[Fwd: Claremont Institute Precepts: The Party of Jefferson vs. The Boy Scouts?]

Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema crdbronx at erols.com
Sat Aug 4 12:03:45 PDT 2001


This is an astute statements from the right. For those who might be tempted to overlook it, this is one of the more key comments is this one, several paragraphs down. It shows the political importance of gay rights, over and above their elementary component of democratic fairness:


> 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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list