Sunday, April 28, 2013
Social Conservatives- Neo-Cons or Constitutionalists?
The New York Legislature had narrowly passed a bill that sanctioned same sex marriage. The Republican candidates were quickly taking issue. One argument took center stage. Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum and Texas Governor Rick Perry disagreed on an important aspect of the debate.
Santorum, a point rider for "rights of the unborn," readily asserted, "the measure passed by New York was indeed wrong, misguided and should be disallowed." It wasn't that Senator Santorum abhorred gay people. He actually showed a compassionate face in the debates some months later. However, in the case of legalizing same sex marriage, it was his unyielding position that the federal government needed to step in and kill the notion in post haste!
Rick Perry made it clear that he favored a "sanctity of marriage amendment" to the constitution. But, he ruefully acknowledged New York's right to pass such legislation. Perry "opposed" same sex marriage on "moral grounds." But, constitutionally, it would be inconsistent to implement prohibitive action from Washington D.C.
This is pure 10th amendment. And, amazingly, the 10th amendment interpretation has stymied a large number of social conservatives from full participation in regaining their country. How could this be? Is not social conservatism synonymous with strict constructionism?
I recall having a "break room" discussion with a devout social conservative in Lexington, Kentucky. This gentleman was a family man, pillar of his church, epitomizing clean living, God fearing, flag waiving America. Yet, when I suggested that decisions such as abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and education be deferred to the states, he lambasted the position as "relativism."
Relativism? What is the actual definition of Relativism? Perhaps in this man's estimation, it was as follows:
"The philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and all truths are relative to the individual."
In other words, "points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration."
In essence, "any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments."
The position held by this good man was notable. The question became, "how and why" had he taken such a stance? And where, did that point of view originate?
When we thoroughly dissect the 10th amendment, it becomes clear that the founders never intended for the federal government to get involved with abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and education. So, assume for a moment that it's authors concluded that these concerns were to be handled at the state level.
This gentleman would evidently not have agreed with Jefferson, Franklin, Adams or any of the founding fathers. Based on his assertion, these issues would need to be administered from one central point. To allow states to hold different standards would be "relativism."
In reality, this well intentioned man held nothing short of a "Neo-Con" position! As referenced in a previous post, there is growing evidence that "Neo-Cons" are actually "evolved Trotskyites."
Are we suggesting that Social Conservatives are more in step with Trotsky than Jefferson? There are a lot of exceptions and variations. But, unfortunately, yes! But that could quickly change! It comes down to their "identifying the wolves in sheeps clothing!"
When taking these responsibilities away from the states, placing it with the federal government, you are conceding that "Washington knows best." The "Neo-Con(New Conservative) approach calls for a "large Washington, D.C. based government to advance, implement and facilitate conservative practices and principles." The question becomes, "does Washington also define conservatism?"
In past times, churches were more pro-active. Issues such as pro-life, prayer in the public schools, and creationism were not discussed. Any position other than uncompromising support was inconsistent with Judeo-Christian principles. Alternative positions were rarely tolerated. The Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 tested evolution and the question of whether it was sacrilege to teach it in the public schools. How things have changed!
During the 20th century it became politically incorrect to discuss religious beliefs publicly, certainly in the public schools! The term "separation of church and state" was inverted. As history confirms, the original idea was to keep government from establishing a state religion.
The founders remembered the "Church of England." They wanted no counterpart in America! The Marxists were quick to conclude that "separation of church and state" translated to "keeping religion out of any and all activities done under the auspices of government." Including the public schools. The got away with it only because Neo-Cons had infiltrated the churches to a large degree and largely seconded their motion.
Marxism never embraced religion of any kind. True, there were varying extremes of the how to deal with it. For Trotsky, it amounted to a security blanket for the masses in route to their ultimately accepting Communism as the better alternative.
History notes that Leon Trotsky was not Joseph Stalin. Nor was he Vladimir Lenin. Lenin, as we recall described religion as the "opiate of the people." He had not always held this position. Stalin was engaged in studies to become a priest in the Eastern Orthodox church before turning to atheism. Trotsky, of Jewish heritage held a softer position on religion. He saw it more as an "appeaser" or "conciliator" of the masses.
Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were in agreement that everything, including religion was best handled from a central point. American lawmakers on both sides of the aisle supported this position. With the help of the court system, prayer was banned from the public schools. Abortion was legalized. In the 1970's a Department of Education that welded enormous power was implemented.
It is not to say that Neo-Cons didn't support school prayer, the rights of the unborn and a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Most do, up to a point. But the thought of allowing states to decide for themselves opens a can of worms! It is a certainty that many, if not most social conservatives have bought in to their argument that "it's a national argument and should be handled at the national level."
The end result: "Neo-Cons" have been able to placate and ultimately win over the social conservatives by taking strong positions on abortion, marriage, and drug control enforcement. In exchange for these concessions, Social Conservatives have basically "okayed" big government and greater control from Washington, D.C. In doing so, they have unknowingly accepted the belief that the positions of our founding fathers were nothing short of relativism.
Nothing could be further from the truth! We are "the United States of America." We are not, "the United American States." Our motto tells it all: E Pluribus Unum: "From the many, one."
When our founders wrote our Constitution they were determined to get it right! Week after week, in stifling July heat and humidity they made correction after correction, abridgment after abridgement in hammering out a workable agreement. In doing so they covered every conceivable angle. They knew that each state was different in it's own sense. All would require a certain degree of flexibility and autonomy. On the big things, they would come together.
The original inspiration exhibited by our founders was sadly polluted in the previous century. As Marxism grew, it became more accepted. Even though it has failed in every attempt, excuses for failure were always there. On going attempts to invoke this failed idea quickly sprouted in new places, including within our shores. It flourished in America because most Americans didn't recognize it. This too, was by design!
When the average 1960's American family thought Communism, they thought the U.S.S.R., Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev and a totalitarian state that terrorized it's population. There are countless Russians who will tell you today that it wasn't like that. But, what was it like? Three words provide the answer: "Big Central Government."
Did the Soviet Union collapse due to the population throwing off the yoke of totalitarianism? Actually not. The system failed because the country was an economic basket case! It rewarded idleness and mediocrity. It penalized productivity. Today Russian President, Vladimir Putin has gone on record to warn President Barack Obama to not fall for the same failed reasoning!
Those evolved Trotskyites made certain that their product was presented in a benign manner, appearing to be the polar opposite of it's Soviet cousin of the sixties. The people, expected to be the most ideologically opposed to a Marxist system were the Social Conservatives. Winning them amounted to winning the entire game.
There may be some good news for Constitutionalists. A lot of independents and even some Democrats may be more inclined to favor Federalism. The 10th amendment offers insight into fixing much of what ails America. If Social Conservatives can accept the 10th amendment as the "true brother of Liberty," they will be able to escape the bonds of Marxism, so expertly glamorized by Democrats and okayed by Neo-Cons.
Are we suggesting that Senator Santorum is a Neo-Con?
Senator Santorum's unique place is another discussion for a different post. But we might mention that many of his positions mirror those of John F. Kennedy. His reverence for home, church and job at the factory had the smell of protectionism. As a result, the Neo-Cons wanted no part of him.
Rick Perry epitomizes the traditional Southern position of "States rights." His talk of downsizing the Federal government, making Washington "inconsequential in the lives of Americans," scared Neo-Cons.
Perry is an avowed 10th amendment guy. In short, any act, action, duty or responsibility the 10th didn't designate as a federal responsibility, belongs the the states. Period! Santorum believes in making American industry competitive here at home. If eliminating the corporate income tax isn't enough, there are always other options available.
Both positions are grave threats to Globalism, Neo-Conservatism and, of course, World Communism. Supporters will continue to fear the inevitable. If Social Conservatives such as Senator Santorum ever accept the 10th amendment as the starting point, the circle will be complete.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment