Monday, October 5, 2009

Once again, Heavy on the WE

Dr. Keyes's latest Loyal to Liberty entry highlights the recent exchange between he and Chiu Chunling. We have, of course, been having a discussion on the topic here for the last several days, one-sided as it may well be. But I'm happy to report that Dr. Keyes recognizes the imortance of the exchange nonetheless.

I wrote in a comment to the post the following:

Terry Morris said...
Very good, sir! I'm personally very happy to see that you alerted your readers to this important exchange.

By the way, I used to be one of these people who demanded a strict interpretation of the constitution on a national level. I changed my attitude towards that when I realized that (abortion being one of the key issues) there was no hope left that the federal government would ever, under current conditions, reverse its position on 'a woman's right to choose,' but that several of the states, including my own, would, without flinching, via the ninth and tenth amendments, tell the feds to take a hike on this and other vital issues ('gay marriage' and so forth).

What we musn't ever forget is that the founders established a government suitable for themselves and the founding generation. "We (heavy on the WE!) hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't necessarily apply to us, as I've attempted to point out innumerable times in the past. But it still does, in certain cases, apply to WE, as in us -- my state being one of a few examples. How long can this possibly remain so under the current (acceptable) system?

By all means, though, do take the time to read the exchange as Dr. Keyes has posted it under the new article. It is more instructive as such than otherwise posted.

(By the way, it's difficult to link to a specific article at Loyal to Liberty due to some kind of setting deal I'm not really qualified to tackle. Hence, my links to Loyal to Liberty-the site, vs. links to specific posts as with other sites. Pardon my incompetence.)


Anonymous said...

I'm still in the dark when it comes to what Dr. Keyes is thinking. He's making a lot of fine arguments against abortion, but I don't know how any of them would dissuade the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Terry Morris said...

I think I must just be too stupid to understand it or something, because I still ain't quite getting it although Dr. Keyes has finally answered your pointed question more directly in the thread.

But to carry forward a point that I made before concerning this issue, one of the several reasons that I personally and ultimately rejected Mitt Romney's candidacy for president is because of his statements while running for governor of Mass. in which he stated that he agreed with everything Ted Kennedy believes in, he simply thought that he had a better way of going about achieving it (that's a paraphrase, but it's close enough for our purposes here). Now, Teddy Kennedy being, in my view, one of if not THE poster boy for democrat(ic) anti-American anti-Republican, anti-constitutionalism, to say that you believe in everything he believes in yet you think you have a better way of achieving it is to say that you know of a better way to destroy this Republic. Call me crazy, but if your ultimate goal is to destroy the American Republic, I'm not particularly concerned about your strategy for doing so.

Perhaps I can eventually be persuaded by Dr. Keyes's argument (certainly I don't put him in the same category with Mitt Romney in spite of my pointing out that he seems to be in substantial agreement with Al Sharpton on this particular issue), but in any event I'm not really seeing how his argument (granting for the sake of argument that it is flawless) will ever, in the forseeable future, result in the reversal of Roe. I personally think he's grasping after straws in attempting to set the federal government aright via the federal government. Only the states can now do that by way of assertion of their constitutional prerogatives.

Anonymous said...

I tend to think that Mitt is just really that naive (in this case, believing Kennedy's statements about the motives for the things he does), but I have to agree that it didn't make me eager to see him as President.

After all, if I believed the the great motivating desire of Kennedy's heart was to feed and clothe all the children and remove all the injustices of the world, I would also say "I believe in doing that, but I have a better way to do it than making laws that will have the exact opposite effect while plumbing the depths of concupiscence in my personal life."

In other words, it is believing Kennedy actually had some kind of redeeming element of good intentions which disqualified Mitt in my book, not that he thinks there are better ways to accomplish the things that Kennedy always claimed to champion.

Terry Morris said...

You really think Mitt is that naive? Interesting.

I have several posts in the archives concerning Romney's candidacy and why I never really trusted him or his judgment. One biggie is that I just couldn't (and still can't) imagine any kind of "conservative" being elected to the governorship of Massachusetts under virtually any circumstances. We are, after all, talking about the same state that essentially gave both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (and all of the baggage that they carried with them throughout the years) unchallenged life appointments to the U.S. Senate.

What do you think about G.W. Bush, was/is he also naive concerning whether Kennedy had real redeeming qualities?

Anonymous said...

Bush is...I'm undecided on exactly where his naivete lies. I believe that the Bushes are mostly on the inside when it comes to the elite cabal which presumes itself to control the world. I do think, based on what I've seen of him, that he refrains from many of the obviously selfish abuses of such power, and yet made little or no real effort to betray the system itself. Overall, I'd guess that this could only be explained by a belief that it is possible for members of a secret ruling cabal to use their position altruistically.

Which is, in my never to be humble opinion, astonishingly naive.

I may be more willing to judge people as naive rather than complicit due to the fact that I don't regard naivete as a justification. It can be cute in an already very cute girl (and I do exclude adult women from this category), but in all other cases it is pretty much functionally equivalent to most other kinds of willful stupidity.

As for Mitt, culturally he's very much an American Mormon. Whatever else might be true of Mormons, in America their culture is genuinely naive.