by Bradley Rees, Virginia Tenth Amendment Center
In Virginia’s Fifth District (where I live), as well as across the nation, people are beginning to ask the fundamental questions. What remains to be seen is this: whether enough sets of lips will give voice to them before it becomes too late.
In a recent post, I compared our political landscape to a forest. However, a more apt analogy may be a swamp (appropriately enough, considering the original terrain of our nation’s capital).
The reason I say this is simple: We seem to have gotten bogged down in partisanship and stuck waist-deep in certain issues that, ultimately, bear little consequence in our current economic climate.
“Social†conservatives and “social justice†liberals will both strap on the hip-waders of morality to justify their ends, yet both equally miss the mark when trying to square their respective positions with the Founders’ vision of liberty and, moreover, Federalism.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to open the door for a debate on whether the Founders envisioned a moral society. Their own writings leave no wiggle room between door and jamb, on that score.
But, in the far right’s refusal to acknowledge the significance of the 9th Amendment, and the far left’s misguided interpretation of the 10th (due mostly to a blatant misreading of Article 1, Section 8), both tend to forget other important elements of our Founding documents.
More importantly, they misinterpret (or simply disregard) the frame of mind of those who wrote them. We know the Founders were intensely aware of the severe danger posed by a monarchy or similarly dictatorial style of governance.
What some of us too often neglect is that they had just as much, if not more, fear of a theocratic State. But, in reality, are they that dissimilar?
Theocratic rule in England was made that much more powerful by the complementary system of hereditary Monarchy. But, in the absence of that particular style of government, would a theocracy be any less brutal? Would it be any less a danger to the rights and liberty of the under-class?
The Founders knew, from both experience and intellectual honesty, that the answer to both preceding questions is a resounding “No!â€
Again, it is clearly understood that the Founders were moral men, and many of them were deeply religious, holding their God, and the principles He inspired, as their moral code for dealing with their fellow man.
Indeed, Jefferson wrote into the Declaration and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions their commonly held belief that man’s natural rights are derived from our Creator.
Yet, you will notice that the Bill of Rights is NOT a recitation of the Ten Commandments. In fact, many of the principal tenets of traditional Judeo-Christian faith are not even hinted at in any of our founding documents.
The Founders’ stipulation that we should strive to maintain a moral society can be summed up thusly:
That, as free men, we are endowed with certain rights which confer NO obligation on our fellow man, save one: that they refrain from violating them. And we likewise refrain from violating their rights, whether through force or fraud.
The former was the basis for Ayn Rand’s great anti-statist novel, Atlas Shrugged, and was the underpinning of her Objectivist philosophy.
Yet, it should be noted here, she was an avowed atheist. The concept of man’s rights being derived from our Creator did not hold any weight with her. She argued that, simply by virtue of being human, these rights belong to us.
The point is, we can find broad agreement on these simple points, across typical dividing lines of race, religion, and even political loyalty.
Why, then, must we sink into the swamp of arguing over moral issues which are typically the product of religious ideology?
The Founders would be ashamed and saddened to see their writings, and the system of governance they debated over, lost sleep to put into writing, and even bled for, being reduced to the heap of rubble it will surely become.
And all because we refused to rise from the mire of social issues and face our Republic’s true threat: the loss of liberty. This liberty is being taken away from all of us, from pro-life to pro-choice, from recreational drug user to ardent drug prohibitionist, from quiet heterosexual to flamboyant Gay Pride parade organizer.
And it is happening much more rapidly now than ever before.
It had been said, “It’s hard to remember you’re there to drain the swamp when you’re armpit deep in alligators.â€
I would submit to you, dear reader, that the alligators are above the shoreline, gnawing away at this great Republic.
Can we commence with draining the Social Issues Swamp? I think you will find that, once we do, those who have been in the swamp with us, mud wrestling over these issues, will pick up shovels and join us in marching as one united force to beat back the alligators.
Once the Republic is secure, maybe we can get back to the Founders’ words, in the Federalist papers and Amendments 9 and 10, and find that we had no reason to be in that swamp in the first place.
Bradley Rees is a long-time activist for tax reform, a former Congressional candidate in VA-5, and a talk show host with CBMedia Network on Blog Talk Radio. Visit his website at http://sonofliberty2k10.wordpress.com.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given








Well-spoken! I agree.
I like the sentiment a lot but I suspect the problem between 'left' and 'right' on social issues is far more fundamental than the author admits.
The 'swamp' of social issues is an outgrowth of a FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT way of viewing the world between the far left and far right. The social issues are the CORE issues for many on the far right and, as a matter of deep principle, cannot simply be swept under the rug in order to pursue liberty which is not as central to their belief system as Jesus and their reading of the Bible. To these folks, as the author's cryptic reference to the 9th amendment points out, liberty sounds good but it also means the freedom to be a homosexual or use drugs or get an abortion or do any number of 'sinful' things. To that extent, these people believe the Founders got it wrong.
Similarly, the far left does not see liberty as the core principle and primary goal in their political lives. They see equality as the core principle and they have no problem sacrificing liberty to get more equality of outcomes. The facts that the founders were all white men and allowed slavery are enough justification for them to ignore the Constitution.
I believe in the rule of law rather than the rule of man, so I look to the US Constitution to see how to resolve any issue, social, fiscal, etc. In so doing, I am not controlled by a religious gloss I try to paint over the US Constitution. This puts me somewhat at odds with the far right. For example, abortion, drug use and marriage are not mentioned in the US Constitution so they're state issues – not federal issues.
At the same time, anyone who reads the US Constitution honestly sees that it was founded on liberty. This puts me almost completely at odds with those on the far left who simply ignore that obvious fact. There are any number of issues the far left get wrong because they have no use for liberty and its constant companion: personal responsibility.
To these groups, these issues cannot be ignored and put aside in the pursuit of liberty. In that sense, both groups disagree with the Founders.
Well put, too. The whole point is that there is a place for each side to make their arguments and pursue politics in those arenas. All we have to do is convince both sides to stop taking their fights to Washington. The odds are in their favor that local efforts might pay-off through not having to win a battle over 310 million people, as opposed to just the population of one's respective state.
Great point! If people would think about it, they would conclude that local control is more manageable. The massive and successful power grabs by the feds (all 3 branches) have encouraged people who want change to go to the feds to get what they want.
Also, I think that some people REALLY badly want to run everyone's lives for them and tell them what to do so they go to Washington to try to force their views on the nation.
Something I believe too few people realize is if we don't do everything in our power to preserve our liberties as the Founding Fathers intended, there won't be any avenue to debate between left and right regardless of the issue. If our liberties are stripped from us, the resulting autocracy would ultimately decide what is discussed, when it could be discussed, if at all, and by whom it could be discussed.
My mom and stepdad spent almost a year in Uzbekistan. The government controls almost every facet of its citizens' lives. Any opposition to their current system, whether spoken, written, or otherwise, is seen as insurrection and is promptly extenguished. We aren't exactly the newly minted republic Uzbekistan is, having only gained their independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. But I believe them to be a grim, however accurate, example of what America could be having allowed our government to rob us of our liberties.
Before we are right or left, libertarian or authoritarian, we are all simply Americans "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights", whichever celestial Creator you may choose to recognize. That may sound oversimplified, but I contend simplification is exactly what we need right now.
I think many on the far left and far right believe THEY will get to control everything and so they forge ahead. They don't seem to consider the possibility that THEIR view will not prevail and THEY will be ones who are told what to think.
(That is why you sometimes see smaller religious groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses take a strong stand about separation of Church and State. They are smart enough to KNOW their religion will get the boot if the Evangelical Christians get control!)
Also, as I said before, neither the left nor the right is PRIMARILY motivated by a love of liberty as you are. The far right are motivated by their faith and some actually seek out persecution for their beliefs as a sign of piety. It's a little bit like the terrorist who wants to die…
The far left are motivated by a strong desire for what they see as 'equality.' Their motives are not as clear to me but I suspect some of it is rooted in guilt.
Neither one loves liberty as you and I do, so talking to them about 'losing liberty' isn't very persuasive. Frankly, you can't reason with someone on the far right about religion. Further, those on the far left are simply unrealistic.
That's why the "Why-Can't-We-All-Just-Get-Along" plea is sadly naive and unworkable.
TexDude-
Very well stated. There are many on both the right and left who have become so addicted to kicking these cans down the road that they are utterly unconcerned with the small matter of where the road leads (see JB’s comment on Uzbekistan).
TexDude-
I can see your point there, as well. Just by way of clarification, I was in no way trying to push the “why can’t we all just get along?” pap. Because, you’re exactly right, that way lies naivete.
You had mentioned Jesus before, and I advocate taking his approach. Yes, he dined with prostitutes, publicans, and thieves, but he also said that the poor and the sick would always be among us.
I choose to equate the far right religious ideologues with the “poor” Jesus spoke of, because it is a poor American indeed who does not desire our fundamental tenet of personal liberty above a desire to impose their own personal morality on others (and by force, if necessary).
That leaves the sick, and I will expound no further on that note, other than to say that your guess regarding guilt is, sadly, VERY accurate.
BSR
Yep, good points.
I can't add anything meaningful to your comments.
We can’t argue with anything put forth in either Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged or Tom Baugh’s Starving The Monkeys.