There were, essentially, two responses to the political chaos of the seventeenth century, as many of the aspects of the Reformation began to be translated into political terms. On the one hand, a group of thinkers led initially by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), believed that natural laws governed states and their relations. Drawing on the thought of Greek and Roman Stoicism, where the idea of "natural law" originates, Grotius and others believed that there were constant and immutable rational laws which should be applied to all governments. In many ways, this concept is very similar to the Roman concept of the Law of Nations, which is also derived from Stoic principles. On the other hand, Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) reinforced medieval notions of kingship in his theory of the Divine Right of Kings, a theory which argued that certain kings ruled because they were chosen by God to do so and that these kings were accountable to no person except God…
-
Divine Right as in Priviledge: Bush and Cheney claim the right to unilaterally make decisions, independent of the Congress, the Courts, or existing laws. They also claim to be immune to the constraints of existing laws. Their power is absolute.
-
Divine Right as in Correctness: They assume that what they say or do is correct. Except for an occasional "Yes, mistakes were made" comment, they are never wrong. They clung to the WMD line beyond our tolerance, and probably still believe it. No decision of the countless bad ones they’ve made has been wrong. This, to me, is the most bizarre Bushism of all..
-
Divine Right as in Conservative [Right Wing]: One we don’t think about is their deification of whatever they mean by the word Conservative – which has become a synonym for "Right." "Right [Conservative] is Divine [Truth]." "Left [Liberal] is Wrong [Lie]." Their use of the words "Liberal" and "Left" is suffused with disdain and contempt, accompanied by facial expressions usually reserved for fecal material.
Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment: “Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance.… [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication. There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes – though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.
Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.
But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”
I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble. Moderation and restraint is not what I felt – and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will – and to brandish steel. MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did.
Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.
Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot – three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?
Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
[…] Case Blog wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThere were, essentially, two responses to the political chaos of the seventeenth century, as many of the aspects of the Reformation began to be […]