[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you recall from this thread,
we're told by this forum's right-wing denizens that it's the left who poses the greatest threat to freedom and liberty; apparently the enactment of speech codes on college campuses, coupled with some state legislator in Florida proposing that state documents prohibit the use of term "illegal alien", are proof positive of the grave threat that the American liberal poses to us.
Meanwhile, according to this narrative, it's the right who can save us from this liberal scourge. It's the right who can restore freedom and liberty from the claws of the decadence and moral depravity of the left.
Don't believe me? Just ask their intellectual godfathers.
We've already revisited
Bork's suggeston by "legislatively restraining" popular culture, we can actually
enhance liberty. What about fellow right-wing bellwether Thomas Sowell? Well, to his credit, he doesn't even want to bother with legislatures, the rule of law, or anything like that. Obviously we're past the point of no return there. No, Sowell essentially says "democracy ftw lol suckorz" and goes straight to outright lusting for a military coup to save us from 'degeneracy':
"When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup." -
Thomas Sowell
Keep in mind, I'm not even talking about fringe whackos like David Duke here. The right foists the likes of Bork and Sowell as paragons of contemporary right-wing intellectualism. So let's not attempt to suggest this is some attempt on my behalf to prop up fringe nutjobs as exemples of prevailing right-wing sentiment. The Bork's and Sowell's of the world are reputable and highly respected voices on the right.
So, on the one side, we have campus speech codes and euphemisms in state-documents. And on the other, we have legislative restraints on culture and military coups to save us from perceived moral degeneracy. Again, I wonder: where exactly is the threat to freedom coming from?
[/ QUOTE ]
I genuinely fear both the Right and the Left on issues of personal freedoms and civil rights. Come to think of it, there are precious few groups of any type that
do not instill such fears in me to some extent.
Bork's abysmal, absurd suggestion was discussed at length on this forum, but I forget the OP title under which we discussed it. (Just in case you missed it, you would probably find it interesting).
The quote by Sowell is rather perplexing, at the very least. I wonder what else he might have to say were he to elaborate. I can't envision any scenario in which his words would prove true, in which a military coup would save this country from our leaders' degeneracy (and in the event of a coup, who would save us from the
military leaders' degeneracies, I wonder? Bizarre.)
If we must try to compare the relative threats to freedom from Left versus Right, I would estimate that since the Bush administration took charge, the relative threat from the Right has increased significantly. (That is, if you consider Neo-Cons to actually be on the Right; more than a few don't, and many traditional conservatives are sick to death of them, considering them to be false conservatives who have sold out the country, involved America in a trumped-up and futile war, and spent the country into grave jeopardy).
In sum, I fear both the organized Right and the organized Left, and regard them both as threats to our essential liberties; but lately the Republicans have earned the greatest part of my distrust.
Thanks for reading, and for the interesting post to muse on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hello John, as you are the 2+2 politics poster boy for moderately conservative moral relativism, care to expound on how Bork's suggestions are abysmal and absurd? You often get a pass from all matter of political persuasion on this board for your ever present conciliatory tone, but frankly I'd like to hear how you believe Bork's characterization of today's culture is abysmal and absurd.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hello Kickabuck,
Well, I don't consider myself to be the poster boy such as you describe, but I'll do my best to answer your query nonetheless.
I believe Bork's negative characterization of our culture today is quite apt. It's his remedy at which I am appalled, along with his vicious backhanding of the First Amendment.
Bork stated:
"Censorship as an enhancement of liberty may seem paradoxical. Yet it should be obvious, to all but dogmatic First Amendment absolutists, that people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly free."
Leaving aside the Orwellian suggestions implicit in Bork's first sentence above, the phrase "dogmatic First Amendment absolutists" caught my eye.
In the thread in which we discussed this at greater length, I cited the text of the First Amendment, and asked how the First Amendment could possibly be interpreted
in any other way than as an absolute statement. There is nothing even marginally questionable or unclear in the First Amendment (as opposed to, say, the Second Amendment, in which interpretation leaves ample room for genuine debate).
First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Is there anything therein which is stated unclearly? (It says Congress shall make NO law: it really can't get any clearer than that). So, what the heck did Bork mean by intoning, in marginalizing fashion: "dogmatic First Amendment absolutists"?
The First Amendment IS an absolute statement. Therefore, Bork had better be a "dogmatic First Amendment absolutist" himself, else he belongs not on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court (ah, and he didn't quite get there, did he? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] ).
Bork commits the massive error of placing things such as cultural niceties in the same class with guaranteed freedoms; then he confounds the meaning of guaranteed freedom itself; then he confuses priorities.
Of course we're not "wholly free" (as Bork phrased it) if we have to listen to loud, crude and vulgar people; we're not "wholly free" if we have to go to work; we're not "wholly free" if we have to sit in traffic, or if we can't flap our arms and fly, or for myriad other reasons, most of which are beyond our control.
The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee that we will be "wholly free". Rather, it guarantees that we will be
free to speak.
Bork thoroughly confuses the issue, then confuses priorities in frightening fashion.
However, his description of much popular culture in the U.S.A. is, in my opinion, quite apt [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] : (that "large parts of television are unwatchable"; that "motion pictures rely upon sex, gore, and pyrotechnics for the edification of the target audience of 14-year-olds"; that "popular music hardly deserves the name of music"). Bork got that part largely right, and then proceeded to get the really important parts all wrong.
Thank you for the chance to review my thoughts on the matter, and to have perhaps discovered a new facet on the issue. I would guess the original thread itself would be worth reviewing as well.