Vincent J. Curtis
14 Oct 2016
I am indebted to George Weigel for the observations of
Augustine which I summarize below from remarks he made October 12th, upon the
receipt of the Peace Prize of the Universal Peace Project. These are essential to understanding why
Hillary is so polarizing.
In the Fifth Century, A.D., Augustine of Hippo wrote a book
entitled The City of God, which has
become a classic of western philosophy.
At the time he wrote the book, the Roman Empire was collapsing under the
barbarian invasions.
With the example of societal collapse before him, Augustine
defined peace as “the tranquility of order.”
Social order was rooted in justice, and a tranquil order was essential
for ordinary men and women to contribute to the common good. Tranquil order made possible virtue in public
life. The peace of which Augustine wrote
could today be conceived as a rightly ordered political community – within a
state, and among states.
Nowadays, after the revolution of 1,600 years, a “dynamic,
rightly ordered political community” is an order in which human rights are
respected and in which consent, not coercion, is the basis of governance. Maintaining such an order requires the
continual work of “order building,” and this, in turn, requires the admission
of permanent moral truths - permanent truths that shape civic culture and guide
the judgement of men and women. The form
of government that best conforms to this ideal is democracy.
Maintaining a democracy requires that politicians and the
people possess certain habits of mind and heart. Two of these habits are a respect for pluralism
and tolerance. Pluralism means an
orderly public conversation conducted within the assumption of moral
truth. Tolerance means that the
conversation takes place with civility and respect for the other party, a
respect for the dignity of every human being.
This position lies between the extremes of radical individual autonomy
and authoritarianism. There is little so
destructive of tolerance and pluralism, and with them a tranquil order, than injustice,
the denial of the dignity and value of persons, and the denial of the permanent
moral truths upon which the order is based and is evaluated.
The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the
13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th
Amendments, are founded upon the truths proclaimed by Augustine a millennium
and a half ago.
Hillary Clinton claims the right to lie in order to reach a
political goal she has decided is “the right place to be.” Notice in how many ways the practice of this
belief is disruptive of order. To lie
merely to win a political battle is destructive of the permanent moral truths
of ordered society. Lying is destructive
of civility and virtue, and is disrespectful of and unjust to the other
party. It is destructive of an orderly
public conversation characteristic of pluralism. All the normal rules by which democratic
decisions are reached are undermined by lying to win, or using other immoral
methods to win.
The assumption that one is so morally superior that one is
entitled to lie in order to reach “the place we ought to be,” is destructive of
the dignity and value of others especially in a democracy, where the assumption
is that all are politically equal.
Jonah Goldberg in his excellent work Liberal Fascism observed that a standard technique of political
progressivism is to call for “the moral equivalent of war” in order to reach
some political goal or other of progressivism.
The “war on poverty” is a classic example. The problem with the overuse of this technique
is that it is destructive of the norms of peace, of tranquil order, because
tolerance and pluralism are overrun by the demands of the war. Under the aegis of the moral equivalent of
war, there is no time for an orderly public conversation that might end
adversely for progressivism. There can
be no tolerance, no time for civility, for respect for other parties, when one
is absolutely convinced of the morality of one’s position, of its urgency, and
that therefore opposition must mean immorality in the heart of the other
side. Permanent moral truths are called
into question and overthrown without discussion. The dignity of the opposition is attacked. The other side is not entitled to, and not
given, just treatment.
Both Hillary and Obama are progressives. In the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, two decent
men, John McCain and Mitt Romney, were destroyed by progressive lies. McCain was falsely accused of an
extra-marital affair; Romney by lies about tax avoidance, by the alleged
contempt of a rich man for the 47 %, alleged mistreatment of dogs, and causing
wives of former employees to die of cancer.
Can either election be said to have been won on the merits? Progressivism simply had to win on account of
its superior morality, and this in turn justified the destruction of McCain and
Romney by any means necessary.
Hillary is so polarizing because she is perpetually unjust
to others. She practices politics in a
manner destructive of the tranquil order of peaceful society. She undermines the permanent moral truths
upon which civil society rests. She
rejects pluralism and is intolerant of opposition. She is destructive of the dignity and value
of other people. With her sense of moral
superiority, she is authoritarian by nature.
She is ready to employ coercion to reach her ends, viz stacking the
Supreme Court with people who will disregard the constitution and overturn or
retain certain decisions to her liking.
If you agree with Hillary Clinton, you may be blind to her
faults. If you oppose Hillary Clinton,
you feel her unjust treatment of you keenly.
And that is why she is polarizing: her claimant need to win is
destructive of the tranquil order of peace.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment