The View From 1776
Thursday, November 27, 2014
If one listens only to black “leaders” such as Al Sharpton, it’s easy to believe that minorities that feel affronted have a Constitutional right to riot, burn, and loot other people’s property.
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because English experience under sometimes misrule by kings had made them acutely sensitive to the need to protect individuals’ traditional legal and political rights from the abuse of monarchs, mob rule, or majority vote.
Liberal-progressive sociological theory as the guiding light for political decision has been a disaster. Turning 180 degrees from individual Constitutional rights, it has embraced collectivization of government’s dictatorial power and fractured society into economic, racial, ethnic, and sexual constituencies. Absorbing Karl Marx’s doctrine, liberal-progressives have actively fomented class warfare.
President Johnson’s 1960s Great Society produced riots, burning of whole sections of major cities, soaring crime rates, disintegration of education, the highest rates of illegitimacy in world history and the accompanying disintegration of the family unit as the primary educational factor in civilized society. Along with this, we endured rampant inflation caused by government deficit spending and the Federal Reserve’s excessive creation of fiat money. Between the mid-1960s and 1982, more than half the value of people’s lifetime savings was wiped out by inflation, while we suffered some of the highest sustained rates of unemployment in our history.
In contrast, before the 1930s, the respect for Judeo-Christian principles and long-established tradition that characterized our unwritten constitution gave us the greatest degree of political liberty and the highest living standards in world history.
Even with the travails of the Depression and the advent of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1933, the liberal jihad made few inroads with the general public against the Judeo-Christian morality of the unwritten constitution.
All of that changed decisively in the great social and political turmoil of the late 1960s and early 1970s. A reversion to the 1890s-1920s bombings that killed hundreds of people, an openly confrontational, often violent, phase of the liberal jihad had commenced. Timeless natural law principles of the Constitution were to be replaced by evolving, evanescent public opinion, manipulated by liberal-progressive social engineers through the compliant mainstream liberal-progressive media.
Propaganda from the liberal-progressive-socialist media fostered the opinion that the United States was engaged in anti-humanitarian atrocities in the Vietnam War. “Know nothing” students intimidated college and university administrations and seized control of college offices, classrooms, and computer centers. President Johnson’s Great Society welfare-entitlements programs produced an unprecedented increase in violent crime, riots, and burnings of whole sections of major cities.
Public opinion became radicalized. What would have been unacceptable conduct even a few years earlier became commonplace and worked to augment the breakdown of decorum and public order.
Media organs – movies, TV, magazines, and major city newspapers – began to abandon traditional editorial self-restraint that prevented publication of foul language and public discussion of certain subjects. By the late-1970s, editorial standards reflected the hedonistic and iconoclastic attitudes of the younger generation and their mentors, the liberal-progressive intellectuals. The founding generation’s Judeo-Christian moral principles and the constitutional doctrine of natural law were ridiculed by the media and violently rejected by our youth.
Increasingly law came to be, not statutes enacted by elected legislative bodies, but arbitrary judicial rulings conforming to current public opinion projected in the liberal-mainstream media. Activist court rulings gave the strong impression that liberal judges cared little about insuring people’s safety. Their principal concern appeared to be protecting those who rebelled against established law and custom of civilized society. Victims’ rights were reduced to secondary importance.
See David P. Goldman’s How Far Down Do You Define Deviancy in Ferguson?
This attitude was one of the underlying elements in liberal-progressive-socialist doctrine that had originated with French Revolutionary propagandist Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his mythology of human reason as the all-powerful regulator of human society, criminals were the victims of a society that protected private property rights. Under a government driven by the “general will,” Rousseau’s code for totalitarian rule, property would be redistributed, and once again there would be plenty for everyone. Poverty and crime would cease to exist, because human nature would be transformed to its original benevolent state. This myth was re-packaged by Lenin after the 1917 Russian Revolution, when he proclaimed future creation of selfless New Soviet Man, shaped by the political state to produce according to ability and take only according to need.
Viewing MSNBC’s line-up of evening commentators this week would lead one to believe that the only newsworthy events were taking place in Ferguson, MO. And predictably the liberal-progressive overwhelming emphasis on “caring,” as opposed to respect for legal rights and social order, dominated the “news.” Lost in these commentators’ opinion was any acknowledgement that the real cause of the entire series of Ferguson disasters was the destruction of black families by Lyndon Johnson’s “caring” Great Society.