MORAL IMAGINATION
Delegate Scott Lingamfelter has been puzzled, not quite certain what to make of Barack Obama’s empty rhetoric. How, he wondered, could the man say so many words and still say so little? During Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech, he heard the words that gave him a clue. What did he learn? Here is an excerpt from Lingamfelter’s December 11th email to his supporters.
Obama Code: “The Continued Expansion of Our Moral Imagination”
It’s been hard to put my finger on it. During his campaign for the presidency, I was struck by the volume of empty rhetoric (now) President Barack Hussein Obama got away with without media scrutiny or press investigation. It really bothered me because the man clearly lacked a moral center on any number of issues. He would speak long lines of meaningless paddle while people and press alike marveled at the guy. I can’t honestly tell you how many folks I spoke to would say after hearing him speak “what did he just say?”
Now comes what I have been looking for; some indication, some glimpse inside why Obama thinks and says so much signifying so very little. Obama loves to talk about President John F. Kennedy’s unfilled work. He uses this device frequently to suggest he—Barack Obama— has arrived on the scene to finish Kennedy’s work.
So—once again— after invoking the Kennedy legacy during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize on December 10th, 2009, Obama, said of the unfinished Kennedy years: “I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination”.
Bingo! That’s it; “the continued expansion of our moral imagination”. In one moment Obama told us why so much of what he says has so little meaning. Simply put, he thinks morals are something you imagine and expand.
Morals are not something you “imagine”. Morals are rooted in precepts like the Ten Commandments, the Code of Hammurabi, and the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, morality is based on code of conduct, a set of beliefs that distinguish between right and wrong. And morals are not “expanded”, they are embraced, unless of course, you prefer to be unencumbered by those very rules, maybe setting for a “designer” set more suited to your individual purposes.
In fact what is horribly wrong with America and the world today is that people have rejected morals to “imagine” whatever they will to justify whatever they want. Dictators routinely engage in “moral imagination” to justify and “expand” tyranny. Criminal enterprises employ “moral imagination” to justify their lawlessness and “expand” their influence over innocent people. And deceitful liberal politicians in Washington use “moral imagination” to justify spending our nation and our grand children into a legacy of life-long debt and “expanding” government dependence that will lead to the socialist state they idealize and we reject.
And really, should we be surprised that Obama has such an ill-defined concept of moral development. After all, he doesn’t subscribe to the view that America is exceptional. To do so would be to acknowledge that this nation was founded on Christian principles—which he has publically rejected— and that those Christian principles have led to unparalleled tolerance for other faiths, respect for the dignity of mankind, and a commitment to freedom and justice for all. On the contrary, Obama spends most of his time abroad apologizing for us, possibly as he ponders “new morals” that would be better for us than the ones that have governed right actions since Moses received the Ten Commandments. But then again, maybe Obama has plans to take up mountain climbing. Think about it. If he can get the Nobel Peace Prize for simply showing up, who says he can’t create a new moral order? Pardon me while I’ll stick with the original version.
Does Lingamfelter have the right of it? You can and should judge that for yourself. Here is the text of Obama speech. Below is an excerpt from the speech that puts Obama’s strange phrase in its full context.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
Because he is our leader, President Obama’s entire speech is worth reading. In his speech, Obama tells us much about how he envisions peace, and we can learn just how naive he is. Obama speaks of peace as freedom from fear and freedom from want. Liberty is something we maintain by evolving powerful institutions. Unfortunately, Obama’s vision confuses a successful tyranny with peace.
Because we divide ourselves into interest groups, the world has always been divided in factions, us versus them. As Obama says, war is old as humanity and peace difficult to achieve. Obama understands the problem of peace. Nonetheless, it is in the midst of declaring his awareness of the problem that Obama reveals his naivete. Rather than calling upon our nation’s Christian traditions as Lingamfelter would prefer, Obama asks us to call upon our imaginations. Obama believes our relative differences small. With a little imagination we should be able to achieve a common understanding with our foes. Because we share a common humanity, each side should be able to see the advantages of peace.
Obama thinks of humanity as rational and capable of self perfection. Lingamfelter, on the other hand, sees Christianity as fundamental to peace.
What a man believes makes a difference in that man. Obama knows that much. Look at his policies. What has his administration and the Democratic Party majority in Congress set about doing? Have they not set about remolding the United States into an image of their own liking? Isn’t their immediate goal readily apparent? Do they not want to bring every aspect of our lives under the power of government. Hasn’t the Democratic Party made huge efforts to dominate our mass media and educational institutions. Isn’t their apparent objective to make all Americans believe the same truths?
It is with his own example and the example of the Democratic Party that Obama undermines peace. These are men and women who arrogantly believe they know the truth and have the right to impose this truth upon others. Obama speaks of freedom and liberty, but his administration’s policies reek of the need to control. Sadly, what Obama fails to appreciate is that such an undisciplined need is what leads to war. Has not every warlike tribe and nation always believed that it alone had a monopoly on “truth”?
Christianity taught something new, and it is Christian belief that helped the United States achieve peace with itself and other nations. What is this truth? Christianity promotes freedom of religious belief. Christians understand that it is from God, not another man, that we learn the true path to salvation. What early American colonists well appreciated is that men could achieve peace only when they were willing to let each other live in peace.
Live and let live. Unfortunately, freedom of belief is anathema to the modern Democratic Party. How can we be so sure? Consider that Democrats are socialists and how socialism works. If we were allowed to refuse, how could socialists impose their vision of Utopia upon the rest of us? Yet Democrats would control every aspect of our lives. Who then will not want to refuse at least some aspect of the Democratic Party program for governing our lives. In that refusal lies the seeds of future conflict.
MATH INVESTIGATIONS: HOW IS IT DOING?
Some time back I took an interest in Math Investigations, another new way to teach math to children. As near as I could tell, this newfangled technique did not have much to recommend it. Unfortunately, Prince William County Schools had adopted this technique. So when a group of parents objected with much more force than I could manage, I assumed the role of cheerleader. These energetic parents eventually got the issue before the School Board and forced a compromise. The School Board directed our school administrators to adopt a blended approach. See here. (Note that at the time I checked the link to the School Boards motion was broken. Hopefully, that will get fixed.)
So what is the current status of our school’s math program? The proponents of Math Investigations claim to be data driven. Do we have any data for the last school year? I am not sure. I just know I did not find any on the school’s website. The PWC Education Reform Blog, however, expresses a more definite opinion.
The following letter was forwarded to us from one of our contributors. It was sent to Milt Johns, Chairman of the PWC School Board. I have to say that I agree with the sentiments expressed in the letter. It is mid-December and the district still hasn’t presented the elementary school mathematics performance data. As the report summarizing that data isn’t on the agenda for the next board meeting, it’s not likely we’ll see it until January 2010. (continued at When Will the School Board Demand Answers?)
It is December 2009, and we don’t have last year’s performance data? On an issue that raised all kinds of controversy? What’s up with that? If you have kids in the school, you may wish to ask.
THE LOGIC OF WORDS
Lawyers are wordsmiths. Lawyers may know little about science, art, or theology, but the legal profession requires that lawyers understand the logic of words. That perhaps explains the latest piece of chicanery now working its way through Congress.
Earlier this week came news of the decision by the power-hungry Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide, which all animals and people exhale with every breath, amounts to an “endangerment” of human health. Now comes Rep. James Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to try to match a Senate committee that already advanced a bill to radically expand the scope of federal water regulations. Last week, Mr. Oberstar’s staff repeated his determination to do likewise by year’s end, with a bill misnamed the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA).
The Senate version of the legislation looks deceptively like a minor change. As confirmed in several recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, federal regulatory authority currently extends only to waters that are navigable or perhaps directly connected to navigable waters. The Senate bill would remove the word “navigable.” The significance of the dropped word is that any backyard fish pond or birdbath, any swimming pool or even a piece of low ground that is prone to forming puddles after rains, could be subject to the dictates of bureaucrats at the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. (from EDITORIAL: Leave our fish ponds alone)
Just how big a power grab is this? Imagine you live in an area with a rare mosquito. One week you forget to drain your birdbath. Moreover, you have also forgotten to remove the leaves from the gutters that wrap around the edge of your roof. Making his rounds and inspecting your property, your friendly, local neighborhood EPA rep is trained to notice such things. In fact, he observes that you have a fine crop of wigglers in both your birdbath and in your gutters. Smiling joyfully, he then introduces you to the new joys home ownership. He begins by congratulating you on your contribution to the environment. Then he politely issues a warning. Leave the precious wigglers alone. Under the penalty of law, you must leave both your birdbath and your gutters alone.
Because Humans are not an endangered species, this holy and anointed agent of the EPA will undoubtedly have less concern for you and your family than the endangered mosquitos. So if these mosquitos bite and carry disease, you can count upon him not to adjust his priorities. Instead, to ensure the survival of the mosquitos, he may suggest that you bare your flesh.
Our president and the Democratic majority in Congress have a mission. They are out to save the world. All that matters is what the Supreme Court says is legal. Moreover, they are not greatly concerned about the Court. What the Supreme Court says is legal they can predetermine by selecting the “right” judges.
Fortunately, some people understand just how precious water can be. In our nation, these folks reside primarily in the western states. There will be a fight.
In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., members of the House and Senate Western Caucuses cited concerns over job loss and regulatory overreach in expressing their strong objections to the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) (S. 787).
The letter, signed by 11 Western senators and 17 Western House members, stated, “In the West … where the frontier spirit of smaller government and individual liberty are still sacred traditions, there is overwhelming objection to this bill. We strongly object to any attempt to move this legislation, either as a stand alone bill or as an attachment to a bill, in the Senate or House of Representatives. More specifically, we cannot imagine any bill so important that we could support it with the Clean Water Restoration Act attached.” (continued in Western lawmakers oppose CWRA)
Nonetheless, consider the boldness of this grab for power. Where in the Constitution did we give Congress this kind of power? Do they care?
Our elected officials swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet they seem indifferent to that oath. When did we start allowing such to represent us? Why? If we have forgotten the importance of honesty, that should concern us most of all.
SOMETIMES THE DRAGON WINS
Here is another example of why elections matter — why good citizens cannot choose to sit on their hands.
The Obama administration today cleared away the last legal obstacle to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency by issuing a formal declaration that they pose a threat to human health and the environment.
The gases, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, are emitted by the tailpipes of motor vehicles, coal-burning power plants and a wide variety of other industrial facilities.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that EPA is obligated under the federal Clean Air Act to classify carbon dioxide as a potentially dangerous air pollutant. Carbon dioxide is the most common of several greenhouse gases that are contributing to the warming of Earth’s atmosphere. (continued here)
Carbon dioxide is not a toxin. We exhale the stuff. Carbon dioxide pervades our world. Methane we fart (see here). What is at issue is whether or not we can burn enough coal and oil to affect the world’s climate. Nobody knows the answer. The science is not settled. In fact, politics has corrupted the science, and our biased corporate news media refuses to talk about it. See THE STRANGE BUSINESS OF “CLIMATEGATE”.
Even if we have a right to be concerned about carbon dioxide, we do not need the EPA to regulate it as a toxin. If burning fossil fuels is a problem, we can tax it, and people will naturally look for alternatives. No new government agency or special powers are required. Unfortunately, ambitious busybodies see global warming as an excuse to run every detail of our lives. On every front, the environment, health care, education, welfare, …these people lust for and grab for power. For the sake of raw power and inflated egos, these people will wreak havoc upon our economy and make us their serfs.
Frankly, I would rather go down fighting.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! — Patrick Henry (from here)
THE RIGHT OF FREE ASSOCIATION
The First Amendment of our Constitution lists about six rights.
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.
One right that gets relatively short shrift is the right of the people peaceably to assemble. What does this right involve? Why did the Founders consider this right so important that they included it in the first amendment? I think Alexis De Tocqueville one person who had a good answer to that question. In his classic work, Democracy in America, Tocqueville wrote about the different types of associations Americans formed.
What follows is a portion of the contents of Chapter V, Section 2 Volume 2 (of 2). In this excerpt, Tocqueville explained the importance of Public Associations In Civil Life.
I do not propose to speak of those political associations—by the aid of which men endeavor to defend themselves against the despotic influence of a majority—or against the aggressions of regal power. That subject I have already treated. If each citizen did not learn, in proportion as he individually becomes more feeble, and consequently more incapable of preserving his freedom single-handed, to combine with his fellow-citizens for the purpose of defending it, it is clear that tyranny would unavoidably increase together with equality.
Those associations only which are formed in civil life, without reference to political objects, are here adverted to. The political associations which exist in the United States are only a single feature in the midst of the immense assemblage of associations in that country. Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds—religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it be proposed to advance some truth, or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association. I met with several kinds of associations in America, of which I confess I had no previous notion; and I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it. I have since travelled over England, whence the Americans have taken some of their laws and many of their customs; and it seemed to me that the principle of association was by no means so constantly or so adroitly used in that country. The English often perform great things singly; whereas the Americans form associations for the smallest undertakings. It is evident that the former people consider association as a powerful means of action, but the latter seem to regard it as the only means they have of acting.
Thus the most democratic country on the face of the earth is that in which men have in our time carried to the highest perfection the art of pursuing in common the object of their common desires, and have applied this new science to the greatest number of purposes. Is this the result of accident? or is there in reality any necessary connection between the principle of association and that of equality? Aristocratic communities always contain, amongst a multitude of persons who by themselves are powerless, a small number of powerful and wealthy citizens, each of whom can achieve great undertakings single-handed. In aristocratic societies men do not need to combine in order to act, because they are strongly held together. Every wealthy and powerful citizen constitutes the head of a permanent and compulsory association, composed of all those who are dependent upon him, or whom he makes subservient to the execution of his designs. Amongst democratic nations, on the contrary, all the citizens are independent and feeble; they can do hardly anything by themselves, and none of them can oblige his fellow-men to lend him their assistance. They all, therefore, fall into a state of incapacity, if they do not learn voluntarily to help each other. If men living in democratic countries had no right and no inclination to associate for political purposes, their independence would be in great jeopardy; but they might long preserve their wealth and their cultivation: whereas if they never acquired the habit of forming associations in ordinary life, civilization itself would be endangered. A people amongst which individuals should lose the power of achieving great things single-handed, without acquiring the means of producing them by united exertions, would soon relapse into barbarism.
Unhappily, the same social condition which renders associations so necessary to democratic nations, renders their formation more difficult amongst those nations than amongst all others. When several members of an aristocracy agree to combine, they easily succeed in doing so; as each of them brings great strength to the partnership, the number of its members may be very limited; and when the members of an association are limited in number, they may easily become mutually acquainted, understand each other, and establish fixed regulations. The same opportunities do not occur amongst democratic nations, where the associated members must always be very numerous for their association to have any power.
I am aware that many of my countrymen are not in the least embarrassed by this difficulty. They contend that the more enfeebled and incompetent the citizens become, the more able and active the government ought to be rendered, in order that society at large may execute what individuals can no longer accomplish. They believe this answers the whole difficulty, but I think they are mistaken. A government might perform the part of some of the largest American companies; and several States, members of the Union, have already attempted it; but what political power could ever carry on the vast multitude of lesser undertakings which the American citizens perform every day, with the assistance of the principle of association? It is easy to foresee that the time is drawing near when man will be less and less able to produce, of himself alone, the commonest necessaries of life. The task of the governing power will therefore perpetually increase, and its very efforts will extend it every day. The more it stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance: these are causes and effects which unceasingly engender each other. Will the administration of the country ultimately assume the management of all the manufacturers, which no single citizen is able to carry on? And if a time at length arrives, when, in consequence of the extreme subdivision of landed property, the soil is split into an infinite number of parcels, so that it can only be cultivated by companies of husbandmen, will it be necessary that the head of the government should leave the helm of state to follow the plough? The morals and the intelligence of a democratic people would be as much endangered as its business and manufactures, if the government ever wholly usurped the place of private companies.
In 1830’s America, citizens knew how to organize and form voluntary associations. They look at their own resources, and understanding how limited those resources were, willingly joined forces with their neighbors. In willing cooperation, they leverage each other’s labor and materials. Since that time, unfortunately, we have allowed the power of government to grow. We have stupidly listened to the glorious promises of politicians, and every year our leaders have promised us more than they did the last. Every year they have delivered less. Yet even though we can see before us their failures, we have let politicians greedily seize more power and control. They tax us to support programs and causes we do not support, and we docilely submit. Is it because we were not taught what else to do? Who is responsible for that? Who runs our schools? Why don’t we exhibit the same good understanding of civics that so impressed Tocqueville?
Under the messianic leadership of President Barack Obama, the problem of excessive government has never been more apparent. This gives each of us a choice; we can freeze in terror or act. We must learn what the Founders well understood. We must join in free associations with our neighbors.
We can no long luxuriate lazily before the boob tube; we cannot count upon a Great Leader to speak and wisely command us. We must each take the initiative. We must each do our part to leave a better land for our children. We must demand that politicians not be such busybodies. We must substitute their ineptitude with our own hard work. We must each find our cause. We must participate in a political party, volunteer for a charity, work for our churches, tutor children….or we must learn to submit to the poverty and strangulation of serfdom.
Recent Comments