Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:37:42 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Response to Kai/values and the Constitution
              10 Sep 1992 14:44:15 EST from <92price@GW.WMICH.EDU>

Kai:

Interesting choice of historical events, since they are all Catholic
(except the Roman Empire, which persecuted the Christians, and I have
no idea what it was doing in there).  I would contend that the
Juedeo-Christian ethic has triumphed over the various nefarious uses
to which it has been put.  Indeed, if we look at the great schisms in
history, the rebels do not reject the ethic--only the institutions and
their power.  Luther did not reject Christ--he rejected the Catholic
Church, and for many of the events you mention.  Furthermore, I would
add that the result of the Protestant Reformation was a reformation of
the Catholic church and a revolution that birthed the Protestant church.
Both were changed for the better by the experience and are not comparable
to the Church of the Middle Ages.  (And what *did* you mean by reference
to the Roman Empire, by the way?)

Furthermore, it is the very basic nature of the Judeo-Christian ethic
that makes it a worthy foundation on which society can build.  Its tenets
are shared by the majority of Americans and are, explicitly or implicitly,
enshrined in the Constitution.

Last night on CSPAN, there was an American Enterprise Roundtable called
"Values and the 1992 Elections".  It was moderated by Ben Wattenberg,
and included Michael Novak and Suzanne Garment and two other people whose
names I did not catch.  Interestingly, they were getting at the very thing
we have been talking about here.  Michael Novak (please don't confuse him
with Robert Novak, BTW--Michael is a highly respected political scientist)
talked about the shift in public morality that has occurred in the past 30
years.  From the founding period to the 1960s, public morality was dissemina-
ted by ministers, teachers, and families.  The words of one of "America the
Beautiful"'s least well known verses sum it up: "confirm thy soul in self-
control, thy liberty in law."  The primary tenet of the public morality
was self-control.  In the 1960s, this was replaced by self-*expression*.

In addition, the disemmination of public morality is no longer vested in
the clergy, the family, and an educational system that seeks to teach
such values (because the education establishment has chosen explicitly
*not* to)--rather, the purveyors of public morality are in New York and
in Hollywood.  The entertainment industry, and particularly television,
has, for better or worse, become the determinant of public morality.

Why does this matter?  Well, it matters because the Constitution is
written for a people who are not, as Madison put it, "angels."  Our
democratic republic was designed in the full knowledge that private
morality and public morality are always going to be different in practice,
since human beings tend toward sin (or "bad," if you will).  The system
of checks and balances was set up because of this distrust of the natural
instincts of human beings to abuse power.  Public morality *must* be of a
higher, more idealistic order than private morality for the democratic
republic to function properly.  This system can only work for a people
that values self-control over self-expression.

The history of the world since the founding of the Republic has been
a debate on 3 key issues:
  1) is democracy preferable to (better than--a values question)
     dictatorship?
  2) is the market preferable to the state as an agent of growth and
     development?
  3) what virtues (virtues being ways in which one exercises self-control)
     are necessary for the governance of a free people?

It would appear at this time that the first two have been tentatively
decided and that the third is an open question right now.

Novak also made the interesting point that Reagan's campaign
was successful in that it usurped the former domain of the values
once championed by the Democratic party:  family, neighborhood,
work, and peace through strength.  These, he said, were once associated
with the Democratic party and are still available to it, if the
Democrats should choose to take them back.

The values question is not a frivolous sidelight to the "real issues."
It *contains* the real issues.  However, because it deals with the
question of self-control versus self-expression, it appears to be
trivial to an entertainment industry that assumes that the revolution
is over and self-expression won.

Another point that Wattenberg made is that public policy often hinges
on the "cleaning up" of failures of these values to be applied.  He and
Novak mentioned that the welfare system for the elderly and the disabled
has had very positive results.  However, when the support system is
extended to those who are capable of working (as Novak put it, the young
and the able), the result is an erosion of the public morality of
self-control.

We can, certainly, determine as a nation to trade self-control for
self-expression.  But if we do, we enter into yet another experiment
in governance.  Because the Constitution and the system the Founders
devised was not meant for such a people.

If men were angels, they would have no need of government (one of the
Founders said something along those lines--I don't have the exact
quote handy).  But they are not, and they require a government that
recognizes that fact and provides for its amelioration through law
and the disemmination of a public morality fit for their governance
(that's mine.)

This is not about baking cookies and staying home.  It is about self-
control and public governance.  And the outcome of the debate will
determine the direction of government for a long time to come.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU