking after the needs of certain individuals or the common good of the larger community.

If there are no common truths applicable to all, no common benefits, no higher law, then there are no truly unalienable rights – only competing interests.  The end-justifies-the-means approach has overtaken principled debate.  Per Alinsky, “in war, the end justifies almost any means”.  Willingness to see logic-based viewpoints as vital and distinct from emotion laden grievance is deemed treasonous and counterproductive to the goals.  Where the power of persuasion fails, the persuasion of power becomes the tool of choice for gaining advantage.

When groups pursue particular rights for some by trampling on the rights of others or seek power and influence in the absence of moral principles they destroy the fabric of civil society.  Envy is not an antidote to greed.  Anarchy is not a valid response to injustice.  Abuse of power is no solution to abuse of power.  Reverse discrimination is no fix for discrimination.  Spending the wealth of future generations is not a path to prosperity.  Slander and ridicule are not valid tools for seeking equity.  

Democracy cannot survive without a belief in these two principles – basic universal law and inalienable rights.  It is the only way to balance the rights of individuals against the good of the whole community.  Without self-restraint there can be no civilization.  Without law there can be no liberty.  And I fear the great American Democratic experiment that placed constitutional law at the foundation of individual rights is quickly succumbing to the unprincipled chaos of mob rule and tribal war.