Why Liberals Can't Compete in the Values Arena

by Thomas E. Brewton

Liberals and traditionalists are talking about entirely different things when they address values. Like Big Brother in George Orwell's chilling novel 1984, liberals employ a NewSpeak lexicon in which the word values is unrelated to its historical meaning.

Two things explain this gulf. First, liberalism is the American sect of the international religion of socialism. Second, socialism is a secular and materialistic religion.

When liberals speak of values they are talking about material goods and services, which are presumed to flow exclusively from collectivized government. Those values fall under the heading of so-called social justice, or redistribution of income and property as equally as possible.

In a July 3, 2004, New York Times article headlined "Kerry Invoking 'Values' Theme to Frame Issues," reporter Jodi Wilgoren wrote: "Forty-eight minutes into a rambling speech about education, health care, jobs and equal opportunity here the other morning, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts went off-script to sum up his White House quest in a simple sentence. "In the end it's about values," he told a conference of the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition."

In the same vein, a Reuters dispatch dated October 24, 2004, said: "Earlier, Kerry liberally quoted scripture as he told supporters in Fort Lauderdale that the Bible demanded deeds to match words and said his faith gave him "values to live by and to apply to the decisions that I make."

"I will put middle class families and those struggling to join them ahead of the interests of the well-to-do and the well connected," he said. "Justice and lasting peace require the strength of our ideals as well as the strength of our arms."

Viewing values as strictly secular and materialistic inputs, and measuring them by income levels, is straight out of Karl Marx, who wrote that religion is the opium of the masses, conceived by the ruling classes to oppress the workers, and that human behavior is a variable controlled by the physical conditions in which people work and earn their livings.

The writings of every socialist, from Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte to Irving Howe, the late dean of American liberal-socialists, affirm that socialism is a secular religion and that liberalism is its American sect.

Bertrand Russell, one of the last century’s most prominent socialists, said of the German socialist party: “For Social Democracy is not a mere political party, nor even a mere economic theory; it is a complete self-contained philosophy of the world and of human development; it is, in a word, a religion and an ethic. To judge the work of Marx, or the aims and beliefs of his followers, from a narrow economic standpoint, is to overlook the whole body and spirit of their greatness.” (from Lecture One, German Social Democracy).

Two decades before Marx, Auguste Comte proclaimed The Religion of Humanity. God and spiritual religion were dismissed as superstitious ignorance, a belief absorbed by the youthful Herbert Croly attending a church of The Religion of Humanity in Manhattan. In 1871 his father had written A Positivist Primer, an introduction for American readers to Comte’s philosophy of Positivism and his secular Religion of Humanity. Young Herbert became the famous founding editor of The New Republic, the most influential periodical of American liberalism in the first half of the 20th century.

American liberals' focus on secular materialism also reflects the precepts of John Dewey, their leading icon during this period. Professor Dewey’s Reconstruction in Philosophy called for scrapping all existing ideas of morality, philosophy, and religion, because he regarded them as impediments to the advancement of science and to the socialist catechism of social justice.

In his 1908 lecture at Columbia University on Intelligence and Morals, Professor Dewey said, “…the abandonment by intelligence of a fixed and static moral end was the necessary precondition of a free and progressive science of both things and morals…The effective control of [men's] powers is not through precepts, but through the regulation of their conditions."

…The progress of [Darwinian evolutionary] biology has accustomed our minds to the notion that intelligence is not an outside power presiding supremely but statically over the desires and efforts of man, but is a method of adjustment of capacities and conditions within specific situations [i.e., moral relativism]. History has discovered itself in the idea of [evolutionary] process. The genetic standpoint makes us aware that the systems of the past are neither fraudulent impostures nor absolute revelations; but are the products of political, economic, and scientific conditions whose change caries with it change of theoretical formulations [i.e., today's "values" are valid only until further notice]."

…From this point of view there is no separate body of moral rules; no separate system of motive powers; no separate subject-matter of moral knowledge, and hence no such thing as an isolated ethical science.”

In other words, the Judeo-Christian tradition of timeless moral virtues, the essence of Western civilization, is unscientific nonsense. Liberal “values” are expressed in regulations devised by intellectuals like Professor Dewey to herd the masses into the conformity of egalitarian social justice.

Teaching children American history and traditions with stories of patriotic, honest, respectful, courageous conduct cultivates individualism and therefore interferes with preparing students for collective living. Concepts such as spiritual religion and moral codes are “value judgments,” and therefore unacceptable.

Thomas E. Brewton had the extraordinary good fortune to study political philosophy under Eric Voegelin and Constitutional law under Walter Berns. His website is The View from 1776.

Bill Clinton Opens a Liar's Library

by Robert Yoho, Columnist and Senior Editor

The same week he opened his presidential library, former President Bill Clinton sat down for an oft-contentious interview with ABC News anchor Peter Jennings. During the interview, Clinton reminded us of the lies, arrogance, and utter contempt for our nation's highest office that he routinely exhibited during his administration. When Jennings discussed the rankings of presidential historians who rated him beneath Richard Nixon in moral authority, Clinton went ballistic.

"And still, [there's] not any example of where I ever disgraced this country publicly. I made a terrible public-personal mistake, but I paid for it, many times over," Clinton said. "And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I ever let the American people down."

From news commentators to the average man on the street, the mantra has been that Clinton's impeachment was "all about sex." With the opening of the Clinton "Lie-brary," it is important to finally set the record straight.

Unlike the Nixon presidential library, that did not gloss over the facts of Watergate and the president's resignation from office, Clinton has chosen to spin the facts of his own scandal. So let's be absolutely clear about what the man really did. William Jefferson Clinton was never impeached because of sex!

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. However, the following is a layman's explanation of the facts of the case, as I understand them:

Paula Jones took the president to court, accusing him of sexual harassment for an incident that took place before he came to Washington. During the course of his testimony, Clinton lied under oath about engaging in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. The Paula Jones' legal team already knew about these allegations of Clinton's involvement. Therefore, they thought Clinton's admission that he had sexual relations with a subordinate would establish a pattern of the activity for which Clinton was being tried.

As a lawyer, Bill Clinton also figured this connection would be confirmed by a truthful admission of his affair with Lewinsky. So Clinton lied under oath. In short, he committed perjury. But not only did he perjure himself, Clinton persuaded Lewinsky to lie about their affair in her signed affidavit. It wasn't enough that Clinton perjured himself; he asked Monica to perjure herself also. As an officer of the court, the president was then guilty of suborning perjury.

In the end, it turned out that Paula Jones had no case. She could not prove that her civil rights had indeed been violated because she could not show any measurable damage to her career as a result of her refusal to submit. Jones never saw her pay cut; she never lost her job as a result of his actions. Therefore, Clinton's acknowledgement of an affair with Lewinsky would ultimately have had no impact whatsoever on the verdict.

Not only did Clinton not have to perjure himself, he could have openly bragged about the affair in court. It would not have altered the verdict, nor would he have seen his law license suspended. Moreover, had Clinton given honest testimony in the courtroom, then it is unlikely that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr would have been anything other than another name on a long list of special prosecutors. Further, the United States House of Representatives would never have brought the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Clinton was impeached because he was a president and an officer of the court, who violated a couple of sacred oaths in the course of a trial. It is that simple. He was not impeached because of sex.

As a president, Clinton swore to uphold the Constitution. As a lawyer, he took an oath to uphold the law. As a husband, he made a vow to be faithful. Bill Clinton broke every one of those promises. He let down his family, he failed his profession, and he betrayed his nation.

In this country, we talk a lot about democracy. However, the one thing that makes this country so special is the fact we rarely let the process snatch away the rights of a single individual. When President Clinton, the most powerful man in this country, actively sought to deny the right to a fair trial to one of its least powerful citizens, then he was guilty of one of the most egregious crimes that can be committed in this country. And for a president of the United States, his actions definitely met the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Did Clinton disgrace the country publicly? Of course he did! Did President Clinton lie about his job? You bet he did! Did he let the American people down? There is no question!

Bill Clinton may open his presidential library. He may alter the facts or even pretend the past never happened. However, he cannot rewrite history. President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached, and despite his best efforts, he has nobody to blame but himself. ***