View of Humanity Explains Political Divide

It may not exactly be an epiphany but the current political divide has become much clearer for me in recent years. I have grown weary of hyperbole and extreme statements made on both sides and have instead sought out higher ground to gain a better perspective.

I have attempted to avoid flinging wild accusations at my counterparts on the left and have accepted that their motivations are not necessarily less than sincere.  The dilemma was to understand how such polar opposite philosophies can exist within the same reality.

Over time, it occurred to me that the framework of how we see the world and our place in it must be a key factor in shaping our worldview or lack thereof. It then became logical that our view of humanity likely was a primary influence on the spiritual, social and political views we adopt and develop throughout our lives.

For one to suppose that positions of power and the populace can ensure any significant degree of fairness and equity, one must believe in the intrinsic goodness of mankind. While the left will quickly point out corporate corruption and the like, they consistently contend that similar evils will not occur if like-minded people directed society. That is, electing people with good intentions will solve many of our problems.

We need to look no further than all of human history to dispel this theory as those of all views have committed atrocities both great and small. Some may consider it noble to dream of an idyllic society where we all serve each other equally but it simply cannot exist given man’s propensity to promote himself.

An underlying foundational premise of conservatism is that all people are prone to serve self. That is people of all persuasions, left and right and not just those opposed to our collective views. The concept of a small limited government is a by-product of understanding that too much accumulated power in any one entity will likely yield attempts to gain more power. This can begin as simple bureaucracy and go all the way to forms of tyranny and oppression. Conservatives are often accused of romanticizing American history but scars within our past only make the case further that people are fallen beings.

The idea of fallen mankind does have roots in the Judeo-Christian heritage and did play a large role in the founding of this country. As the foundation to Christianity, the Bible paints a consistent picture throughout the old and new testaments that every man and woman is born with a sin nature. We are by nature, degenerate and apt to sin. This is the very reason the gospel (good news) exists. It gives mankind the opportunity to reconcile with God through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.

A common phrase in today’s lexicon states that “religion has killed more people and started more wars than anything”. Some experts have debunked this theory with sound historical accounts but while many point to the crusades and inquisitions, it is actually the marriage of politics to absolute power that is largely responsible for untold deaths throughout the ages. The twentieth century alone saw tens of millions killed from the extremes of fascism in Hitler’s Germany to the socialist communism of leaders like Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. Where we do have accounts of religion being the motivating factor, its cause remains linked to the delegated or confiscated power of the leader(s). Lord Acton accurately summed this up with his famous quote “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…”

The current American psyche appears to be leading to a more autonomous federal government. Our fiscal and social policy is being guided by a sense of entitlement as well as an overall apathy towards anything political. A large portion of the electorate seems content to willingly or unwillingly grant more and more power to the government to act on their behalf. They may not however, understand that power is not drawn from an infinite well and that when power is gained on one side, there is an equal but opposite reduction in power on the other side. America is headed down a path of less power to the people.

In terms of political affiliation, I am quite certain another cycle will shift and Republicans will gain majorities again but I fear true conservatism may be waning. In an era that grows more narcissistic and self-centered, modern liberalism becomes a strong attraction and in effect becomes the easy option. It offers platitudes of helping the less fortunate by only requiring more of those who are at the top and labeling it fairness. Moral absolutes are being replaced by relativism. Tolerance and open-mindedness are heralded while at the same time, ridiculing those with differing viewpoints. Key issues are routinely being argued in sound bites and largely from emotional perspectives.      

On the other hand, conservatism tends to be the much harder choice. While both the left and right may endorse hard work and achievement, conservatives embrace the principle of individual responsibility that requires risk as part of the formula. Without risk, there can be no substantial success. This is the fuel that fires a mutually beneficial private sector that in return offers opportunity to others to pursue similar results.  Attempts to guarantee success by the public sector often directly erode a self-sufficient populace and by our natural human tendency, often lead to some form of dependence which only empowers the State.

How then, do we deal with those that are less successful by circumstance or their own doing? The left believe it is a governmental obligation to bridge gaps like economic disparity but human nature will never allow a remedy by handouts. While possible good intentions exist, state-provided benefits cannot have the effect that real charity does. Charity is unlike government aid in that it is a responsive sacrifice initiated by the giver when they see a need. Polling data over the last 25 years has consistently indicated that conservatives on average give far more liberally to charitable causes than does the left. This should not surprise true conservatives as they understand the hierarchy of individual responsibility also includes supporting those whom they can in their social circles and communities. Giving back is a natural outcome by individuals who practice self-denial in at least some aspect of their lives whether it be morally, fiscally or socially.

Left to our own devices, basic human tendencies will often lead us to selfishness and that has potential to lead to evil. Mental illness is routinely pointed to as the cause for violence like murder and rape, but it is actually born of extreme self-centeredness. Ego, pride, anger, rage, sexual appetite, greed, and literally all vices are derived from our natural depravity. Societal ills are not so much the result of a particular political direction but rather a degenerative trend of society itself. It is however becoming apparent that the lower we sink into the abyss, the more left-leaning our culture becomes.

Progressivism has grown very critical of capitalism and points to the many cases of corporate greed and corruption as the justification for centralized control. From a societal point of view, it is a waste of time to be preoccupied with greed because it is a motive and not an action but when greed leads to theft, deceit, fraud, monopolies and other endless outcomes, it is then that some sort of governmental framework may be warranted. The problem with this is that much of the corporate corruption we see today is directly linked to the uniting of the public and private sectors. I have long said that I’m not anti-big business but I am anti-big business in bed with government. The most glaring examples of corporate corruption are tied to governmental regulation and policy whereby the biggest benefactors are typically the largest players. While politicians love to claim that new legislative and regulatory powers will protect the people, they often result only in more power to a select few.

The simple reality is that all people can become corrupt, not just those of certain political persuasions. Any ideology that relies on the hope that someone’s goodness will guide us to some sort of utopia is naïve. Our societal, cultural and national success cannot happen for any sustainable length by only a small group of leaders. Even if they began with the purist of intentions, time will likely tell a tale of weakening resolve and eventually lead to some form of corruption. Power is best suited to be spread around to limit any concentrated self-serving actions.   

Going Deeper Into the Gun Control Debate

As the gun control debate ramps up once again, opposing viewpoints are entrenching themselves deeper into a chasm that may never be bridged. With every tragic event that involves the use of guns, comes the same clichés from both sides of the argument.

We often hear interpretations of the second amendment thrown around in loose fashion but we can learn much from the actual text. We need to first understand that it is not a 2,000 page legal treatise such as the legislation churned out of government today. It is a fairly simple compound sentence.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Over the years, as I regularly refer to the Declaration and Constitution, I have found the best way for me to dissect the second amendment is in reverse.  In fact, James Madison’s original wording prior to the second amendment’s 1791 ratification was also somewhat in opposite order.

The latter part of the ratified version that guarantees the “right…to keep and bear arms” is the part that has become the catch phrase for many opponents of gun control and who could argue it? It is undeniably clear and leaves little room for disagreement.

The first part however, is rarely pointed out or debated, but is more important because it tells us why we have the right. The phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State” implies a purpose. There must be a viable resistance to the threat against our secured liberty and independence as a nation. This would include tyrannical and oppressive threats from external as well as internal forces.

It may be an idea that today’s society is uncomfortable with but that does include threat of our own government. A basic knowledge of the American Revolution as well as human history leave no doubt that government has, does and will tend to strive for increasing power. At some point, that will conflict with concepts of individual liberty where ultimately the people can only maintain those freedoms by armed resistance.

The phrase “well regulated militia” is where the legal argument comes in. It has been subject to many interpretations legally and intellectually. Militia has historically been those forces made up of regular civilians as opposed to delegated forces such as the Continental Army of the revolutionary period. While some may contend that the second amendment is solely intended for the institution and regulation of a national force such as an army or national guard, then why would there be a granted right to all people to bear arms? If its intent were not also to hold government itself in check, then the framers would have no need to grant the right when they could provide arms to their own forces.  The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which is to ensure specific individual rights and to limit the government therefore construing that it was written for anything other appears unsupported.

Many contend that the framers had no idea of the types of weaponry that would be developed. This has even fueled discussion of repeal but I would again urge us to look at the text. Based on the weapons of their era, they could have limited the right to swords, muskets, cannons, mortars, howitzers and even projectiles, but they did not and instead used the generic term “arms”. If the intent of the second amendment included the ability to fight external and internal threats, then logic dictates that there must be relative equality of firepower. What use would the right be if it served no ultimate purpose and left resistance at a clear disadvantage?

Naturally, today’s gun control advocates will ask if that means weapons like fully automatic guns, RPGs, and tanks would be conceivable by that definition. Based on the premise and wording of the second amendment, there is simply no theoretical case against these types of arms. I would also add that the use of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical and biological is moot because the effective use of these by either side is nearly impossible in a potential localized conflict between citizen forces and national armies.

While the ability to possess guns for purposes such as self-defense, hunting and sport are well and good, these are not the reasons the second amendment was created and should not be the primary arguments against gun control. It is simply to hold government(s) in check from pursuing tyrannical power. Government is ordained of God to restrain the evil that men do and the Bill of Rights as a whole is to restrain the evil that our government may do if it attains too much power. As Lord Acton said “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Attempts are being made by many to portray supporters of gun rights as lunatics who are on the cusp of retreating to underground bunkers in preparation for war with their own government. This is a ludicrous notion that is not based in any reality. What they are so vocal about however, is the slow incremental shift against these constitutional rights that have been eroding for several decades. Confiscation may not be in the immediate future but some degrees of our right to keep and bear arms have long ago been infringed by policy and regulation. Noble intentions may abound in the minds of gun control advocates, but I fear they are blindly surrendering the rights of others which could potentially lead to the demise of many other freedoms. Upholding this right is in no way radical nor is it more extreme than even the First Amendment.

Gun violence and mass murders are functions of our societal, cultural and moral breakdown. Controlling the style, tactical features, magazine capacity, ammunition availability, or any aesthetic does not go to the root cause of the intent to harm. If a person chooses to commit a crime or harm others, limiting access to guns will only shift their method to other options.
 

Each side can produce unending facts to support their case statistically but rarely do these take into account the larger ideal of the depravity of mankind. Our frequent inability to see from a larger vantage point becomes blurred by good intentions. A steadfast stand against gun ownership may feel like an attempt to protect life but becomes myopic when it ignores higher principles of freedom and liberty.    

It may be rational to discuss sub-issues like registration and background checks but this is historically a slippery slope. At what point do we draw a line in the sand? The entire gun control debate really is just a precursor to the larger discussion of how we define the role and scope of government. Are we willing to surrender more to the government? Power is not drawn from an infinite well. There is only so much until absolute power is had. When we willingly or unwillingly grant the government more power, there is an equal but opposite reduction in the power of the people.