First, let us define terms. An conservative seeks to conserve the principles of our founding. We reject an “enlightened” and “modern” view of a “living” Constitution that is so ephemeral and so devoid of any limiting principle that it can be made to say anything an ideologue wishes it to say. Progressives, on the other hand, view such concepts as antiquated in the modern era. Woodrow Wilson, the first “progressive” president, viewed the limitations on power in the Constitution as an obstacle to rule by so-called “experts” who were better suited to decide things for hoi polloi in these modern times.
In the view of our founders, power, narrowly defined as man’s dominion over his fellow man, was inherently as dangerous as fire. Power, by its very nature, combined with the nature of man, always tends to encroach beyond its legitimate boundaries. They compared it to an ocean, a hand always grasping for more, or a fast-spreading cancer. Liberty, on the other hand, was compared to a passive and sensitive virgin that power seeks to “deflower,” as it were. Liberty is always on the defensive, and as John Adams put it, “skulking about in corners… hunted and persecuted in all countries by cruel power.”
The founders believed that power, in and of itself, was not evil and was necessary for the establishment of well-ordered liberty, but was only legitimate when rooted in the social contract and mutual consent as described by Locke and others. It was in combination with the nature of man that it was, as we say today, “toxic.” As Samuel Adams pointed out, “… such is the depravity of mankind that ambition and lust of power are predominant passions in the breast of most men.” In other words, man’s fallen nature, if left untended, will inevitably expand and corrupt power.
The debate over the drafting and ratification of our Constitution centered around the fear of the concentration of federal power. Under it, federal power was to be enumerated; if a power was not explicitly given to the federal government it did not exist. The power that was given to it was then divided into three co-equal branches of government (which any 6th grader used to be able to recite, but alas, no more). For, as Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 10: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
That was not enough, though, to get the Constitution ratified. Despite arguments that a bill of rights was unnecessary due to the above, the antifederalists held that the government would inevitably infringe upon personal rights. Such was the nature of power in the hands of man, and reliance upon implied rights was insufficient. Thus, the first 10 amendments to our Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were added to explicitly state what rights were completely “hands off.”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the patriarch of modern progressivism, along with every other “-ism” that plagued the history of the 20th century. He took the opposite view of man’s nature, holding that man is naturally the “noble savage;” is inherently good, and is only corrupted by civilization. This turns the nature of man on its head. Individual responsibility is thus excused, for it is always “the system” or the “institution” (perhaps progressives should take the Beatles’ advice from their song “Revolution”: “you better free your mind instead”).
Rousseau’s concept of the “general will” is to be distinguished from the will of the people, because that is simply an accumulation of people’s self-interest. The “general will” is of the community as a whole, and, of course, this can only be determined by the enlightened ones. Sound familiar? It is the kind of talk heard amongst those with little experience in producing anything marketable in the real world, from the faculty lounges of the Ivy League to politicians who have spent most of their working lives at the public trough.
First Amendment? Yeah, but what about “hate speech?” Can’t have that! Your Christian faith? Better shut up about that before you offend somebody. Assembly? When the left does it, it’s “mostly peaceful” with the fires of riots burning behind them, but don’t you dare recite the Bible in front of an abortion clinic or protest the leftist indoctrination of your children at a school board meeting.
Second Amendment? Fuggettaboutit. They’re coming for your so-called “assault rifle,” which is as ubiquitous today as the Brown Bess flintlock was when the amendment was written.
Enumeration and separation of powers? The federal government sticks its nose in everything from a pond in your backyard to how much water you can use to flush your toilet. Never mind actual laws; federal regulations alone can fill a library. In his book Overruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law, Neil Gorsuch points out that, if you looked hard enough, just about anyone can be found in technical violation of federal law (and if you think no one will “look hard enough” should you cross certain boundaries set by the left, you are naïve; c.f. lawfare).
So, the next time you hear a “progressive,” or, now even more frequently, an avowed socialist, take an oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” don’t believe a word of it. Power over their fellow citizens is the god they worship, and they will acknowledge no other.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
