The Two Parties are Equally Bad, Right?
Here are a couple of quotes taken directly from each party’s 2016 platform. At first they may seem unrelated, but I promise you that the two are speaking about the exact same subject, and illustrate the stark differences between the parties.
First, the GOP.
The Declaration [of Independence] sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed.
Now, the Democrats.
We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, and will protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion, curb billionaires’ influence over elections because they understand that Citizens United has fundamentally damaged our democracy, and believe the Constitution protects not only the powerful, but also the disadvantaged and powerless.
First, the GOP.
The Declaration [of Independence] sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed.
Now, the Democrats.
We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, and will protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion, curb billionaires’ influence over elections because they understand that Citizens United has fundamentally damaged our democracy, and believe the Constitution protects not only the powerful, but also the disadvantaged and powerless.
The GOP statement may take some unpacking, but it’s all there. I’d like to draw attention especially to this phrase:
I think it’s fairly clear here that the emphasis is on the conflict between rights granted by a god or nature (customarily called “natural rights”) and rights granted by man, whether through the courts or legislation (customarily called “legal rights”). Let’s take a look at exactly what the Declaration says:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
…that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail…
I think it’s fairly clear here that the emphasis is on the conflict between rights granted by a god or nature (customarily called “natural rights”) and rights granted by man, whether through the courts or legislation (customarily called “legal rights”). Let’s take a look at exactly what the Declaration says:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Without restarting the un-winnable argument between Jefferson and Adams about inalienable vs. unalienable, the language is fairly clear. It rests its entire case for breaking from the crown on positing the existence of rights superior to all other laws governing human behavior, and it provides three names as the authors of those rights: the Laws of Nature, Nature’s God, and a Creator—presumably all the same entity. The rights in question are then entrusted to a government between humans to figure out a way to secure them to all the inhabitants.
The GOP has taken this a step further. It assumes that these god-given rights are written down somewhere in a form government can use to codify them. It isn’t much of a step to assume the god they refer to is the Abrahamic god of the Ten Commandments, and not Thor or Baal or Zeus. In other words, they know exactly what those inalienable rights are, and can take appropriate action when such rights are infringed upon by a court decision or legislative action. The Declaration, however, makes no such distinction—there is no mention of the Christian bible, and the god in question is not identified any further than being “nature’s” god. The rights themselves are identified as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and owe much more to Montesquieu than Moses. These are “natural” rights, and are of necessity very general. The specific rights must be worked out at the messy human level ("Governments are instituted among Men"), where they become “legal” rights.
So—where in today’s America does the GOP believe “god-given” rights are in conflict with legal rights? Not surprisingly, it is in the field of religion. The GOP holds the position that a right of conscience exists that allows specific religious beliefs to be used by individuals to deny services and abridge the rights of others. They refer to this as “religious freedom” and inevitably follow it with some mention of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.
And the Democrats? Skipping all the high-sounding discussion of the founding documents, they simply affirm that legal rights are the superior law of the land. Women should have access to abortion and birth control, the law should apply equally regardless of race, and the legal fiction that allows a corporation to have the same free speech rights as an individual must be overturned. Since we can know only in a very general sense what “natural” rights are, we must use the courts and laws in the best and fairest way possible to enumerate “legal” rights. These then become the rights we live by.
So on the one hand, we have a vision of America as a place where laws and the rights they secure are the result of a continual process that all people have an equal stake in forming and protecting, and on the other the insistence that the legal code of a particular Abrahamic sect applies to everyone whether they believe in that particular deity or not.
The GOP has taken this a step further. It assumes that these god-given rights are written down somewhere in a form government can use to codify them. It isn’t much of a step to assume the god they refer to is the Abrahamic god of the Ten Commandments, and not Thor or Baal or Zeus. In other words, they know exactly what those inalienable rights are, and can take appropriate action when such rights are infringed upon by a court decision or legislative action. The Declaration, however, makes no such distinction—there is no mention of the Christian bible, and the god in question is not identified any further than being “nature’s” god. The rights themselves are identified as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and owe much more to Montesquieu than Moses. These are “natural” rights, and are of necessity very general. The specific rights must be worked out at the messy human level ("Governments are instituted among Men"), where they become “legal” rights.
So—where in today’s America does the GOP believe “god-given” rights are in conflict with legal rights? Not surprisingly, it is in the field of religion. The GOP holds the position that a right of conscience exists that allows specific religious beliefs to be used by individuals to deny services and abridge the rights of others. They refer to this as “religious freedom” and inevitably follow it with some mention of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.
And the Democrats? Skipping all the high-sounding discussion of the founding documents, they simply affirm that legal rights are the superior law of the land. Women should have access to abortion and birth control, the law should apply equally regardless of race, and the legal fiction that allows a corporation to have the same free speech rights as an individual must be overturned. Since we can know only in a very general sense what “natural” rights are, we must use the courts and laws in the best and fairest way possible to enumerate “legal” rights. These then become the rights we live by.
So on the one hand, we have a vision of America as a place where laws and the rights they secure are the result of a continual process that all people have an equal stake in forming and protecting, and on the other the insistence that the legal code of a particular Abrahamic sect applies to everyone whether they believe in that particular deity or not.
Comments
Post a Comment