By David Beilstein
THE excreta coming out of the Holder Justice Department keeps piling up. In July of this year, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez was unable to defend negative speech against religion during a House subcommittee hearing under questioning from Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).
Given our current circumstances around the world — it’s evident what religion is in question.
The left’s noxious defence and importation of legal and cultural cack unsuitable to maintain the pillars of a free society for diverse individuals is the most harmful consequence of President Obama’s policies. Clearly, the Obama administration wars against the liberal concepts (in the classical sense) protecting our civitas — animating and preserving free individuals whose creedal documents protect against such leftist agitatsiya.
But the contemporary conservative movement and GOP have failed miserably. Since the exordium of the culture wars in the 1960s, fought by the religious right, and the moral majority — the movement’s holy grail has been securing like-minded values candidates in the pinnacles of Washington, DC’s power corridor. All the time, the appendages destructive to our democratic republic have gone unchecked — in many cases, they have been strengthened by increased government expansion by actions animated by people who oppose (in word) such realities.
In this schema, the private convictions and beauty of religious faith have been used by too many to create shill identity politics and will to power, disconnected from the insights of our Founding Fathers who erected a secular government on purpose to avoid such consequential misfortune. That misfortune is the use of exclusive personal convictions — of religious faith, to lord over majorities, while creating power structures disconnected from the modest tasks of government. These culture wars grow out of foreign soil from the philosophy and understanding by classically liberal ideas about peoples, society, and government.
This foreign hermeneutic (interpretive grid) imposed on the Constitutional and extra-Constitutional panegyrics of the Founders has inhibited the rational — the liberal! electoral insistence on a government pressed under the thumb of the public rather than above. Such a motion has created an oxymoronic ‘conservatism’ unable to drag the governmental beast back to its constrained limitations by constitutionally enumerated powers.
While the conservative movement kept energetic fighting the culture wars, the government has grown enormous — strong enough to improperly create a hybrid culture inimical to reform based on the philosophy that gave parturition to our republic.
Now we gaze upon the consequence of such conservative misdirection. We glare upon an administration supposedly liberal, which cannot defend in a free society citizen’s unalienable rights to speak freely against religion — or anything else.
This is dangerous.
We have not arrived here by accident. We are here because more and more Americans are unable — if not disinterested — in forming the kind of narrow transcendental formulations mooring the basis of our society.
The conservative movement must be concerned about preserving and animating an imperfect ‘good’ society, over against the utopian version echoed by the left and its anti-constitutional crusade. This means preserving liberalism in the classical sense but it also means the radical dismantling over time of the administrative state — ever sated on more and more projects to perfect defective human beings unable to be perfect; the result a reduction of choice and liberty equaling the destruction of the individual in the process.
The economic tempo of the country cannot survive such conservative solecism much longer. Simply put, there is no other political philosophy concerned with liberal defences of our classical liberal society. We now see in Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez’s dodge over free speech that individual rights cannot survive much longer either … if such desires to immanentize the eschaton continue to rouse and inspire the thinking and political action of those calling themselves conservatives.