> today's liberals think that citizens are weak and
> vulnerable when left to themselves, and need government
> regulation and assistance from cradle to grave. They
> desire a government unbounded in scope and power --
> conveniently sanctioned by the liberal idea of a "living
> constitution" -- because the needs of citizens, and the
> demands "social justice," are always changing.
>
> And it's no accident that those who advocate a large nanny
> state government also celebrate and encourage single
> parenthood (through no-fault divorce and welfare),
> promiscuity, and homosexuality in the name of "doing your
> own thing." Self-serving liberals understand all too well
> that the breakdown of the family is directly related to the
> build-up of government.
>
This is an example of the right understanding our issues better than the left itself often does.
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
precepts at claremont.org wrote:
> The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | August 3, 2001
> Visit <http://www.claremont.org> | | No. 290
>
> The Party of Jefferson vs. The Boy Scouts?
>
> by Thomas L. Krannawitter
>
> The California legislature routinely issues resolutions
> celebrating important anniversaries. These are usually
> passed in good spirit, without controversy. But for
> politically correct liberals, even non-controversial
> measures can be maligned. Witness last week in Sacramento.
>
> A resolution celebrating the 85th anniversary of the Boy
> Scouts of America was introduced in the California
> Assembly. It simply acknowledged that "Scouting makes a
> direct and positive impact on our communities by teaching
> the principles of the American social, economic, and
> governmental systems." The resolution mentioned some
> famous Americans who were Boy Scouts -- John F. Kennedy,
> Hank Aaron, and Bill Bradley, among them -- and concluded
> by congratulating the Scouts "for training our young people
> for citizenship, service, and leadership."
>
> But liberal Democrats killed it, with 17 voting against the
> resolution and another 26 abstaining. Eleven courageous
> Democrats supported it.
>
> Has the party of Jefferson, which once stood for freedom,
> family, and self-government, sunk so low that it now
> displays open hostility to the Boy Scouts? Sadly, it
> appears so. After all, this is just the latest snub
> against the Boy Scouts. At the Democratic National
> Convention in Los Angeles last summer, delegates booed a
> group of young Scouts as they led the Pledge of
> Allegiance. And earlier this year a group of Democrats in
> Congress led a failed effort to repeal the Boy Scouts'
> federal charter.
>
> The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in
> America, with a noble heritage. Born out of opposition to
> the tyrannical Alien and Sedition Acts, and led by Thomas
> Jefferson, the Democratic Party was founded on the idea
> that freedom requires limited government. Rather than
> trust those in government with unlimited powers, Jefferson
> argued forcefully that "in questions of power...let no more
> be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from
> mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
>
> Jeffersonian Democrats also understood that the limited
> kind of government necessary for freedom requires more
> virtue and decency from its citizens than any other. As
> Jefferson remarked, citizens must obey the "moral law."
> Irresponsibility, licentiousness, and viciousness do not
> comport with good citizenship. If Americans violate the
> rights of their neighbors, or fail to care for themselves
> and their families, a large welfare and police state will
> be required to lord over citizens. When this happens,
> freedom dies.
>
> Jeffersonian Democrats undoubtedly would have supported the
> Boy Scouts' efforts to teach young boys the moral habits
> necessary for freedom and self-government. But like the
> women who smoke Virginia Slims, Jefferson's party has come
> a long way.
>
> Today it is often a vehicle for modern liberalism.
> Rejecting limited government and the moral conditions it
> requires, today's liberals think that citizens are weak and
> vulnerable when left to themselves, and need government
> regulation and assistance from cradle to grave. They
> desire a government unbounded in scope and power --
> conveniently sanctioned by the liberal idea of a "living
> constitution" -- because the needs of citizens, and the
> demands "social justice," are always changing.
>
> And it's no accident that those who advocate a large nanny
> state government also celebrate and encourage single
> parenthood (through no-fault divorce and welfare),
> promiscuity, and homosexuality in the name of "doing your
> own thing." Self-serving liberals understand all too well
> that the breakdown of the family is directly related to the
> build-up of government. As more citizens lead vulnerable
> or destructive "lifestyles," more come to depend on
> government for financial aid and cures for sexually
> transmitted diseases.
>
> In this light, it's easy to see why liberals look at the
> Boy Scouts with such contempt. For nearly a century, the
> Scouts have taught youngsters to be reverent and decent,
> requiring members to pledge "to do my duty to God and my
> country" and to "keep myself ... morally straight." It's
> hard to square the moral injunctions of the Scouts with the
> irresponsibility promoted by modern liberalism.
>
> This is the liberal core of the modern Democratic Party.
> It is not pretty, and it's likely to be well hidden, as the
> news media are among liberals' closest allies. But for
> those with eyes to see, the attacks on the Boy Scouts is
> telling about what it means to be a Democrat today: It
> means you must, in the name of a perverted ideology, reject
> what is good and decent in America, and embrace its
> opposite. It means you are pitted against the Boy Scouts.
> It means the small minority of 11 Democrats who stood by
> the Scouts in the California Assembly must weep that theirs
> is no longer the party of Jefferson.
>
> Thomas L. Krannawitter is director of academic programs at
> the Claremont Institute. (www.claremont.org)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright (c) 2001 The Claremont Institute
>
> To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/1_precepts.cfm , or e-mail us at info at claremont.org .
> To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at info at claremont.org .
> For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : info at claremont.org , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org .
> Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : info at claremont.org .
> For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at topalian at msn.com or (202) 265-9010.
> Author and Claremont Institute attribution are required if used for publication. Please contact Topalian at msn.com for Tear Sheet information.
>
> The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship
> and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American
> Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.
>
> The Claremont Institute | 250 West First Street | Suite 330 | Claremont,
> CA 91711 | Phone (909) 621-6825 | Fax (909) 626-8724