Truth is a thing you imagine or perceive, but very hard to reach.  It is elusive to the touch and comprehension, like the sunrise or sunset.  Truth is also different and unique at every instant you view it, and no less concrete or phenomenal for being difficult to describe.  Truth is the quality of being in accordance with experience, facts or reality; and how hard it is: hard indeed to know, impossible to capture completely—essential to pursue.  Like the proper role of government, what with self-evident truths laying a foundation for our system, establishing the very rationale for independence and existence of these United States: ‘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;’ and more.  If there are no truths, if there is no Truth—then nothing matters or everything matters, but no self-definition is possible and there is no political sovereignty worthy of respect or loyalty from its people.  Government that does not respect the truth becomes a liar. 

Enter change, clearly essential to the notion of progress.  Everyone wants change these days, implicit to which is the expectation of something better.  Note the caveat in calls for change.  It isn’t change for the worse that we want—of course not.  It would not be progress or moving forward as it were.  So here’s an important qualification for all those running a mad dash for the cliff this year.  As John Foster Dulles said, “A capacity to change is indispensable.  Equally indispensable is the capacity to hold fast to that which is good.”  Progress very often involves working out inconsistencies within our tradition, not throwing it all away.  We don’t throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water in other words.  American tradition includes private property, free markets, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, as well as the self-determination of communities and states to determine how to live within the bounds of liberal institutions—now surely there is something here worthy to conserve, i.e., worthy not to change. 

Hence change is subordinate to any number of things, including truth and the proper role of government—to things in accordance with experience, facts and reality!  Those who would depose the natural order by denying there is one, or who would make change itself the order of the day, are by definition liars and perhaps fools or both.  No freeman or freewoman ever remained free by giving in to that sort of order.  Change is a quicksand if you have anything at all worthy to conserve.  Even so-called have-nots have things they would conserve: if not a home or family or job now, then the opportunity to have them in the future and always, always to dream big.  Political charlatans play on present discontents, proposing change as a temporary salve at the inevitable expense of the future.  The charlatan of change bakes bread of seed corn, robs Peter to pay Paul if necessary, and leaves the grandchildren to grub.  Constitutional processes are set up to prevent that kind of change, but only if they are respected and observed. 

Government activism in general is a bad idea, especially unchecked, passionate or compassionate.  Exceptions prove the rule.  A majority of Americans have shared this presumption throughout our history, because they recognized that a constitutional republican tradition is worthy to conserve and that a broad expanse of liberty is also worthy to conserve, even if it isn’t quite as easy or secure as living in a cage with three squares provided free each day and a water hose spray to clean out your gunk.  In political contests positing various reforms, conservatives have usually argued as the defense attorney might, and sometimes as a devil’s advocate.  Since George W. Bush, however, conservatives have largely abandoned this role according to political historian Jonah Goldberg.  Defenders are either out to lunch or embarked on some other quest, not to say hopelessly marginalized.  Which leaves the nation’s political house ripe for a wrecking ball in the 2008 election cycle, and come January if change artists get their mandate to do damage.  Goldberg writes: “Liberals therefore control the argument without either explaining where they want to end up or having to account for where they’ve been.  They’ve succeeded where the fascist intellectuals ultimately failed, making passion and activism the measure of political virtue, and motives more important than facts.”  Ergo, change threatens to overwhelm the truth, self-evident or otherwise, unless someone steps into the breach or liberals just happen to self-implode. 

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment