And then there are still some of us old-fashioned, fusionist, beleaguered Reaganites around, fighting what now seems very much a rear-guard action for the soul of conservatism.
"Our founding documents assert the natural equality and liberty of all,........ this ideal has allowed transformative social movements to assert that they are the true inheritors of our political tradition."You begin on this false premise.
The assertion that our founding documents recognize the equality and liberty of all is historically false. These documents codified a society that systematically excluded large segments of the population. Women were denied the franchise, Black Americans were enslaved or excluded, and the right to vote was often reserved for property-owning white men. Moreover, the original framework upheld the sovereignty of individual states within a limited republic.
Even following the Civil War, well into the 20th century, the notion of Black inferiority remained politically and culturally entrenched. President Lyndon Johnson’s speech at Howard University can be viewed as an extension of that ideology—reaffirming the belief that it was the white man's duty to uplift others.
To claim that today’s liberal movements are simply inheriting the founders’ tradition is to misrepresent those ideals. When the civil rights legislation of the 1960s failed to achieve its promised outcomes, liberals shifted from a framework of equality rooted in classical liberalism to one grounded in Marxist theories of oppression. Rather than re-examining the viability or definition of equality, they embraced a worldview centered on systemic grievance.
The more appropriate starting point for political discussion is this: while all people may be equal in the eyes of God and are entitled to equality before the law, they are not equal in physical ability, cognitive capacity, or character—either as individuals or as groups.
By insisting on the premise of innate human equality across all dimensions—and haughtily treating that premise as sacred—modern liberal progressivism faces a populist backlash against its illegitimate foundation.
The political conversation needs to begin with the fact. that, while all are equal in the sight of God, as that phrase wes originally meant, and all are entitled to equality before the law, people as individuals and groups are not equal physically, cognitively, and in character.
Having proceeded on your wrongful premise, and your haughty position that it is the rightful premise, has brought the back lash of populism.
And then there are still some of us old-fashioned, fusionist, beleaguered Reaganites around, fighting what now seems very much a rear-guard action for the soul of conservatism.
"Our founding documents assert the natural equality and liberty of all,........ this ideal has allowed transformative social movements to assert that they are the true inheritors of our political tradition."You begin on this false premise.
The assertion that our founding documents recognize the equality and liberty of all is historically false. These documents codified a society that systematically excluded large segments of the population. Women were denied the franchise, Black Americans were enslaved or excluded, and the right to vote was often reserved for property-owning white men. Moreover, the original framework upheld the sovereignty of individual states within a limited republic.
Even following the Civil War, well into the 20th century, the notion of Black inferiority remained politically and culturally entrenched. President Lyndon Johnson’s speech at Howard University can be viewed as an extension of that ideology—reaffirming the belief that it was the white man's duty to uplift others.
To claim that today’s liberal movements are simply inheriting the founders’ tradition is to misrepresent those ideals. When the civil rights legislation of the 1960s failed to achieve its promised outcomes, liberals shifted from a framework of equality rooted in classical liberalism to one grounded in Marxist theories of oppression. Rather than re-examining the viability or definition of equality, they embraced a worldview centered on systemic grievance.
The more appropriate starting point for political discussion is this: while all people may be equal in the eyes of God and are entitled to equality before the law, they are not equal in physical ability, cognitive capacity, or character—either as individuals or as groups.
By insisting on the premise of innate human equality across all dimensions—and haughtily treating that premise as sacred—modern liberal progressivism faces a populist backlash against its illegitimate foundation.
The political conversation needs to begin with the fact. that, while all are equal in the sight of God, as that phrase wes originally meant, and all are entitled to equality before the law, people as individuals and groups are not equal physically, cognitively, and in character.
Having proceeded on your wrongful premise, and your haughty position that it is the rightful premise, has brought the back lash of populism.