A Eulogy For The Declaration of Independence

[MalevolentTwitch]

I am an idealist. As such, I always seek the out the ideals laid out in any supposed "Great Work" in order to ascertain whether or not those ideals are alignment with the intended purpose of that "Great Work." Also, I am a Libertarian. A proper one. Not some pseudo-anarchist calling themselves a Libertarian for the attention, but rather one who actually believes in "Freedom First," Fiscal Conservatism, Social Liberalism, and Strict Scrutiny. My way and my ideologies may not be your way or your ideologies, and that's completely okay, but it is in the difference between all of that and the debates that we must have, that we find balance and the correct way to move forward. I know and recognize that I may not be correct 100% of the time. I also know and recognize that not being 100% in agreement 100% of the time is necessary. This is not only necessary for personal growth, but also for the health of a properly functioning society.

Why is this important? Well, if we take look at the definition of the word "Liberal" we get the following from the 'Oxford Languages Dictionary';
1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

And in all fairness, here is the definition of the word "Conservative" from the same source;
1. averse to change or innovation, and holding traditional values.
2. in a political context, favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.

The reason I bring this up is because I have noticed in my time, watching social media become a thing, the vast majority of Conservatives are much more willing to say something along the lines of, "I don't agree with a single damned thing you've said, but you do you. Just do it over there." Meanwhile, Liberals seem to be more likely to exclaim, "You're just a (insert derogatory and inflammatory label here, such as fascist, bigot, whatever-kinda-phobe, etc...) and YOU need to...."

Now, to be far, the name-calling does go both ways. We've all heard Conservatives use the terms; Libtard, Snowflake, TDS, etc... I'm not denying that. What I'm calling attention to is the first definition for both. We should, by all rights, expect Conservatives to be curmudgeons. What I didn't see coming is the current atmosphere within the more Liberal side of the political spectrum completely abandoning their own definition, and this troubles me greatly. The reason this troubles me so takes me back to the "Great Work" that is the Declaration of Independence. Every American is familiar with the ".... We hold these truths to be self evident...." portion. What I want to draw your attention to is the entire document. Starting with the very first words written;

"In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

We are right there, right now... This line is perhaps the most telling;
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another."

We know that allegiances without critique and blind adherences lead to polarization and radicalization. It is far easier to isolate ourselves within our own echo chambers, and either dismiss a dissenting opinion, or slap a label on those with a dissenting opinion in order to dismiss them. We are watching that happen in real-time. What I want to do, before this gets any worse, is urge everyone that responds to this to please read the entire document first... And no, I do not care about the character flaws of the individual(s) that wrote and signed this document. Focusing on that, takes the attention away from the ideals and intent of the document itself.

 https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/d...transcript

[Ignorant]

Making this distinction between liberals and conservatives has always seemed problematic to me. I don't think conservatives are illiberal at all. Read the wiki page on liberalism. Conservatives are not against these things. Liberalism is at the root of the entire modern American political spectrum, with some exceptions (e.g. christians who want to live in a theocracy).

The distinction I think you're talking about with the definitions is between progressives and conservatives. And the key difference between them is indeed that conservatives value tradition much more, and progressives are more open to change and more concerned with everyone's right to choose how to life their own life, at least "socially". When you get into economics it gets more complicated and debatable.

It's easy enough to spot this difference. The civil rights movement, women's emancipation, LGBT rights etc are all progressive movements. Conservative, traditionalist voices have always been on the other side. And you can take this further back, of course. Even the American civil war could be characterized as a war between progressivism and tradition.

Progressives are, to your point, fairly intolerant of intolerance. In a way, that's paradoxical, but nonetheless true and I think that's what you're referring to when you point out that progressives are more likely to namecall. They do this when they perceive others to be intolerant. What you're really talking about is the whole "woke" movement, political correctness, or whatever word we're using for it nowadays. I agree with your suggestion that some take it too far, though it's understandable, but I don't agree that this invalidates the definitions. Intolerance of other ways of life or of people that are different (seen most strikingly in religious conservatives) is not the same as intolerance of intolerance.

For your viewing pleasure: https://www.metacritic.com/tv/mrs-america/ (can watch for free here)

[MalevolentTwitch]

Making this distinction between liberals and conservatives has always seemed problematic to me. I don't think conservatives are illiberal at all. Read the wiki page on liberalism. Conservatives are not against these things. Liberalism is at the root of the entire modern American political spectrum, with some exceptions (e.g. christians who want to live in a theocracy).

The distinction I think you're talking about with the definitions is between progressives and conservatives. And the key difference between them is indeed that conservatives value tradition much more, and progressives are more open to change and more concerned with everyone's right to choose how to life their own life, at least "socially". When you get into economics it gets more complicated and debatable.

It's easy enough to spot this difference. The civil rights movement, women's emancipation, LGBT rights etc are all progressive movements. Conservative, traditionalist voices have always been on the other side. And you can take this further back, of course. Even the American civil war could be characterized as a war between progressivism and tradition.

Progressives are, to your point, fairly intolerant of intolerance. In a way, that's paradoxical, but nonetheless true and I think that's what you're referring to when you point out that progressives are more likely to namecall. They do this when they perceive others to be intolerant. What you're really talking about is the whole "woke" movement, political correctness, or whatever word we're using for it nowadays. I agree with your suggestion that some take it too far, though it's understandable, but I don't agree that this invalidates the definitions. Intolerance of other ways of life or of people that are different (seen most strikingly in religious conservatives) is not the same as intolerance of intolerance.

For your viewing pleasure: https://www.metacritic.com/tv/mrs-america/ (can watch for free here)

The principle reason I make the distinction between liberal and conservative and not progressive and traditional is specifically because of how quickly that can be used to, "muddy the waters," so to speak. It is no small leap to understand that the Declaration of Independence itself was a fairly "Progressive" document at the time it was written. I also take no issue whatsoever with Wiki's definition of Liberalism, itself. Nor do I disagree that, "The civil rights movement, women's emancipation, LGBT rights etc... are all progressive movements." That being said, this is pretty much where we cease to agree, and I believe that disagreement arises from how the "Left - Right" dichotomy of our 2 party system has twisted the meanings of Liberal vs Conservative beyond all recognition and distilled them down into an "Us vs Them" mentality.

Take a look at this from an extremely simplistic viewpoint. I.e., to set politics completely aside for the moment. Let us take a look at the definitions of "Liberal" vs "Conservative" purely from the framework of the, "application of a thing," such as paint, a burn cream, etc... Liberal application then becomes "To use a lot." And Conservative application then becomes, "To use only what's necessary." Now, again, I understand that this view is extremely simplistic. It's meant to be simplistic on purpose. And the reason for that simplicity, is that "Progressive Ideals" is kind of what this country was founded on, even though we fell very short in that regard from the start. 

With all of that out of the way, let me provide a few counterpoints to "Conservatives always being on the other side of change." The very first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. While this president was not an abolitionist, publicly, he was very anti-slavery, privately. He believed it was his moral obligation to end slavery, but he needed to find a way to do that and still preserve the Union. He continuously sought the advice of Fredrick Douglass, a freed slave, to try figure out a way to go about that end. I'm a huge fan of Mr. Douglass, the man was amazing. In fact, he was instrumental in the writing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'm a bigger fan, however, of Cassius Marcellus Clay. A founding member of the Republican Party. My favorite story of his, is that during one of his speeches, he famously said, "For those who believe in the Laws of God, I make to you this argument against slavery." And then he presented a Bible. "For those who believe in the Laws of Man, I make to you this argument against slavery." And then he presented a copy of the Constitution. Finally, he said, "For those who neither believe in the Laws of God, nor the Laws of Man... I make to you this argument against slavery." And then he presented a pair of dueling pistols. The ENTIRE reason this man was NOT chosen to be Lincoln's running mate, was because the fledging Republican Party knew that he would absolutely spark conflict.

Now let us compare and contrast that with the fact that the KKK was founded by a Democrat, Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist and supporter of eugenics and Nazi ideology.. (As a note I'll actually have to, literally, send you an old and unrevised copy of Margaret Sanger's autobiography as the revisionists out there are doing everything in their power to scrub that fact from history and the internet.) and recently, Joe Biden wrote in his 2007 memoirs that he was against certain desegregation reforms, calling it, "a liberal train-wreck."

Please understand, that I am not saying anything like, "Republicans = Good, Democrats = Bad." I'm not, and I'm not because I refuse to be labelled as anything other than Libertarian. As such, what must be acknowledged, is that any social change, law, program, or whatever... is by its very nature, Authoritarian. THAT, is the entire reason why the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is so important, and why slapping stickers on whomever we disagree with is so dangerous.




I will absolutely provide sources for all of the above at your request, but at the moment, early onset arthritis is kicking in and my reply has become long enough.

[Ignorant]

Take a look at this from an extremely simplistic viewpoint. I.e., to set politics completely aside for the moment. Let us take a look at the definitions of "Liberal" vs "Conservative" purely from the framework of the, "application of a thing," such as paint, a burn cream, etc... Liberal application then becomes "To use a lot." And Conservative application then becomes, "To use only what's necessary." Now, again, I understand that this view is extremely simplistic. It's meant to be simplistic on purpose. And the reason for that simplicity, is that "Progressive Ideals" is kind of what this country was founded on, even though we fell very short in that regard from the start.

I don't think it's useful to take these terms, which we have applied to politics and given meaning in that context, to take them out of context, analyze their meaning outside of politics, and then re-apply that meaning to politics. If that's not what you're trying to do, then it's unclear to me what you are doing.
 

With all of that out of the way, let me provide a few counterpoints to "Conservatives always being on the other side of change."

Did I say that? The very first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. While this president was not an abolitionist, publicly, he was very anti-slavery, privately. He believed it was his moral obligation to end slavery, but he needed to find a way to do that and still preserve the Union. He continuously sought the advice of Fredrick Douglass, a freed slave, to try figure out a way to go about that end. I'm a huge fan of Mr. Douglass, the man was amazing. In fact, he was instrumental in the writing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'm a bigger fan, however, of Cassius Marcellus Clay. A founding member of the Republican Party. My favorite story of his, is that during one of his speeches, he famously said, "For those who believe in the Laws of God, I make to you this argument against slavery." And then he presented a Bible. "For those who believe in the Laws of Man, I make to you this argument against slavery." And then he presented a copy of the Constitution. Finally, he said, "For those who neither believe in the Laws of God, nor the Laws of Man... I make to you this argument against slavery." And then he presented a pair of dueling pistols. The ENTIRE reason this man was NOT chosen to be Lincoln's running mate, was because the fledging Republican Party knew that he would absolutely spark conflict.

Now let us compare and contrast that with the fact that the KKK was founded by a Democrat, Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist and supporter of eugenics and Nazi ideology.. (As a note I'll actually have to, literally, send you an old and unrevised copy of Margaret Sanger's autobiography as the revisionists out there are doing everything in their power to scrub that fact from history and the internet.) and recently, Joe Biden wrote in his 2007 memoirs that he was against certain desegregation reforms, calling it, "a liberal train-wreck."

Please understand, that I am not saying anything like, "Republicans = Good, Democrats = Bad."

You mention republicans and democrats a lot though. I see no reason to include the political parties in this discussion. I thought we were talking about progressivism and conservatism? The democratic party wasn't always the party of progressives, and even if it was, the "progressive party" can sometimes still pursue conservative policy.

It's funny because this focus on the political parties, it seems to me, is itself an example of the "us vs them" mentality.

I'm not, and I'm not because I refuse to be labelled as anything other than Libertarian. As such, what must be acknowledged, is that any social change, law, program, or whatever... is by its very nature, Authoritarian. THAT, is the entire reason why the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is so important, and why slapping stickers on whomever we disagree with is so dangerous.

Ok. I think Moloch is a good argument against libertarianism. Would welcome your response.

[ANNEE]

. . . when you point out that progressives are more likely to name call. They do this when they perceive others to be intolerant. 

Have you read the posts on this site and previous ATS?

Who are the name callers?  

Who are the intolerant?

Not those trying to have civil conversations.

[MalevolentTwitch]

I don't think it's useful to take these terms, which we have applied to politics and given meaning in that context, to take them out of context, analyze their meaning outside of politics, and then re-apply that meaning to politics. If that's not what you're trying to do, then it's unclear to me what you are doing.
 

You mention republicans and democrats a lot though. I see no reason to include the political parties in this discussion. I thought we were talking about progressivism and conservatism? The democratic party wasn't always the party of progressives, and even if it was, the "progressive party" can sometimes still pursue conservative policy.

It's funny because this focus on the political parties, it seems to me, is itself an example of the "us vs them" mentality.


Ok. I think Moloch is a good argument against libertarianism. Would welcome your response.

To your first point, it is very important to divorce specific words, labels, etc.. from politics to ascertain their actual meaning and then re-introduce them to the realm of politics specifically to create an idea of intent behind their usage. For example, in your previous reply, you mentioned "Women's Emancipation." Well, the definition of Emancipation is; the fact or process of being set free from legal, social, or political restrictions; liberation.

From that, without divorcing your words from any political meaning, I can only assume you meant that until the "Suffragette Movement," women were slaves.


To your second point, I did mention Republicans and Democrats a lot. It's just the same as the fact that I refuse to be baited into a "Progressive vs Conservative" discussion, I stand by the fact that these 2 parties have been on both sides of the Left / Right divide, and I have provided examples of such. 

As far as Moloch, are we talking about the Canaanite diety, the environmental trap, the symbolism against greed and child sacrifice, or... what? Exactly?

[MalevolentTwitch]

Have you read the posts on this site and previous ATS?

Who are the name callers?  

Who are the intolerant?

Not those trying to have civil conversations.

Come now... Let us entertain an old fool just trying to understand from a unique perspective. Yes?

[Ignorant]

Have you read the posts on this site and previous ATS?

Who are the name callers?  

Who are the intolerant?

Not those trying to have civil conversations.

I realize that the OP's suggestion that conservatives are saints always looking for respectful discussion and liberals are a bunch of donkeys hurling insults everywhere is ridiculous. I let that part go and chose to interpret him somewhat generously by assuming he is talking about cancel culture. I didn't want to get into a thing about this, it didn't seem like a good use of my time.

As for literal name callers on the internet, people do this everywhere and on every "side". I have been called names by progressives and conservatives alike (more by conservatives, but that's because we disagree more often). I'm on liberal-dominated forums too, and I have noticed that in general, the minority is more likely to be called names. On liberal forums it's conservatives who dare express a different opinion, here it's you and I. People pile on like bullies. I fully understand and share your frustration, the immaturity on display is often staggering. Alas, it's the world we live in.

[Ignorant]

To your second point, I did mention Republicans and Democrats a lot. It's just the same as the fact that I refuse to be baited into a "Progressive vs Conservative" discussion, I stand by the fact that these 2 parties have been on both sides of the Left / Right divide, and I have provided examples of such.

I didn't dispute that. I just found it funny that you felt the need to bring up a bunch of examples of republicans being progressive when my argument had nothing to do with political parties at all. It's a sign that you are suffering from the us vs them (republican vs democrat) mentality that you were complaining about earlier. If you're not, great. That's just how it came across.
 

As far as Moloch, are we talking about the Canaanite diety, the environmental trap, the symbolism against greed and child sacrifice, or... what? Exactly?

The collective action problem. Large scale cooperation (laws, which you deem authoritarian) is needed to prevent bad outcomes. Read the post I linked (better yet, the blog post, though I concede it's quite long) if you're interested.

[MalevolentTwitch]

I realize that the OP's suggestion that conservatives are saints always looking for respectful discussion and liberals are a bunch of donkeys hurling insults everywhere is ridiculous. I let that part go and chose to interpret him somewhat generously by assuming he is talking about cancel culture. I didn't want to get into a thing about this, it didn't seem like a good use of my time.

Now see? This is exactly part of the problem. Nowhere did I suggest that Conservatives are saints and Liberals are vile. Your very response is actually proving my points for me. Thank you for participating. I truly do appreciate you.