Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Lincoln's Birthday . . . And His Warning About Barack Obama

Today is the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the first and greatest of conservative Republican presidents. Although President Barack Obama often appeals to the memory of Lincoln in his speeches, Lincoln actually warned about politicians like Obama whose ambitions threaten our republic.









While only a relatively unknown representative in the Illinois State Legislature, Lincoln gave a interesting  speech that presaged the rhetorical greatness to come. The title of the speech defined the conservative enterprise then and now--"The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions."

Lincoln warned of two threats to our institutions, both which come from among us.

The first was mob rule. The so-called "Jacksonian Era" in which he matured was not only known for the growth of democracy and the rise of the first modern political parties, but also for a surprising amount of violence. Whether lynching in the South or organized urban riots in the North, many Americans seemed bent on ignoring "the rule of law" and settling differences privately through violent means rather than entrusting the justice system. Lincoln urged that the love for the laws of our land needs to be proclaimed from the legislatures, the courts, the schools, and the pulpits until it becomes the "political religion" of our land.

Violence has not changed. Mob violence endures in the anarchist movement and some of the OWS rallies. Personal vendettas seem to be part of the stock and trade of the urban gang driven drug trafficking. But American attitudes about violence--at least among some of us--has changed. Instead of respect for laws, too many of America's liberal intelligentsia see fundamental laws and criminal justice procedures as infringements on the "liberties" of the violent and anti-social among us.

The second was the rise of men who seek "the glorification of their ruling passions." Lincoln acknowledged that our founders shared those ruling passions. They tied their future reputations in history to the success of the republican experiment that they initiated.


"If they succeeded, they were to be immortalized; their names were to be transferred to counties and cities, and rivers and mountains; and to be revered and sung, and toasted through all time. If they failed, they were to be called knaves and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to sink and be forgotten."


The success of the republican experiment , however, created a problem. New men of ambition who seek "the glorification of their ruling passions" will not content themselves with conserving and perpetuating our political institutions:


"Towering genius disdains a beaten path.  It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.  It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others . It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor."


This kind of ambition seeks its fulfillment at any cost:


"Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm; yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down."


Is this not the spirit of contemporary Progressivism as seen the administration of Presidency Barack Obama, and his  on-going project of  "fundamentally transforming the United States of America?"

Lincoln's answer? Again, a  new devotion to the Constitution, the laws, and the memory of the first President under that Constitution. Although passions have helped Americans, now only cold, calculating reason must furnish the materials of a


"general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our WASHINGTON."


"Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution,"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'"

Such is the conservative mission.


Below the entire text:


The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions:
Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
January 27, 1838



"In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American People, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era.--We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them--they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Their's was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.

How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country, from New England to Louisiana;--they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former, nor the burning suns of the latter;--they are not the creature of climate-- neither are they confined to the slave-holding, or the non-slave- holding States. Alike, they spring up among the pleasure hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order loving citizens of the land of steady habits.--Whatever, then, their cause may be, it is common to the whole country.

It would be tedious, as well as useless, to recount the horrors of all of them. Those happening in the State of Mississippi, and at St. Louis, are, perhaps, the most dangerous in example and revolting to humanity. In the Mississippi case, they first commenced by hanging the regular gamblers; a set of men, certainly not following for a livelihood, a very useful, or very honest occupation; but one which, so far from being forbidden by the laws, was actually licensed by an act of the Legislature, passed but a single year before. Next, negroes, suspected of conspiring to raise an insurrection, were caught up and hanged in all parts of the State: then, white men, supposed to be leagued with the negroes; and finally, strangers, from neighboring States, going thither on business, were, in many instances subjected to the same fate. Thus went on this process of hanging, from gamblers to negroes, from negroes to white citizens, and from these to strangers; till, dead men were seen literally dangling from the boughs of trees upon every road side; and in numbers almost sufficient, to rival the native Spanish moss of the country, as a drapery of the forest.

Turn, then, to that horror-striking scene at St. Louis. A single victim was only sacrificed there. His story is very short; and is, perhaps, the most highly tragic, if anything of its length, that has ever been witnessed in real life. A mulatto man, by the name of McIntosh, was seized in the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from the time he had been a freeman, attending to his own business, and at peace with the world.

Such are the effects of mob law; and such as the scenes, becoming more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law and order; and the stories of which, have even now grown too familiar, to attract any thing more, than an idle remark.

But you are, perhaps, ready to ask, "What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?" I answer, it has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg, was of but little consequence. They constitute a portion of population, that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. If they were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or small pox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited, by the operation.--Similar too, is the correct reasoning, in regard to the burning of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life, by the perpetuation of an outrageous murder, upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city; and had not he died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law, in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was, as it could otherwise have been.--But the example in either case, was fearful.--When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil.--By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained.--Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world.

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.

When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.--I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mob law, either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.

But, it may be asked, why suppose danger to our political institutions? Have we not preserved them for more than fifty years? And why may we not for fifty times as long?

We hope there is no sufficient reason. We hope all dangers may be overcome; but to conclude that no danger may ever arise, would itself be extremely dangerous. There are now, and will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their tendency, which have not existed heretofore; and which are not too insignificant to merit attention. That our government should have been maintained in its original form from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered at. It had many props to support it through that period, which now are decayed, and crumbled away. Through that period, it was felt by all, to be an undecided experiment; now, it is understood to be a successful one.--Then, all that sought celebrity and fame, and distinction, expected to find them in the success of that experiment. Their all was staked upon it:-- their destiny was inseparably linked with it. Their ambition aspired to display before an admiring world, a practical demonstration of the truth of a proposition, which had hitherto been considered, at best no better, than problematical; namely, the capability of a people to govern themselves. If they succeeded, they were to be immortalized; their names were to be transferred to counties and cities, and rivers and mountains; and to be revered and sung, and toasted through all time. If they failed, they were to be called knaves and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to sink and be forgotten. They succeeded. The experiment is successful; and thousands have won their deathless names in making it so. But the game is caught; and I believe it is true, that with the catching, end the pleasures of the chase. This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already appropriated. But new reapers will arise, and they, too, will seek a field. It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would inspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon?--Never! Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.--It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.

Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm; yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.

Here, then, is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such a one as could not have well existed heretofore.

Another reason which once was; but which, to the same extent, is now no more, has done much in maintaining our institutions thus far. I mean the powerful influence which the interesting scenes of the revolution had upon the passions of the people as distinguished from their judgment. By this influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice, incident to our nature, and so common to a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious strength, were, for the time, in a great measure smothered and rendered inactive; while the deep-rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive of revenge, instead of being turned against each other, were directed exclusively against the British nation. And thus, from the force of circumstances, the basest principles of our nature, were either made to lie dormant, or to become the active agents in the advancement of the noblest cause--that of establishing and maintaining civil and religious liberty.

But this state of feeling must fade, is fading, has faded, with the circumstances that produced it.
I do not mean to say, that the scenes of the revolution are now or ever will be entirely forgotten; but that like every thing else, they must fade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by the lapse of time. In history, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the bible shall be read;-- but even granting that they will, their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. Even then, they cannot be so universally known, nor so vividly felt, as they were by the generation just gone to rest. At the close of that struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. The consequence was, that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son or brother, a living history was to be found in every family-- a history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its own authenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the midst of the very scenes related--a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned.--But those histories are gone. They can be read no more forever. They were a fortress of strength; but, what invading foeman could never do, the silent artillery of time has done; the leveling of its walls. They are gone.--They were a forest of giant oaks; but the all-resistless hurricane has swept over them, and left only, here and there, a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage; unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs, a few more ruder storms, then to sink, and be no more.

They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our WASHINGTON.

Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Sunday, February 3, 2013

A Sunday Review: In Defense of Conservatism


A Review of In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo.
Frank S. Meyer
Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1962.



The most prominent media outlet of the postwar conservative movement was William F. Buckley's National Review. One of the writers and editors of the National Review during its early years was Frank Meyer. He earned a reputation for his promotion of “fusionism,” or the amalgamation of two seemingly incompatible streams of conservative thought into one coherent movement. On the one hand was the older anti-statism of the pre-WWII classical liberals such as Friedrich Hayek. On the other hand were the proponents of the so-called New Conservatism represented best by Russell Kirk. Although he addressed the controversy between the two conservative schools on numerous occasions, his most thorough treatment appeared in the pages of In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo.


Early on Meyer writes that the purpose of his book is “to vindicate the freedom of the person as the central and primary end of political society.” This not so subtly hints at which side of the conservative divide he will adhere.


In his first chapter,Meyer gives a nod to both traditions. He credits nineteenth century liberalism for its concern for individual liberty. He argues, however, that liberals allowed their commitment to liberty to overshadow any concerns about individual morality. He claims that liberalism's “utilitarian” ethics “denied the validity of moral ends firmly based on the constitution of being.” While asserting the value of liberty, it divorced itself from traditional ethics rooted in natural law and the nature of man. Because of this error, liberalism has evolved into twentieth century “collectivist liberalism.”

In contrast, the nineteenth century conservatives held the line against utilitarian ethics and scientism, but failed regarding the nature of man. They preserved natural law ethics. They failed to see, however, that moral good requires that “good must be voluntary.” Consequently, Meyer objects to the attempt of New Conservatives to prescribe some kind of morality in the name of order.

Meyer argues that the root of the New Conservative error is its view of society. He points out that the New Conservatism holds “an organic view of society, by subordination of the individual person to society and, therefore, a denial that the freedom of the person is the decisive criterion of a good polity.”

This is where Meyer parts company with the New Conservatives and shows his hand. He clearly leans toward the classical liberal or what is known today as the libertarian wing of the conservative movement. Instead of basing his views on the nature of society, Meyer rests them upon the nature of men as individuals. Consequently, he appeals to he Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and modern spokesmen for conservatism such as William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater. Throughout the next chapters on liberty, order, and the bureaucratic state, Meyer lays out his case for libertarian conservatism.

As in the Declaration of Independence, Meyer argues that preservation of individual liberty is the primary function of the state. He writes that liberty is “not alien to the conservative view of man's nature and destiny, that is arises naturally from conservative assumptions, and that it can be effectively defended only upon the basis of those assumptions.” Meyer does not elaborate in any systematic way on what these conservative assumptions might be. In general, throughout the book he alludes to human beings as autonomous individuals with freedom of the will. The only associations with moral worth are voluntary ones. Although as an individual every man lives in a social milieu made up on all kinds of social and political groups, none of them have any legitimate claims upon him.

This does not mean that Meyer dismisses virtue or the authority of objective morality. He wants to show that individual freedom and moral authority are not incompatible. He writes that the American order “is the most effective effort ever made to articulate in political terms the Western understanding of the interrelation of the freedom of the person and the authority of an objective moral order.”

Meyer rejects the battle cry of the New Conservatism—order.

The order of the New Conservatism restricts individual freedom in the name of virtue. They see virtue, not freedom, as the end or purpose of political society. Sometimes they call such freedom “ordered liberty.” This pursuit of order is in the name of community. They see society is a “living organism.” No individual member of society can ignore the moral claims of the community of which he is member.

Meyer objects to these claims. He argues that the New Conservative view of society as a “living organism” is nonsense. It has no life. It has no rights. It has no moral claims. Moreover, the New Conservatives such as Russell Kirk conflate individual freedom with such various ends as “submission to the will of God” or “demands of social cooperation.”

Meyer rejoins that “If virtue is the true end of man's existence, it can only be achieved in freedom.”

In addition, he warns that the New Conservatism can only lead to the same end to which collectivist liberalism has led:  Leviathan and the bureaucratic state. In a prescient passage that the last fifty years has confirmed, Meyer warns about the threat to freedom from the modern bureaucratic state composed of the government, corporations and unions, media, and academia. The daily headlines today confirm the existential threat to which Meyer alludes.

So what is the locus of virtue? Meyer points to the individual. Every person must cultivate virtue for himself. Even the family must be conceived in these terms. It is not the family as an “institution” that instills virtue, but as a group of individuals.

Meyer concludes that a good political and social order is good only to “the degree that men live as free persons, under conditions in which virtue can be freely realized, advanced and perpetuated.”

Meyer's book is a good, short work on at least one conservative view of liberty. It can be enjoyed most by those with a little philosophical bent and who are cognizant of the divisions between different streams of the conservative movement that persist this day.

One strength of the book is that, like many of the early books on conservatism, it deals with principles rather than politics. Because principles undergo change less rapidly than politics, the book seems broadly relevant even today. But that is also its weakness. Meyer does not connect his conservative principles with politics, readers must make their own connections. Moreover, most readers of conservative books today prefer to read the more relevant, but less enduring, essays addressing  contemporary events on the political scene. The books of Coulter, Malkin, and Beck far outsell anything written by Frank Meyer or any other early polemicist of the conservative movement.

One wonders, too, if Meyer might rethink his positions if he lived today. Our cultural climate has changed radically since 1962. Moreover, would he embrace today's libertarianism? Many contemporary libertarians have abandoned the notion of natural law or morality. They shrug their shoulders about the moral and social questions posed by narcotics, prostitution, and abortion. They not only argue that these questions should be beyond the scope of the state or federal government, but also seem to avoid making any moral judgments at all beyond the question of freedom.


And even if the majority of the communities to which we belong--family, neighborhood, city, and state--are to some degree involuntary, does that really mean that we are autonomous individuals without any obligations to these communities? And should the state or society really have no concern about the moral character of its citizens?