Thursday, September 16, 2004

The Law and the Left

What is it about the Law that the Left has so much trouble with?

There seems to be an ongoing discontent, disdain and even contempt for the Law. As soon as there is a perception of laws not representing liberal interests, the law somehow becomes flawed, or worse.

As of late, there are calls from the Left to eliminate the Electoral College. The election in 2000 and the ensuing court challenges that culminated in the US Supreme Court, are somehow proof that the 'system' needs to change. That John Kennedy also won by way of the Electoral College is irrelevant-- when the system works for the Left, all is fine. The fact that the Electoral College exists to protect citizens of lesser populated states by giving them equal standing has been deemed irrelevant by some liberal voices. Equality, it seems, has preconditions.

The war in Iraq is another example. Deemed 'illegal,' by some foreign courts and foreign forums, the Left seizes on that as proof of the immorality of our foreign policy endeavors and that somehow, we are to be held accountable to foreign courts and international rulings.

Laws are social contracts. Laws are written to resolve disputes and conflicts, period. As in any conflict, there are winners and losers. With every contract, laws exist to protect differing and diverse interests.

The Left has never come to terms with that reality.

Differences and conflict are a part of our reality. We would all rather live in a world free of differences, conflict and strife, but that Utopia is a long way off, at best.

Even the Left needs the Law to resolve conflict.

The Left would have you believe they speak with one voice and are unanimous in view and belief. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Left is as fragmented and diverse as any other group, if not more so. There are every conceivable points of view and opinion, as there should be, within the liberal point of view.

What unites the left however, is the belief that, they have the right to impose laws as they see fit, on everyone else. There is a Gentleman's Agreement that keeps various factions of the Left from interfering with each other.

Some of the Left are pro abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Others disagree with that, yet those voices remained silent when political pressure was brought about to keep 'Partial Birth Abortion' legal.

When radical leftists parrot Arab propaganda and racism with regard to Israel and Jews, the Left remains silent. Those who speak out are marginalized and deemed traitors.

If you're a liberal, laws and politics are negotiable. If you aren't a liberal, laws can and will be imposed at the discretion of the cause du jour.

Joe Lieberman, former Democrat candidate for President, has been virtually ignored by his party, because he supports the President on Iraq and the war on terror. No would call Senator Lieberman a conservative, yet he has been deemed a pariah by his own party. Why? Because he took a moral stand.

It could be said that the rejection of Lieberman actually helped the Republican Party. I would have to agree. In my opinion, he would have posed a serious challenge at the polls. Whether or not you agree with his politics, Lieberman is a moral man. That couldn't sit well with the Left. Morality is relative, they would say. Lieberman is a direct affront to that agenda.

Because the Left never intended to regard the Law as anything but a flexible tool that could be ignored at will, to serve their needs and agenda, they have never been able to come to terms with the reality of the world we live in. The hard Left may not need absolutes and Laws, but the rest of us do. Stability and a sense of continuity are bedrocks of our cultures and societies, here and all over the world. The inability of the Left to understand that, is the reason there has never been a successful Left political agenda that reached final fruition. They have always imploded or failed.

The Left has never reconciled itself with the Law and the need for standards that are equally applied. They have also never reconciled to the fact that belief in God is non negotiable for many in our society. The attempt to renegotiate the contract that believer's have with God, turning the relationship into a 'partnership,' has resulted in the alienation of whole groups of people who might otherwise be more sympathetic to many ideas of the Left.

The organized Law that the Left finds so dispensable has it's origins in religion, of course. As such, the parentage of the Law has to be discredited. Faith is in no small measure based on absolutes-- the very idea so antithetical to liberals. To the Left, religion is about empathy and not about theology.

As I wrote in Liberal Jihad, Morality and God,

"In fact, to a liberal, God is not a god. He is a partner-- a junior partner to our desires and ideals. We are not accountable to God. He becomes accountable to us. Whatever it is we believe in at the moment, whatever desires we have, are accommodated by the ever faithful junior partner. We do not have to commit to Him-- He has to commit to us, whatever the cause. Liberalism is not about obligation, it is about accommodation. No matter how absurd the idea, no matter how shocking the behavior, it is sanctioned by the liberals interpretation of God. Whatever the cause, whatever the belief, liberals will tell you that they are sanctioned by God, for whom they purport to speak. There is no evil, there are no standards. All is equal is the eyes of the liberal god. Anyone who denies that is ostracized, ridiculed and set upon, as if they were the epitome of evil.

To be fair, some conservatives are the very obverse of that. They will say that they are charged with fulfilling God's mission on earth. Like the very liberals they so despise, they too, would take free will out of the equation.”

Now, go back and substitute the word 'God' with the word 'Law', and you have the Left's view of the codified rules we live by.

Claims of American hegemony are used to justify an Anti American stance, as if all that America's woes would disappear if we were only more modest. In reality, it is not humility of modesty that the Left would impose on us-- they wish to impose their own hegemony on America and our values.

Make no mistake about the immorality of that hegemony. Victims of terror and oppression, be they in Darfur, Beslan, Jerusalem, New York or anywhere else, are irrelevant. The left would choose victims based on compatible beliefs and agendas, not on whether anything could be done to help the obviously helpless or oppressed.

That hegemony, agenda and world view would be imposed on us by the Law, as seen through liberal eyes.

It is up to us to defend not only our ideals, but to defend the Law as well.

"To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Isaiah, Chapter VIII, verse 20.

Wandering Mind

may not be suitable for political vegans