|Iraq Election: Left World, Our World||Americans and Literacy|
by Christopher Chantrill
December 25, 2005 at 6:45 am
WE ALL KNOW what the NSA surveillance case is about. It is about liberals living in a bubble, as Thomas Lifson has explained. Liberals think that the issue is government spying and the Bush administrations overall hostility towards civil liberties, but they are wrong.
Anyway, everyone does it. Thanks to the conservative blogosphere we know that it isnt just the Bush administration that commits electronics eavesdropping without a search warrant. Every president reserves the right to do it. Even sainted Democratic ones.
Why are liberals so sensitive about the governments national security spying? Doesnt everyone agree that the first duty of government to protect its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic? Not quite. Sometimes liberals in their idealistic youth say things and do things that were better kept private.
Were liberals dabbling in communism in the 1930s? Did some of them actually pass sensitive documents to the Soviets during the very time that millions were dying in the Great Terror? Did the occasional liberal pop over to Paris in the early 1970s to coordinate anti-war activities with the North Vietnamese? Are liberal journalists in the Noughties leaking sensitive national security information that may cost American lives? Never mind. Its none of your business. There is a right to privacy in the constitution, remember, and the United States is a nation of laws and not of men.
Liberals have elevated the idea of the right to privacy into a grand constitutional doctrine. It applies to liberal bedrooms, liberal faculty lounges, liberal union halls, and liberal political meetings. Liberals demand the privacy to abort their babies without a whisper of social control, and they demand the privacy to form and operate without interference political groups, some of which, like International ANSWER, appear to be funded by nations in the Axis of Evil.
But dont imagine that you have a right to privacy. You think you have the right to build a house on your property? Only if the county planning and urban design department agrees. You think that your financial transactions deserve a veil of privacy? Not at all. Your employer and your financial institution have already blabbed everything to Uncle Sam. You think that your business should be free of inspection by fire, health, safety, or environmental enforcement officers except upon probable cause? Dream on, pal.
There is an eternal principle at work here. Governments should keep out of everything that is private to liberals, but should not be restrained from investigating anything that is private to conservatives.
But hey, who needs privacy? In opposition to the liberal privacy tradition there is another notion of how Americans should live. It is the tradition represented by John Hancock, who signed his name on the Declaration of Independence good and large so that King George could read it. Hancock was a public man who wanted his acts to be public. He acted according to a tradition that says that a public man should live his life in public, and refrain from any word or act that could not be repeated honorably in public. It is the ethos of the merchant whose word is his bond, and whose currency is the trust others repose in him, and it has entered into modern discourse as the idea of transparency. The more transparent your life and your affairs, the more that other people can trust you.
There is a universal grandeur about the principle of transparency. It commits the conservative to the great trajectory of life, from birth to productive adulthood, to marriage, parenthood, and then in the fullness of time to decay to death. But the purpose of liberal privacy is to license liberals to veer off the trajectory of life, choosing not to serve their fellow humans but to service their personal creativity, choosing not children but childlessness, choosing not to honor the land of their birth but to challenge it. In this liberals demand the right to become irrelevant.
Let us not deny liberals their rights. That would be insensitive. Let us rather admit that the present living law of the United States affords liberals an unlimited right to privacy. Let us formalize the present living law of the land into written, beneficial legislation. It would guarantee liberals an absolute right to privacy, and it would confirm conservatives in the truth of transparency.
Thats as it should be. Lets keep liberals in their holy bubble with their sacrament of privacy. The rest of us will just have to put our shoulders to the wheel in the real world, as we have to do anyway.
Buy his Road to the Middle Class.
The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness...
But to make a man act [he must have]
the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove
or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie
that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison
At first, we thought [the power of the West] was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity.
David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing
[In the] higher Christian churches... they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm
Civil Societya complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churchesbuilds, in turn, on the family, the primary instrument by which people are socialized into their culture and given the skills that allow them to live in broader society and through which the values and knowledge of that society are transmitted across the generations.
Francis Fukuyama, Trust
In England there were always two sharply opposed middle classes, the academic middle class and the commercial middle class. In the nineteenth century, the academic middle class won the battle for power and status... Then came the triumph of Margaret Thatcher... The academics lost their power and prestige and... have been gloomy ever since.
Freeman Dyson, The Scientist as Rebel
Conservatism is the philosophy of society. Its ethic is fraternity and its characteristic is authority the non-coercive social persuasion which operates in a family or a community. It says we should....
Danny Kruger, On Fraternity
What distinguishes true Conservatism from the rest, and from the Blair project, is the belief in more personal freedom and more market freedom, along with less state intervention... The true Third Way is the Holy Grail of Tory politics today - compassion and community without compulsion.
Minette Marrin, The Daily Telegraph
When we received Christ, Phil added, all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh
I mean three systems in one: a predominantly market economy; a polity respectful of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and a system of cultural institutions moved by ideals of liberty and justice for all.
In short, three dynamic and converging systems functioning as one: a democratic polity, an economy based on markets and incentives, and a moral-cultural system which is plural and, in the largest sense, liberal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
There was nothing new about the Frankish drive to the east... [let] us recall that the continuance of their rule depended upon regular, successful, predatory warfare.
Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion
We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.
E. G. West, Education and the State