"DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND" Part Two
A continuing essay series examining the conflation of politics and religion.
This painting depicts the moment on June 28, 1776, when the first draft of the Declaration of Independence was presented to the Second Continental Congress. Artist John Trumbull, 18261
“Today, the nation is increasingly misgoverned, misled, and outright attacked by a ruling elite that does not want us to “keep” our republic.”2
In part one of this four part essay we left off with an observation whereby I had concluded that Heritage Foundation’s president Kevin D. Roberts Ph.D. had written the opening of his commentary, America Must Reclaim What the Left Has Attempted to Destroy, in a manner that,
To wit by making his audience feel as though Democratic politicians are attempting to take away their voice by way of denying them a Republic (a country) that is governed by their chosen elected representatives and their chosen elected leader they will respond by fighting back with their votes against all things liberal.3
As noted in my opening quote above Roberts’ first key takeaway leaves his readers focused lastly on the idea of the need to ““keep” our republic.”4
In Roberts’ commentary, immediately after his first key takeaway is found in its context, with the threat of a “ruling elite” fresh in the minds of his readers, he launches into a litany of well-worn, familiar, diatribes such as follows:
In fact, they want to take it from us. Look back no further than how our elected and unelected officials acted during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This little clique goes by different names. I’m sure you’ve heard them all: the woke, the “globalists,” the “establishment,” the “coastal elite,” the political class, the “Swamp.” My favorite, though, is the “Neiman Marxists.”
They control different industries and institutions, from the media to the government to our schools, universities, and corporate boardrooms.
But for the purposes of winning back our country and “keeping” our republic, they are all the same.**
Now having stirred up his audience’s emotions with recollections of recent events he then begins to insinuate that the “ruling elite” of today, democrats or liberals, and anyone who might choose to align themselves with this so-called “little clique” no matter what sector of society they might be found in are in fact “Goliaths.” Drawing upon one of the oldest of biblical stories Roberts likens and reduces his readers current situation in modern day America to supposedly being a parallel to a different time in history saying,
Today, we think of America’s Revolution, founding, and history as a heroic story about the triumph of the human spirit: the little guy standing up to the bullies, fighting for freedom against oppressors. But as you know, there are always some people who don’t like a David and Goliath story: the Goliaths.**
From this point on and throughout the remainder of his disingenuous exercise in inflammatory-sophism Roberts now having built his readers up into mythical Davids of the Old Covenant waxes vivid words together with a quasi-intellectual sermon designed to lead his readers through an abbreviated five sentence history that is in fact an ahistorical jumble of ideas.
Equating American Democratic leaders of today with the so-called “ruling elite,” as if like,
In the 18th century, that was Europe’s aristocracy. They hated the American Revolution and our Constitution because the fundamental idea of our nation is that here, the people rule. We didn’t need elites to tell us what to do.**
It is from this point on that the sophism becomes almost rank with an odiousness of intentional distortions of histories from various eras and places around the world creating an image of America as being right on all counts (exceptionalism) while those portrayed with his distorted history lessons are always in the wrong (an “empire striking back.”) Leading his readers further and further along with high sounding depictions of America wherein until he arrives at today and recalls that,
For two centuries, every generation of global elites looked down on American freedom—and ended up looking up at our success.
Now in the 21st century, the so-called “Great Awokening” is just the latest iteration of the empire striking back. From Washington and Wall Street to Beijing and Brussels, they are coming for our freedom, for our Constitution, for our faith, and, yes, even for our children—all in the name of global order. They want to take from us our birthright as Americans. They say they want us to become “citizens of the world.” But in truth, they want us to be subjects of them.
Today, Americans are rising up; drawing a line in the sand; and telling those who every day expect to impose their will on us, on our families, on our children, that never—never—will they succeed.**
At this point in his sermon on the think-tank he then enjoins his readers to him and begins to create a fellowship of the conservatives.
Better still, American parents—like all of us at The Heritage Foundation—are tired of playing defense. Like the 56 men who had the spine to sign the Declaration of Independence, they’ve decided to go on offense. I’m here to tell you that at every step of the way, in every fight, in every battle, with every hateful journalist, every attack on the American people—every single one—Heritage and I will stand firm.
As we fight to preserve the American order against this global empire, it’s important to remember what it is that conservatives need to conserve.**
One of the subtler important points to be noted from the excerpt here above is its focus on, not the Constitution of the United States, but rather on the Declaration of Independence. It is with subtle points like this that he is creating in his readers a false sense of oppression that in reality does not really exist, thus preparing them mentally for a counter-revolutionary moment.
Now Roberts’ writing enters into the context that immediately precedes his second key takeaway. It is here he enlists the help of a well known conservative author, Russel Kirk who he introduces by saying “one of the best books ever written about America’s unique culture of freedom is called “The Roots of American Order.”
He goes on to say that,
In “The Roots of American Order,” Kirk traces the ideas that make up the American way of life—and in particular, the four great traditions that led our forefathers to found our republic 236 years ago this month. [Again, Roberts here conflates and confuses the Declaration of Independence (July 1776) with the Constitution of the United States of America (September 1787) when in fact our Republic was actually founded.]
America did not invent the idea of “ordered liberty.” We inherited it from the West’s four great cities of freedom that came before us: Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and London.**
It is here he begins to work his distortions into a sudden leap from one idea to another. Stating in one sentence that “Kirk traces the ideas that make up the American way of life” then in the next sentence he leapfrogs his readers minds into a new concept all together, that of “ordered liberty.” Those of you who might follow Supreme Court decisions and other important cases of law will have encountered the idea of ordered liberty, as it played a significant role in the decision to overturn Roe Vs. Wade thus stripping women of their right to maintain autonomy over their bodies and the health decisions that belong solely to them alone. As noted in an opinion piece published by The Hill titled, “Sophistry at the Supreme Court”
The draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization infamously decides that pregnant females’ 49-year-old right to obtain an abortion no longer will be constitutionally protected. Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito offers two reasons for this conclusion: The Constitution does not explicitly protect the right to abortion, and the right to obtain an abortion is neither “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” nor “essential to our Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.’”5
While individuals like Roberts can and have reached back into history to justify their use of the term ordered liberty by referencing the so-called father of conservatism Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who some consider to be the “Champion of Ordered Liberty;”6 it is nonetheless a philosophy that relies on a distinctly religious worldview in order to have any validity. Roberts makes use of appeals to ordered liberty almost any time he is pounding out his drumbeats against liberal governance, as can be seen from the following excerpt from a commentary in which he extols the virtues of “Burkean Nationalism” published earlier in May of this year as he decries the,
myriad symptoms of ruling-class contempt of everyday working families and the institutions that prioritize their rights and interests over elites’ privilege. Things like democracy, the rule of law, free speech, religious devotion, marriage and family, ordered liberty, property rights, and yes, the real free market, as opposed to the altar of corporatism that Big Government Globalists idolize. But more than anything else, the ruling class despises nationhood.7
By now you might be wondering, where is Roberts going with all this? Up until this point Roberts has only used approximately 800 of his 2,800 words; for his second key takeaway he will now devote a little over 1,500 words in his attempt to persuasively sway his readers minds over into accepting and supporting his own conceptually provided idea of the aforementioned “American order” which according to his presentation constitutes the same thing as “ordered liberty” or as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito notes as “essential to our Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.’”
In the context of both Roberts presentation here and Alito’s justifications for denying women’s bodily autonomy it seems to me that a better, simpler way of understanding the meaning of the idea inherent in “ordered liberty”, again especially in the contexts of conservative doctrines and judgments, is to think of the term as meaning prioritized-freedoms. Naturally this of course then begs the question of who is prioritizing whose freedoms?
In so far as recent decisions made by the Supreme Court wherein the concept of ordered liberty has been relied upon as a justification by which to prioritize individual freedoms out and away from the sphere of constitutional protections, such decisions have brought renewed attention and focuses on the concept much to its detriment according to an opinion published this past January at the website of the State Bar of Texas,
As noted above, Dobbs has brought renewed attention to the concept of “ordered liberty.” But that attention—and its accompanying scrutiny—is likely to lead to the demise, not the development, of “ordered liberty” as a barometer of constitutional rights.8
Now returning to our vivisection of Roberts inflammatory-sophism, he has been leading his readers up to this point where from this point on for the next 1,500+ words he will attempt to rationalize for his readers the basis for and why they must “fight to preserve the American order against this global empire, it’s important to remember what it is that conservatives need to conserve.”
From this point he now goes on to discuss for his readers just what exactly he wants them to know and think of as being formative to the concept of America’s inheritance of ordered liberty, or more specifically a national “American order.”
The first is obvious. All the moral principles on which America was founded—and on which our society has flourished—date back to the Old Covenant, the Old Testament, and the ancient Kingdom of Israel. When our Founders, in the Declaration of Independence, invoked the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” they weren’t talking about Zeus or Thor. They were talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
From the Jewish people, the West inherited our greatest gift, the one on which all others rest: the knowledge of our good and loving God. “All men are created equal” was not a philosophical theory springing from the Enlightenment, but a revealed moral truth. Men are not equal in virtue or wisdom, talent or strength. The equality of the American Founding is our moral equality—as fallen creatures before a just Creator, who, in his infinite mercy, loves us nonetheless—and taught us how to live according to His will.**
As can be seen from the excerpt above Roberts is intent on equating morality with equality, and just as importantly, in particular for latter discussions, his assertion that ““All men are created equal” was not a philosophical theory springing from the Enlightenment, but a revealed moral truth” should be remembered, because for my thinking and conceptualization of the true base reason why America is in the midst of a cold civil war, this is where the crux of the matter actually exists.
Roberts here now having explained in the above two paragraphs his belief in how the civilization of the “West inherited our greatest gift, the one on which all others rest” wraps up this first inheritance with his second key takeaway as follows:
Human equality. God-given rights. These, America owes to the God of Abraham; the holy, heroic people of Israel; and the city of Jerusalem.**
In conclusion for this second part of my essay I want to return briefly to the focus of all that has been presented here so far;
Roberts’ first key takeaway left his readers focused on the importance of keeping his idea of a republic; and as was noted in the conclusion of this essay’s first part, the question of what was and is the intended republic that constitutes the United States of America, especially in the light of his use of the Franklin-Powel story focused on “a republic… if you can keep it.”
To give the questions focused on the idea of an American republic a wider context and immediate current day application I think it is important to note an assertion and the thinking of Kevin Roberts friend in Congress House Speaker MAGA Mike Johnson (R, LA) as reported on November 4, 2023 by Marci A. Hamilton of The Guardian,
“You know, we don’t live in a democracy” but a “biblical” republic”9
-Congress House Speaker MAGA Mike Johnson
From his first key takeaway until the second takeaway Roberts keeps his readers in a tizzy of an ahistorical jumble from which he then launches into a rationalization that ends up being a defense of the idea that “All the moral principles on which America was founded” come from the “Old Covenant” and the “ancient kingdom of Israel.” So then for Roberts and his disciples an American republic must necessarily be an extension of the Old Testament principles of morality, to put the matter in loose and plain terms.
So then what exactly might Ben Franklin have had in mind when he uttered his concise answer to Mrs. Powel’s question, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" In order to divine his thoughts in that moment of when he had just exited from Independence Hall after having spent hours reasoning with his fellow delegates to bring about the agreements necessary for each one to feel it was within their consciousnesses to sign this new document that would create a new republican form of government, we must enter the hall itself that day September 17, 1787 and hear from Franklin himself;
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.10
It seems to me most likely when Dr. Franklin answered Mrs. Powel his concerns about being able to keep the republic was centered upon the potential for corruption to take place within the populace such that they would clamor for another king to rule over them, thereby rejecting the representative form of government that he and his fellow delegates had just signed into existence.
I do not know about anyone else, but that concern sounds remarkably to me very much like today’s MAGA-Rebellion movement.
To be continued in part three.
Robert J. Rei, November 29, 2023
“Eighty-one-year-old Benjamin Franklin is seated in the center”
“Howard Chandler Christy's painting of the signing of the United States Constitution was commissioned in 1939 as part of the congressional observance of the Constitution's sesquicentennial. Completed in 1940, the 20-by-30-foot framed oil-on-canvas scene is among the best known images in the United States Capitol. Artist Howard Chandler Christy,” 194011
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self." -Aldous Huxley
“Declaration of Independence One of four revolutionary period scenes in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.” Architect of the Capitol, https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/declaration-independence
"America Must Reclaim What the Left Has Attempted to Destroy” (COMMENTARY American History) Kevin D. Roberts, Ph.D. (President, Heritage Trustee since 2023), July 25, 2023, The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/commentary/america-must-reclaim-what-the-left-has-attempted-destroy
**See note 2
“Sophistry at the Supreme Court” Ken M. Levy and Jody Lyneé Madeira, Opinion Contributors, May 6, 2022, The Hill, https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3479023-sophistry-at-the-supreme-court/
“Edmund Burke: Champion of Ordered Liberty” John Attarian, October 23, 2017, The Imaginative Conservative, https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/10/edmund-burke-champion-ordered-liberty-john-attarian.html
“Burkean Nationalism” (Commentary Conservatism) Kevin D. Roberts, Ph.D., May 26, 2023, The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/burkean-nationalism
“The Disorderly Origin of ‘Ordered Liberty’ Why the Dobbs standard for substantive due process is unlikely to endure.” TBJ Opinion Christopher R.J. Pace, January 2023, State Bar of Texas, https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=58700
“Mike Johnson, theocrat: the House speaker and a plot against America” Marci A. Hamilton, November 4, 2023, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/04/mike-johnson-theocrat-house-speaker-christian-trump
“September 17, 1787: A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, Last updated: September 22, 2023, Independence National Historical Park, National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-september17.htm#:~:text=%E2%80%9CA%20republic%2C%20if%20you%20can,a%20republic%20or%20a%20monarchy%3F%22
“Signing of the Constitution Howard Chandler Christy's painting depicts Independence Hall in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787.” Architect of the Capitol, https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/signing-constitution
This whole line of “ordered liberty” thinking really has been bothered. On one hand the conservative constructionists on the federal bench want to strike anything down that isn’t explicitly written into the Constitution (usually the original document plus stopping after Amendment Two), but then on the other hand want to cherry pick their perceived intent of The Founders on the prioritized freedoms of their choosing. (We don’t need those pesky freedoms after the 2nd, especially that evil 14th.) Maybe a better term is ordered hypocrisy.
Exceptional piece of writing and deductive reasoning.
I have to admit “his sermon on the think-tank” gave me a chuckle.
But it’s your ending conclusion that’s chilling, for I had little idea (nor did I know someone inside Independence Hall was taking good hour-by-hour notes) that among Franklin’s many talents that he also a seer.
“we must enter the hall itself that day September 17, 1787 and hear from Franklin himself;”
“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”