The View From 1776

Liberal-Progressivism’s Contradictions

Liberal-progressivism prides itself on being scientific and ridicules as ignorant superstition the Constitution’s foundation in our Judeo-Christian heritage.  In fact, liberal-progressivism is a ramshackle collection of inconsistent hypotheses that never in human history have worked as predicted by liberal-progressivism’s self-appointed elite.

The nub of the matter is how one views human nature.  Is human nature, as the word nature implies, fixed by God’s creation of man in His own image?  Or is human nature figuratively a bundle of soft clay that can be molded to perfection by material circumstances, most importantly government controls in the hands of an all-knowing governing elite?

The following is an excerpt from The Liberal Jihad: The Hundred Year War Against The Constitution.

Darwin vs Morality

Incorporation of Darwin’s work into the philosophical framework of liberal-progressive-socialism in this country was done by John Dewey.  Professor Dewey’s Reconstruction in Philosophy (1905) called for scrapping all existing ideas of morality, philosophy, and religion, because he regarded them as impediments to the advancement of science and to the socialist ideology of social justice. 

Dewey pointedly rejected the ideas of natural law and individualism that were the philosophical foundation of the Declaration and the Constitution.  For roughly fifty years he propagandized in lectures, books, and magazine articles (including general circulation magazines) for the utopian theory that the Federal government could create a just society simply by establishing the proper regulatory bureaus and by imposing crushing taxes to re-distribute individual wealth.

He used Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis to discredit Judeo-Christian precepts of timeless moral principles and to add a “scientific” rationalization to Marx’s thesis that human nature is altered by changing material conditions. 

Darwin, Dewey said, had proved that everything is continually evolving.  That included moral principles, as well.  Lenin at the same time proclaimed the abstraction called New Soviet Man, whom socialism would change into a selfless person thinking only of the common good and social justice.

The ultimate nonsensical extension of Darwinian evolution was Karl Marx’s doctrine that human nature would be permanently changed by passage through the inferno of bloody revolution, out of which would emerge a selfless being ready to give his all for the collective cause, asking for nothing other than his basic needs.  Once such conditioning of human nature had occurred, government would wither away, and everyone would live in perfect harmony, with wars and crime relegated to history.

Socialism at War With Itself

Ironically, there is a glaring, irreconcilable contradiction between evolutionary theory and the religion of socialism. 

American liberal-progressive-socialists talk about “fairness,” which means forcibly redistributing income.  Their only basis for considering this to be of high moral purpose is their secular religious faith that an egalitarian society is both the best possible society, and the inevitable result of the course of history. 

Darwinian evolutionary theory says no such thing. 

Darwinian evolution says that there is no order or design in the universe; things happen by random chance.  This means that no one can predict what life forms, or what social organizations, will appear in the future. Oxford University’s Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins describes it thusly:

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.  It has no mind and no mind’s eye.  It does not plan for the future.  It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.  If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. (“The Blind Watchmaker,” Chapter 1)

In diametric opposition, liberal-progressive-socialism also pays homage to The Immutable Law of History, which theorizes that society has evolved under the governance of scientifically discoverable laws.  In that conception, human societies have passed through three great stages over thousands of years, into the final stage, which is to be scientific socialism.

As proposed by the post-Revolutionary French philosophers Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte, this tripartite division of historical progress was employed by Karl Marx to predict the inevitable triumph of socialism via Hegel’s system of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

These two fundamental doctrines of present-day liberalism are at loggerheads with each other.  Liberal-progressives can’t have it both ways. Yet they insist that both doctrines be taught in our public schools as part of the secular religion of socialism. 

Either all life on earth, in the Darwinian view, is without design or purpose and therefore pointless.  Or, in the Gnostic, socialist view, human society is progressing along a path determined by the sociological laws of history toward ultimate perfection, figuratively, a return to the Garden of Eden.

If Darwinian evolution is correct, socialism might triumph purely by chance.  But what happens thereafter, purely by chance?  What new form of government, responding to changes in material conditions, may appear to succeed socialism?  Socialism, in evolutionary theory, can have no more independent validity than any other form of government that might emerge, via natural selection, in response to changing material circumstances in the future.

Reconciling liberal-progressive-socialists’ Darwinian materialism with their claims of socialism’s high moral purpose is somewhat difficult. 

Darwinian apologist Thomas Huxley opined that there is no sin, no morality, just the struggle for survival.  In that paradigm, there was no higher law of morality to stop Lenin and Stalin from murdering tens of millions of Russians to impose the socialist state. 

Totalitarianism is the End Point of Darwinian Materialism

Jonathan Judaken, history professor at the University of Memphis, in his review of Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, wrote:

… Weikart focuses “primarily on [the] Darwinian influence on eugenics, euthanasia, racial theory, and militarism in Germany” (p. 9). The basic premises that governed social Darwinist positions on these points were clear and coherent. They were encapsulated in the oeuvre of Ernst Haeckel, the most famous and influential social Darwinist in Germany from the publication of Darwin’s “The Origin of the Species” (1859) until the early twentieth century. Haeckel—and many of the prominent scientists, physicians, psychiatrists, economists, geographers, anthropologists and philosophers whose creed was akin to his—believed that everything, including human consciousness, society and morality was a function of natural cause and effect. These natural laws could be known through scientific investigation and science was “the arbiter of all truth” (p. 13). Since individual subjectivity was a function of the laws of nature, Darwinism implied determinism. It undermined any mind-body dualism or the notion of a soul distinct from the physical body. Social Darwinism claimed that human behavior and moral character were the product of hereditary forces.

The mechanism that drives heredity is natural selection (in particular group selection) and the struggle for existence. This struggle has resulted in a variety of moral standards within the human species and over time; Darwinism thus implies moral relativism (p. 25)….

If we believe Weikart, the impact of evolutionary theory on ethics was revolutionary. It overturned the moral codes of what he repeatedly calls “traditional” Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, legitimating eugenics, “inegalitarianism, scientific racism, and the devaluing of human life” (p. 10).

Morality is thus reduced to primitive might-makes-right, to the cold and inhuman forces of nature that Darwin described as the process of evolutionary natural selection, i.e., the survival of the fittest. 

Changing conditions invalidate or destroy previously accepted dogma.  It’s in that vein that liberals talk about “evolving” public opinion as amending the original Constitution.  It’s in that vein that Hitler proclaimed the right of the Aryan race to rule the world. 

Totalitarianism is an almost inevitable political outgrowth of Darwin’s amoral natural selection, coupled with the theorizing of Arthur Gobineau, another of the troublesome French philosophers.

Gobineau’s four-volume work entitled Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races asserted the superiority of the white race over others and labeled the “Aryans,” or Germanic peoples, as the summit of civilization.

In Gobineau’s thesis the evolutionary struggles among different races over the ages of history had concentrated beauty, strength, and intelligence to a superior degree in the Aryan races, i.e., the Nordic-Germanic types.  This process of implacable nature meant that the Aryans deserved to be rulers and that pragmatic political policy should be directed toward purifying the race and keeping it pure.

Gobineau’s works were published between 1853 and 1855 , when Comte, Marx, Darwin, and John Stuart Mill were preaching the gospel of secular materialism and undermining the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization.  Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859.