Can the Constitution survive civil war?
In 2017, I was enjoying a cup of coffee with a friend at "Gigi's Café," situated in the cloisters of "woke" left Minneapolis. At a nearby window sat a group of elderly, ill tempered radical feminists, worn out from their morning protest march against bête noire President Trump. One came over to our table to speak with my friend, all the while eying my pearl necklace with evident suspicion. Clearly, I did not belong in their sacred space.
How is it possible that these elderly rainbow warriors, who have personally benefited from civil rights legislation, now retired from sociology departments with generous pensions, are still so bitter, still chanting, "Down with the patriarchy!"? As I departed their inner sanctum, disregarding their stony glares, an unwelcome thought struck me: "There will be civil war." And here we are, in a situation where a random moment of violence exposes a ravaged political consensus and ignites a conflagration.
Along similar lines, Scott Gronmark's recent article, "How Lyndon Johnson's Positive Discrimination Enslaved America's Blacks," suggests, the reason our nation has deteriorated is, paradoxically, civil rights legislation itself!
Senior fellow at the Claremont Institute Christopher Caldwell, in his book The Age of Enlightenment, described the existence of two incompatible constitutional logics — one based on the rule of law of the Republican Constitution, the other, which took shape in the 1960s, on the rights of the self-appointed aggrieved to be compensated for their alleged victimhood. Increasingly, the first and original Republican Constitution of 1787 has been tossed over by the Democrat pseudo-constitution of 1964. In fact, affirmative action legislation forms the Democrat Theory of State!
Republicans have not withstood the left's legislative onslaught across all institutions. If the left's triumph continues, we can kiss the Republican Constitution goodbye. Yet who is brave enough to risk being judged inhumane and insensitive, bigoted, racist, fascist, deplorable, and phobic by rejecting the legitimacy of civil rights ideology?
Close examination unmasks civil rights as a legal fiction. It is a concept that earlier philosophers, including the Founders of the Constitution, based on Natural Law. Democrats no longer believe in Natural Law. They believe in biological urges and self-constructed "truths." Therefore, we are born not with rights, but with needs — as the beavering psychology and sociology industries have demonstrated ad nauseam from Maslow's 1943 "hierarchy of needs" onward.
Democrat civil rights law has transformed these psychological needs for esteem and self-fulfillment into legal entitlements! Like baby sparrows, we stand squawking with beaks open, demanding to be fed by Mother State. But we are not helpless sparrows, unsteady on our tiny legs, unable to fly.
This attempt to impose upon the body politic a sectarian equality through legislation has succeeded only in mandating privilege over merit, dependency over entrepreneurship, and scapegoating others over taking personal responsibility. On the other hand, it has grown administrative law to the size of a bloated, financial behemoth under which we have suffocated and been silenced, until Trump arrived to pry it off our backs with his flamethrower tweets and crowbar shifts, galling the left beyond endurance.
Further troubling is the grasp of human rights ideology by global institutions such as the U.N., the E.U., and the International Court of Justice, the last one having become the preferred weapon of attack for those wishing to sabotage the national jurisdiction of the Constitution. Democrats and RINOs, for a suitable "donation," are happy to prostitute national power in the harem of financial globalists. Those mega-billionaire monopolists, and tyrannical states, view people as sheep to be herded into convenient paddocks and fed propaganda fodder until they bleat thanks while being ruthlessly sacrificed to global economic expediency. And let's not forget that for the legislative purposes of climate change fanatics, the planet has been deified into the goddess Gaia, with her own list of egregious affronts.
In its focus on championing legal rights for "tormented" identity groups, the 1964 Democrat pseudo-constitution has failed to protect the freedom of individuals and, increasingly, their lives and property. It reduces human interaction to a single dialectic — you are either an abuser or a victim. This has been incredibly divisive, leading to irreconcilable differences within the body politic, making civil war unavoidable unless we capitulate to the left on bended knee.
Clienteles of resentment, not relational compassion, are the political currency of the left. The purpose of the Democrats' pseudo-constitution is to maintain their rule, not to preserve long held community traditions enshrined in a Constitution, founded on a rational order of peaceful relations, conceived as a fundamental good.
Professor Angelo Codevilla, in his book The Ruling Class, commented on this intellectual debasement by the left. Leftists' pretense at moral superiority cannot be defended without laws of evidence being overturned. Therefore, we must refuse to use the left's Orwellian civil rights doublespeak. Human rights language does not humanize. It alienates. It fuels resentment and has propelled us into civil war.
Our Constitution is over two hundred years old. Yet, to quote a revered poet, "Out of old fields comes new corn." The Constitution of 1787 is worth defending. We fight to defend its enshrined individual, not sectarian liberties. We fight to defend its continuity of tradition. We fight for its restoration, no matter what the cost.