The fiat “currency” used by proponents of the claimed virtue of altruism is sacrifice. The greater the sacrifice, the greater the claimed virtue/value of this “currency.” However, it is “worse” than that.
The logic of altruism’s alleged virtue demands that the sacrifice is to also be measured against the degree to which the “beneficiary” is deserving. The “undeserving” – in direct proportion, adding to the virtue/value of the sacrifice! Politically, such virtue results in the values we are now seeing unfold in the $500/night hotel rooms in New York, as well as endless others.
The moral checking account in which this sacrificial currency is on endless deposit is titled “the greater good.” A moral tenet that is simply ends justifying means. Our founders did not reject the moral tenet of altruism. However, they created a political vision in which the means justified the ends! Specifically, a government that, politically, affirmed and upheld “individual rights.” Dedicated to such a perspective, whatever “ends” might arrive, the ONLY political purpose of government had been properly served.
Republicans, ever since our founding, when the “anti-federalists such as Madison and Jefferson roamed the intellectual and political firmament – calling themselves “Democratic Republicans” at the time, have suffered from a deadly affliction. It is, as your sub-title cites, “the party’s allegiance to altruism makes it a Democrat pawn.”
The title of your excellent article asks what has, sadly, become a pertinent question. Pertinent because of what has seemingly become of Republican “ideals.” Ideals continually demonstrated by those claiming to be Republicans, though forever perverted during the 20th century.
My answer to your question - in but the briefest of words, is “no.” Not so briefly is, “why?” I’ll begin with a portion of a speech given by the “champion” of Republican political sensibilities - until his humiliating defeat in 1964, by Barry Goldwater.
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." – Barry Goldwater
In response to your reading this, I pose a question: How did the Republican Party, possessing these political sentiments as late as 1964, come to represent what is has since? My answer follows:
I imagine myself present at the conclusion of America’s Constitutional Convention in 1787. I am addressing the collection of delegates who perhaps represent the greatest gathering of enlightened political thinkers of the time. I would argue, at ANY time, in history. I have been inspired by their intelligence, moved by their intellect, and impressed - as they resolve issue upon issue impeding their progress toward their goal, by their resolute determination.
As I am recognized and rise to speak, my manner is somber and reserved – unusual for such an arrogance as mine.
“Gentlemen (There were no women present. Additionally, it would be quite a while before the ideals expressed in Jefferson’s profound Declaration would include women, black Africans, and Native Americans): The political institutions you envision, and have remarkably fashioned, do not have the moral foundation to secure the ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration. Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human being’s political right to their own life, creating political institutions designed, debated, and adopted to then secure same, while at the same time accepting of a morality that a human being has a universal higher moral obligation to live their life in service to some other purpose - either to other human beings, or an imagined greater entity or abstraction. Those for whom you wish to politically-secure such a right, and from whom its respect and recognition must be universally observed and defended, will disagree with it, while they maintain that each among us has a “higher” moral duty to fulfill, one that makes the “right to one’s own life,” subordinate.
This tirelessly repeated moral prescription has destroyed whatever individual rights may have been temporarily recognized in past societies, without exception. In the absence of a proper moral defense of them, this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.” – David Walden, August 12, 2009.
As you likely understand, Anders, the Bill of Rights, further specifying the political ideals stated in Jefferson’s Declaration, would become a part of the Constitution before it was ratified. However. it, again, described political ideals, NOT moral ones!
In my judgement, the preceding represents why our country has – slowly at first, traveled the political journey that it has. I look forward to discussing this and critical developments during the last half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, at our next luncheon.
Anders:
The fiat “currency” used by proponents of the claimed virtue of altruism is sacrifice. The greater the sacrifice, the greater the claimed virtue/value of this “currency.” However, it is “worse” than that.
The logic of altruism’s alleged virtue demands that the sacrifice is to also be measured against the degree to which the “beneficiary” is deserving. The “undeserving” – in direct proportion, adding to the virtue/value of the sacrifice! Politically, such virtue results in the values we are now seeing unfold in the $500/night hotel rooms in New York, as well as endless others.
The moral checking account in which this sacrificial currency is on endless deposit is titled “the greater good.” A moral tenet that is simply ends justifying means. Our founders did not reject the moral tenet of altruism. However, they created a political vision in which the means justified the ends! Specifically, a government that, politically, affirmed and upheld “individual rights.” Dedicated to such a perspective, whatever “ends” might arrive, the ONLY political purpose of government had been properly served.
Republicans, ever since our founding, when the “anti-federalists such as Madison and Jefferson roamed the intellectual and political firmament – calling themselves “Democratic Republicans” at the time, have suffered from a deadly affliction. It is, as your sub-title cites, “the party’s allegiance to altruism makes it a Democrat pawn.”
The title of your excellent article asks what has, sadly, become a pertinent question. Pertinent because of what has seemingly become of Republican “ideals.” Ideals continually demonstrated by those claiming to be Republicans, though forever perverted during the 20th century.
My answer to your question - in but the briefest of words, is “no.” Not so briefly is, “why?” I’ll begin with a portion of a speech given by the “champion” of Republican political sensibilities - until his humiliating defeat in 1964, by Barry Goldwater.
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." – Barry Goldwater
In response to your reading this, I pose a question: How did the Republican Party, possessing these political sentiments as late as 1964, come to represent what is has since? My answer follows:
I imagine myself present at the conclusion of America’s Constitutional Convention in 1787. I am addressing the collection of delegates who perhaps represent the greatest gathering of enlightened political thinkers of the time. I would argue, at ANY time, in history. I have been inspired by their intelligence, moved by their intellect, and impressed - as they resolve issue upon issue impeding their progress toward their goal, by their resolute determination.
As I am recognized and rise to speak, my manner is somber and reserved – unusual for such an arrogance as mine.
“Gentlemen (There were no women present. Additionally, it would be quite a while before the ideals expressed in Jefferson’s profound Declaration would include women, black Africans, and Native Americans): The political institutions you envision, and have remarkably fashioned, do not have the moral foundation to secure the ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration. Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human being’s political right to their own life, creating political institutions designed, debated, and adopted to then secure same, while at the same time accepting of a morality that a human being has a universal higher moral obligation to live their life in service to some other purpose - either to other human beings, or an imagined greater entity or abstraction. Those for whom you wish to politically-secure such a right, and from whom its respect and recognition must be universally observed and defended, will disagree with it, while they maintain that each among us has a “higher” moral duty to fulfill, one that makes the “right to one’s own life,” subordinate.
This tirelessly repeated moral prescription has destroyed whatever individual rights may have been temporarily recognized in past societies, without exception. In the absence of a proper moral defense of them, this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.” – David Walden, August 12, 2009.
As you likely understand, Anders, the Bill of Rights, further specifying the political ideals stated in Jefferson’s Declaration, would become a part of the Constitution before it was ratified. However. it, again, described political ideals, NOT moral ones!
In my judgement, the preceding represents why our country has – slowly at first, traveled the political journey that it has. I look forward to discussing this and critical developments during the last half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, at our next luncheon.
Dave
Dave, well said, and yes, this merits further discussion.
Good analysis and good references! Politicians on both sides are plagued by short-term thinking: Politicians make promises to get elected, then
• Politicians tax and borrow to pay for their promises
• Politicians make more promises, get re-elected
• Politicians tax and borrow more
• Rinse and repeat
In addition, practically none of them understand the destructive nature of fiat money creation.
It's too easy for them to become entrenched, cynical, and rich by abusing their power.
Term limits, which I believe you support, would be a helpful step in the right direction.