Charter Member of the Sub-Media

November 03, 2004

The New "Manifest Destiny" « Social Issues »

Please Note: This is not my best post. It is full of gaping holes and not organized all that well. Have fun reading it anyway.

In the 1800s, there was a concept called Manifest Destiny.

Simply put:

In the 1840s the phrase was used by politicians and leaders to justify and promote territorial expansion across the North American continent by providing a sense of mission to citizens. It promoted this sense of mission by fomenting a desire to establish a large empire-like nation in which the ideals of democracy, freedom, and progress are ostensibly protected and promoted.

See? Wikipedia is wonderful.

But not so good when it defines the modern "Manifest Destiny", or Progressivism. Its description seems to be somewhat lacking to me.

Because a good third of our population is committed to the idea that freedom and "rights" will be expanded endlessly until we have achieved a standardless society, a in which anyone can do anything they want without fear of anyone expressing disapproval. This is more than a goal, you see. They think they have already won. They think it is destiny. It is more than a belief, it is nearly a delusion.

And you see the ramifications of this played out on the national stage. If they've already won, then all that matters is getting the right numbers to appear that express that victory. So there is no such thing as a "fraudulent" vote, and there is no crime in disallowing a conservative vote. Because any dirty tricks, any intimidation, any dishonest tactic, well, it's all justified as necessary to sidestep the schemes and dirty tactics of the evil conservatives who want to deny the free, standardless society. Any rhetorical device is allowed, any cheating is fine, as long as humanity inches closer toward the nirvana of total freedom.

Okay, none of this is news to most of you. Stick with me a moment.

It's been said (and I agree), that Conservatism took a big blow when the general population of the United States failed to support Republicans in the standoff with Clinton that resulted in the temporary shutdown of the federal government. But then liberalism took a big blow when the general population failed to support Hillary Clinton's plan for Universal Single-Payer (i.e., govt-funded) Healthcare. The conclusion was obvious: Americans didn't really want a bigger government, but they didn't really want a smaller one, either.

And here's the point: how did each side react?

The Progressives went underground. They pushed their agenda through litmus tests for politicians regarding abortion, through public demonization of morals arising from religion, and through activist judges. They are attempting to litigate their vision into existence, and have no problem imposing their will on an unwilling but hapless majority. That's why you see Progressives fight like anything to disqualify conservative judges. That's why you see Progressives attempt to control the reins of govt bureaucratic power, so they can maintain funding and agenda control for Planned Parenthood, PBS, affirmative action programs, etc.

The Conservatives retooled their whole organization. Rather than trying to impose a vision in an underhanded manner, conservatives set out to educate and persuade at the lowest levels, and wait until a later date to try again to reduce government.

That's one of the reasons you see a resurgence of conservatism on college campuses. That's one of the reasons why you don't see current Republican lawmakers making much attempt to reduce spending. That's why you see Republicans more than willing to turn things over to democratic systems, like Constitutional Amendments and Initiatives and Referendums. Because Conservatives are confident that most of the major platforms of the Progessive Movement are in the process of being rejected. Gun Control is nearly completely debunked, as "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws sweep the nation, as Britain's disaster with gun control becomes more evident. A majority of the US population wants abortion outlawed in "most circumstances". 11 states, including liberal Oregon passed Amendments to their state constitutions to ban SSM.

But both sides seem committed to their chosen tactics. Conservatives will continue to try and persuade and convince, but leave it up to the people. Progressives will continue to try to seize and maintain significant power nodes from which they can impose their ideology on the nation until we get used to it.

I think that Americans are growing to understand that individuals must sacrifice some freedom in order to gain security and stability. Americans are starting to realize that it might be nice to pretend for a while that choices don't have consequences, but that they don't like it so much when the consequences they avoid fall like a ton of bricks on their children and grandchildren.

The pendulum might be swinging back toward morality. Let's hope.

Posted by Nathan at 01:14 PM | Comments (2)
Comments

You had me right down until you said "morality". You may well be right. However, when I see the crimes that were committed against humanity in the past in the name of morality I have a visceral reaction. Just as some people are most comfortable with a Democrat in the White House and a Republican controlled Congress (or vice-versa) I believe that we need the progressives to balance the Conservatives. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, I would say to Conservatives: "You can't HANDLE morality!" Moralists created the progressives, after all, with their excesses. Frankly, if I have to pick, I will take the progressives, hairy and smelly as they are.

Posted by: Robert Fulton at November 3, 2004 07:38 PM

Well, there's little that's not open to discussion and compromise.
Perhaps what I mean by morality is different than what that word means to you.
I'm not talking religious morality, nor am I trying to insist that everyone live by a specific code of behavior.
What I mean is that actions do have consequences, some more direct than others. But I tire of seeing society attempt to water down these consequences. People may have recovered from the drug and sex excesses of the 60s and 70s, but not without cost. It may be possible to go through a divorce without a profound negative effect on the children, but if so, it takes effort. Planned Parenthood places the idea of "Not letting a pregnancy affect your life" on such a high pedestal, they've lost sight of propriety and forgotten that it might not be a good idea to talk to 8-year-olds about abortion and masturbation techniques. How can people forget that sexual intercourse has very a very robust tendency to result in conception? The best reversible contraceptive methods all have less than 100% success rate, and human error reduces the effectiveness further, enough that nearly every sexually active person will experience an accidental pregnancy (them or their partner) within a few years. The percentages are against you, but our society still does little to discourage extramarital sex.
I'm not arguing from a religious sense of morality, that you go to Hell because God says so, but from the idea that there is a huge but understated cost involved with dealing with the possibility or (eventually) reality of an unwanted pregnancy, and that cost is easily far greater than the cost of simply not having sex until you are in a committed, monogamous relationship (preferably marriage).
To me, that's morality. Morality isn't "Do it because God says so" as much as "If you want to avoid lots of pain and trouble, you should take it under advisement that doing whatever you want will probably make such avoidance unlikely, if not impossible."
Conversely, I see Progressives pushing an agenda of, "Do what you want, because the only costs come from authoritarian disapproval. Once we are in charge, and standards are removed, the government will take care of any financial or physical costs."
That's the movement I see, never directly articulated, but clearly demonstrated in the choices made and easily seen in the method and content of arguments.
In other words, the abortion issue actually begins quite earlier than just what to do when you find you are pregnant. Progressives have successfully bracketed the argument only in terms of a young girl being forced to use a hanger in a back alley, but such a context guarantees their agenda has already won.
The above was just one example.

In any case, the important thing is that we understand each other, not that we necessarily agree.

Posted by: Nathan at November 3, 2004 08:26 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?