Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Gun Control is in the Progressive Liberal’s DNA

Progressive infatuation with gun control and population disarmament stems from their foundational premises about the nature of reality.
Progressivism was born out of the end of the frontier and of frustrations with the restraints of the Constitution.  Politicians wanted more power than the Constitution allowed. They rejected the entire theory of natural rights, and the idea that governments exist by the consent of the governed. From heritage.org, a quote from Charles Merriam, an early, leading Progressive political scientist:

The individualistic ideas of the “natural right” school of political theory, indorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated…. The origin of the state is regarded, not as the result of a deliberate agreement among men, but as the result of historical development, instinctive rather than conscious; and rights are considered to have their source not in nature, but in law.

Progressives believed (and still do) that experts should rule society, that the “average man” was incapable of knowing their own best interest. Progressives believe, generally, there is no absolute right and wrong, right and wrong is defined by Progressives and their experts at any particular time.

To Progressives, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are obstacles to be overcome, not pillars of American society that must be defended. Because Progressives generally view the State as god, or at least the manifestation of God on earth, right is anything that advances Progressivism. Wrong is anything that hinders advancing the Progressive agenda.  President Wilson, one of the political foundational Progressives, is attributed as believing that “limits on government power should be abolished”.

To Progressives, the Second Amendment is simply a wrong idea, long discredited, that should either be ignored, re-defined as meaningless, or removed from the body of law. They do not believe in natural law or individual rights. The Second Amendment is simply a political inconvenience.

When I attended the University of Wisconsin, decades ago, professors would put forward this statement as a shortcut to discussion. It was usually done in math or science courses:

“It is intuitively obvious upon casual observation.”

What is intuitively obvious, however, depends on what the observer holds as basic assumptions about the nature of reality.

If you believe the state is god, that unlimited government power is a positive good, that experts are far better at determining what is good for you than you are for yourself, and human nature is something created by the state and its educational organs; it is intuitively obvious the Second Amendment was a historical mistake.

The Second Amendment limits government power. The belief in natural law, that the Second Amendment is based on, defies, and is in direct contradiction, to the theory of Progressivism.  The idea that people have a right and the ability, to rule themselves is treated by Progressives as absurd.

No Progressive idea is absolute. Progressive policies change with the times. When Woodrow Wilson was President, prohibition and racial segregation were progressive policies. Now they are not. A few years from now, they could be embraced by Progressives again. George Orwell’s ideas in the novel, 1984, are a direct outgrowth of Progressive theory.  In the novel, the state controls history by controlling the flow of information. The purpose of the power of the elite is to maintain their power.

The resurgence of Constitutionalists and belief in natural rights and natural law is the result of  bitter experience over the last hundred years.  Over and over again, various iterations of Progressives have taken over governments and instituted their theories, backed by the absolute power of the state. They have uniformly ended in failure, often spectacular failure. Here is a partial list:

Italy and Germany during World War Two. WWII Japan could fit, but is complicated by the Emperor and the corrupted code of Bushido in the Japanese military. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,  China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Cuba under Castro, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, and currently, Venezuela and North Korea.

You do not see these spectacular failures under governments that are limited under law which recognize natural rights.  To be clear, there are very few of them. The United States, Switzerland, post war Austria, Australia, Canada, perhaps the UK. Many countries in Europe seem to be sliding into unlimited government, while former East Block countries such as the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, and others, have moved toward limited government.

Unlimited government is an old idea that started before the Pharaohs. Progressives believed they had something new because of the industrial revolution, widespread literacy and the ability of the state to control citizens with industrial methods of education and indoctrination.

They have been shown to be wrong through numerous real world examples.

“Experts” have been shown to disagree about everything from eugenics to race to sexuality to industrial policy to climate change. Pick your topic, and you can find an “expert” to agree with you.  Therein lies the failure of Progressivism. The choice of policy depends on the choice of experts, who are people and fallible.

Government officials have their own desires, prejudices, personal interests, and the desire to remain in power. The unlimited power of the state is put in their hands, leading to disastrous consequences.

The theory of natural law, based on fallible human nature,  and the need to limit government power, has been shown to optimize society far better than the theory of Progressivism, based on beneficent, unlimited government and the rule by experts.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend