Often critics of critics like to use sophistry to pervert an argument. If the assertion is that conservatism in its purist terms tries to preserve what is considered the best of tradition without first analyzing the value of tradition it wishes to preserve, the critic counters that “the best of tradition” is self-explanatory and that which does not merit traditional value is dismissed. Asked just what is the best and the worst, the reply is that any thinking or action that goes against what is the best of the conservative position. Pressed further, the critic argues that the position is the very foundation on which the nation rests, and anything that chips away at the foundation is wrong. When challenged that the “first analysis” cannot be dismissed by an all embracing self-explanation, the critic defends the prima facie embodied in the Constitution.

If pressed further that even the Constitution requires analysis and interpretation, the counter argument is that it is unnecessary to analyze that which is the foundation of the nation and thus self-evident. Asked if “the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” requires analysis and opens to interpretation, the answer is no as it is self-evident. However, in the practical realm, conservatives do analyze and interpret to suit their ideology as surely as liberals do.

Conservatives form a more perfect union on the basis of states’ rights as essential because by definition “union” is the sum of its parts, regardless of whether a state frays the thread of the rest — state and local government know best and should be honored, except, of course, with respect to “common defen[c]e.” This primacy of states’ rights ties in with individual freedoms across the lines of culture and commerce, resulting in open defiance of forming a more perfect union in virtue of establishing justice not for but by the individual. Defense is seen as the right of preëmptive strikes even on the predication of remote intent, rather than justifiably preventive actions based on a clear and present danger. As for “domestic tranquility” the conservative readily embraces regulation to the extent only that it facilitates the flow of commerce and insures the principles of laissez-faire, the latter of which has the potential of jeopardizing the promotion of the “general welfare.” Conservatives interpret “blessings” to mean that only the blesséd and their posterity should expect to secure liberty for themselves as they possess the map to rectitude and potency, while others, ill-equipped and without blessing, are at liberty to self-destruct.

On the other hand, the liberal sees a more perfect union as a commitment to greater equality by ending exclusivity of states and thereby dispersing the population and industries across the vast lands to put an end to the blight of densely populated states. To achieve this, requires central planning, much like the founding fathers planned D.C., except for their omission of an equally planned housing and service district, which eventuated into but another heterogeneous blight. As for the defense of the nation, the liberal view, far from dismissing the cry of “don’t tread on me,” works on the causes that generate such a cry and attempts to remedy the rumbling of hostility by comprehensive diplomacy with a big stick under the table. If diplomacy fails, and the threat becomes imminent, strategic force becomes inevitable. The liberal sees justice as the tool to preserve and to build a fair and tranquil society for all law abiding citizens to dwell in a more perfect union; yet, always with an awareness of its causes, to deal sternly with crime. Moreover, this side views the promotion of general welfare as the means to attain a more egalitarian atmosphere in economic pursuits as well as cultural by insuring a level playing field in the search for opportunity in advancing the standard of living and educational enrichment and thus dwell in a richer meaning of liberty for present and future citizens, in lieu of dynasties.

Both views are tainted with sophistry. Which is more or less ? Is another argument.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 18, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com