- Text smaller
- Text bigger
According to the present corrupt understanding of politics, the aim of political activity is to get elected by stitching together a sufficiently powerful coalition of interests groups. Among the relevant components of power the most frequently discussed are money and media exposure.
Of course, on Election Day, the number of supporters who line up behind a candidate ought to be relevant. But these days many Americans see evidence that leads them strongly to suspect that the manipulation of voter consciousness (via “polls” and carefully orchestrated media coverage) and of the voting process itself (via strategically fabricated ballot access requirements, fraudulent voters’ rolls, non-citizen voting, intimidation at the polls, electronic tampering, etc.) make the number of actual supporters more and more irrelevant.
Case in point: the recent GOP primary elections that led to the presumptive (read presumptuous?) nomination of Mitt Romney. But despite what may be the eroding import of actual popular support, the manipulation of perception still requires that some proportion be maintained between the fabricated perception of a candidate’s support and the actions, or reactions, of those who are supposed to be the core components of his party’s support. Thanks to the outpouring of grassroots’ support for Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s conscientious stand against gay marriage, Romney’s campaign fell into such a perception gap last week.
The GOP’s grass roots were preparing to descend in record numbers on Chick-fil-A outlets, thus showing their appreciation for Cathy’s good faith. Meanwhile, Romney made statements that kept faith with what has always been, and still remains, a crucial element of his personal constituency – the gay lobby and its elitist faction fellow travelers. First, he made it clear that the movement to support Cathy was no part of his campaign. Then, as the tidal wave of grass-roots support for Dan Cathy was developing, Romney sent a message of support to his gay lobby constituents. In a gesture clearly encoded to convey his true priorities, he emphatically reiterated his opposition to the BSA’s ban on homosexual participation in scouting.
Romney’s potty dance on the movement to legitimize homosexual behavior is a high-definition video starkly exemplifying the great divide between the elitist forces that have hijacked the GOP and the grass-roots Americans whose support they cynically exploit. Thus, though the elitist faction’s propaganda outlets (e.g., this article at Politico.com) deceitfully assert that “his position on the issue is clear,” even they have to acknowledge that Romney’s claimed pro-marriage campaign stance is “at odds with the one held by some of his prominent bundlers – including Paul Singer, Cliff Asness and Dan Loeb.” It’s also at odds with his actions as governor of Massachusetts, when he put keeping faith with the gay lobby ahead of keeping his oath to uphold the state’s constitution.
Behind a façade of cynically motivated rhetoric, Romney’s actions suggest he shares the elitists’ sneering contempt for what they regard as the bigotry of the God-delusional masses. Like most of the GOP pretenders, he mouths words of respect for “traditional marriage” to woo those who support it. There is an occasional bribe/money contribution. But he carefully neglects to support them effectively, and so fails even to hint at the profound logic that connects their cause with respect for the first premises of American liberty.
A phrase like “traditional marriage” ironically calls into question the idea that marriage is a God-endowed institution by means of which human sexual activity is made to conform to the special requirements of human procreation. This idea supports the special claims and prerogatives of those who fulfill God’s intention by upholding, as individuals and citizens, His provision for the perpetuation of the species. By disparaging the special rightness of the God-endowed family, the elitists quietly attack the whole idea that the specific intention of the Creator has any bearing on the assertion of human rights. But if the intention of the Creator has no bearing on the claim to rights, what becomes of the premise of America’s liberty, articulated in the Declaration of Independence? According to that premise, all human beings are “created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. … To secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The very identity of the elitist faction depends on the importance people ascribe to the unequal results that come from the unequal material conditions and capabilities that, in effect, empower the people who make up a society’s elite. Tragically, this fact tempts many of them to hate the Declaration, because its logic forbids us to assume that the effects of such material superiority automatically translate into any claim to political authority. The rule of the Creator supersedes every such human claim. It allows each and every individual to claim the right to determine their own actions, so long as those actions conform to the disposition of right in the Creator’s endowment of their way of being (their nature).
In this fashion, the Declaration describes the ground for an individual right of self-government, equally available to all human beings. On this ground, no one has a claim actually to overrule anyone else until and unless that person contravenes what is right, as determined by the Creator, whose rule supersedes and governs all. This is the reason that justice requires government based upon consent. But this premise of natural right is also the basis for the Declaration’s observation about the purpose for which people institute government: to secure unalienable rights, which are actions exercised in conformity with the Creator’s rule, so that all may live in peace with God and one another.
Every human choice reflects, in some way, the Creator’s intention for the universe. But only some such choices are rights of self-government because they involve responsibilities entailed by the special nature of humanity itself. If the choice to perpetuate the species is not one of these rights, nothing is. If it is one of them, then protecting the rights of those who make the choice according to the Creator’s intention is not a matter for indifference or contempt. Rather it reflects the essential purpose of government, and the deeply rooted principle of constitutional self-government.
Mitt Romney’s refusal to appreciate the issue involved in the Chick-fil-A tidal wave indicates more than a perceptual gap. It highlights the gap between Romney’s understanding of America and the understanding of its principles that has made America free. If I were to vote for him, or for Obama, or for anyone else whose actions deny the principles of the Declaration of Independence, I would be casting my vote across that God-forbidden gap.
The logic of the Declaration looks to a reason beyond superior human might to justify my right of self-government. I will not abuse the right which that reason substantiates by voting for people who are working to overthrow its foundation. Will you?