Greetings!
.
This is my first post on the Hot Air website but I have been following the debate here for some time. This is generally a qualitative and informative site and I would like to begin with an expression of gratitude for the service that this site provides. I would also like to ask your forgiveness for any and all spelling, syntax or idiomatic errors in my post(s), errors that no doubt will creep into the text since English is only my second language.
.
Despite the generally good quality of the site I must, to my regret, begin my first posting to the forum with a criticism. I am continually amazed by the level of hostility against Mr. Huckabee among many self-described “conservative” voters in this forum. The picture above links to an article and video in which said Mr. Huckabee gives a reasoned, seasoned and generally likeable impression. That the supporters of Mr. Romney are saddened by his continued opposition to said Mr. Romney’s potential vice presidential bid is understandable. However, to malign a fellow conservative with a never ending series of hateful one liners and disparaging epithets like: “Huck is a psychopath.”; ”camera whore”; ” con-man” et cetera ad nauseam – this is – whatever your appreciation or non-appreciation of Mr. Huckabee’s policies , positions or endorsements – so undignified as to be rude, vulgar and abusive. This language is hardly befitting anyone who professes “conservative” values. “Conservative” is within quotes since I question, in light of your unbefitting venom, how you define that word. Personally I would say that to at all times act and comport oneself as a true gentleman is an essential part of the definition of a conservative.
.
Now with that ugly business out of the way, maybe we could concentrate this debate on the subject matter at hand? The poster PackerBronco writes:
.

“The basic question is whether the right to define marriage belongs to the individual or to society. Now if you believe it is an individual right and everyone should be able to define marriage as he or she sees fit, then you have to allow for a whole gamut of marriage choices: same-sex, polygamous, incestual, man/beast etc. The second you say, ‘wait a second we can’t allow that’ then your only basis for opposing it is a recourse to societal norms. But then you have effectively conceded that the definition of marriage belongs to society.
.
But what is society’s definition? At that point you can only point to the decision of the people through either their elected representatives or through referendum. Which effectively takes it out of the court’s control. That’s my position on this whole issue. IMHO this is the only effective defense against the assault on the traditional definition of marriage. Arguing on the basis of Biblical teaching is a non-starter with me, even though I agree with the theological arguments.”(1)

.
The problem I see with Packer Bronco’s argument is not the reasoning but the premise: That there be only two alternatives – individualism or collectivism. This shows that Packer Bronco has accepted a relativist or even nihilist world view – there is no right except that which the majority deems to be right. This is exactly the liberal position. This argument I would like to counter with the objectivist position: What is right and wrong is an objective reality. It is neither dependent on the individual preference or on societal fads. We would do well to remember that a tyrant like Adolf Hitler won his position through democratic means and thus, if one would accept the will of society as only norm for what is right and just, then there would be no counter argument against the horrors of Nazism.
.
No, the collectivist approach is fundamentally the same as the individualist approach since both are centered in the liberal notion of Man rather than in the Divine, and one inevitably follows the other.
.
The word liberalism has since the eighteenth century come to mean

“certain tendencies in the intellectual, religious, political, and economical life, which implied a partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order.”(2) The entry continues “Usually, the principles of 1789, that is of the French Revolution, are considered as the Magna Charta of this new form of Liberalism. The most fundamental principle asserts an absolute and unrestrained freedom of thought, religion, conscience, creed, speech, press, and politics. The necessary consequences of this are, on the one hand, the abolition of the Divine right and of every kind of authority derived from God; the relegation of religion from the public life into the private domain of one’s individual conscience; the absolute ignoring of Christianity and the Church as public, legal, and social institutions; on the other hand, the putting into practice of the absolute autonomy of every man and citizen, along all lines of human activity, and the concentration of all public authority in one ‘sovereignty of the people’. This sovereignty of the people in all branches of public life as legislation, administration, and jurisdiction, is to be exercised in the name and by order of all the citizens, in such a way, that all should have share in and a control over it. A fundamental principle of Liberalism is the proposition: “It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself”. This principle implies the denial of all true authority; for authority necessarily presupposes a power outside and above man to bind him morally.” (3)

.
This illustrates that the American constitution itself is a liberal project since it tries to usurp the Divine prerogative by codifying in a secular setting which rights it deigns to accord its citizens and invests a supreme court with the authority to arbitrarily decide which rights the citizens do or do not posses according to its whims, all in the name of being the sole and supreme interpreter of the constitution.
.
What Mr. Huckabee tries to do is to reduce this arbitrary power but he is unable to truly do so because he neither uses the right langue nor does he free himself from the liberalist constitutionalist approach in which supreme power rests in a paper and its interpreters rather than in Eternal principles. What Mr. Huckabee should have said is that no man, whether governor or gardener has any duty to obey an unjust law that defies the Natural Law or Divine Law. Just as no German officer had the duty to murder Jews even though he were ordered to do so, no American office holder has the duty to enforce either Roe versus Wade or the “homosexual marriages” “mandated” by the courts. On the contrary it is their duty to resist, and if needed, secede from the union.
.
I can already hear the clamor of the atheists and radicals – why should we follow your Christian principles? Is this not the crux of the whole argument? Yes it is. I am also sure that my answer will not satisfy these atheists but that cannot be helped. True conservatism is not democratic but objectivist. It recognizes only Divine, Church, Natural and Positive law and generally in that order. It does not respect the unrestrained will of the individual nor any constitutions or bills of rights, which becomes like legal fictions if these counter mandate the three super ordinate divisions of law. Thus the American Project is a liberalist dream in which the multitude of religions and ethics can coexist only so long as they are no longer true to themselves. This if anything, is why the so called conservative movement in America is continually at a disadvantage against the democrats, because the democrats are honest with their liberalism while the conservatives try to forcibly unite two contrarian ideologies – conservatism and liberalism that are fundamentally at odds with each other. A true conservative program would not bother with amendments to the constitution to guarantee the sanctity of marriage or the rights of the unborn – these rights and duties already exist whether they are in the constitution or not. A better way to promote conservative ideals would be to force your congressman to vote for an impeachment of the judiciary for their legal tyranny and if this fails, move to a secession from the union.
.
(1) Packer Bronco 2008-08-25 at 8:29 PM
(2; 3) Catholic Encyclopedia, 1st ed. 1917: Liberalism.
.
With regards
JC Silverberg
.
PS: How do you create line breaks? “br” or “p” do not seem to work.

JC Silverberg on August 26, 2008 at 8:20 AM