(1) Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.
This canon is essentially a statement that a religion, and its espoused morals, is for the public to impose on society in general. It does not believe that religion and morals are in the sphere of individual human (people's) rights. It ignores the question of just whose religion applies, it leads to the support of the imposition of "majority" religion on individuals, supported by state law. Religion is not in the sphere of general politics, but is in the sphere of individual politicians.
(2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
"Traditional life?" The same traditional life that thought slavery was OK, in the past? Or the same tradition that said the color of your skin, or your gender, determined what human and Constitutional rights applied to you?
(3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes. The only true equality is moral equality; all other attempts at leveling lead to despair, if enforced by positive legislation.
"Classes?" So it's OK for the "upper class" to use law to enhance their welfare while the same laws ensure that the "lower classes" do not get a fair and equal chance at "the pursuit of happiness?" If we consider ourselves a true democratic society, government has an obligation to ensure a "level playing field." Laws should not be allowed to give advantage to any set of citizens, in this pursuit, over other citizens. I emphases, pursuit of happiness, not the end result.
(4) Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress. Separate property from private possession and liberty is erased.
The last sentence in #4 is correct, but "private possession" has little to do with "economic leveling." It's a false argument, wrong-headed. Again, the true issue is economic opportunity.
(5) Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters and calculators.' Man must put a control upon his will and his appetite, for conservatives know man to be governed more by emotion than by reason. Tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man's anarchic impulse.
Note the last sentence in canon #5. So "tradition and sound prejudice" have always been a check on the unreasonable? Again; slavery, women's right to vote (women's rights in general), segregation, all examples of "tradition and sound prejudice" that had to be overcome.
(6) Recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress. Society must alter, for slow change is the means of its conservation, like the human body's perpetual renewal; but Providence is the proper instrument for change, and the test of a statesman is his cognizance of the real tendency of Providential social forces.
"Change and reform are not identical," no kidding?! Their argument is let things harden into cement, and be hard to change, even when it's bad or unethical, all in the name of conservation. Also, "Providence" which is a belief that God is directing everything, a religious belief. So we are to impose their religious belief on the nation. Of course, there is no possibility they could be wrong on just what "Providence" is directing? No doubt, no re-evaluation?
No comments:
Post a Comment