Lincolns lesson in todays culture wars The Record

THE TROUBLED economy soaring health care costs the Iraq war these may be the issues we re hearing the most about this year. But anyone who s decided that this means the culture wars are over could not be more wrong. It s wishful political thinking to imagine that the demands of religion morality and culture can be dismissed just with a comment about being beyond a candidate s pay grade. What lies behind the insistence on injecting morality into politics and what lies behind the resistance to it is a battle between two basic concepts of democracy itself between democracy as process and democracy as purpose. This conflict is hardly an aberration of the s or the Religious Right. It s a battle that was spectacularly played out years ago in the great debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. Then as now politicians preferred their problems to come with neutral dollars and cents solutions. In slavery was legal in states and slaveholders were demanding slavery s legal! ization in the Western territories as well. These demands had paralyzed Congress and triggered bloodshed in the Kansas Territory. As the senior U.S. senator from Illinois and chair of the Senate Committee on Territories Douglas s solution was simply to let the people who lived there decide for themselves. He called this popular sovereignty and it bothered him not at all that some people in this case white settlers had the authority to decide whether other people in this case black slaves should be held in a lifetime of forced labor. Law for Douglas was mere traffic regulations So long as the proper procedures were observed what people thought was right or wrong was irrelevant. Abraham Lincoln believed as devoutly as Douglas in democracy. But it has no just application to the question of slavery. Enslaving another human being was a denial of one of the primary natural rights the right to liberty. For that reason there can be no moral right in connection with one man s making! a slave of another and no moral right in allowing a majority of white people to vote black people into slavery. But questions about moral right were exactly what Douglas believed had to be avoided in American public life. Once morality became mixed up with politics then people began looking for firearms. The genius of American democracy Douglas insisted lay in its commitment to process. Let the process of popular sovereignty dictate the outcome of political debate and people will be able to live in peace with each other surrounded by prosperity and satisfaction. But Lincoln responded that majority rule will never actually settle a question that disturbs the moral balance of the universe. A democracy without a sense of the sacredness of those rights was like a tornado hollow at the core and purposeless in direction. The real issue in the slavery controversy was the struggle between right and wrong. Anyone who ignored the real issue in the name of secularism and choice was eroding the moral capital on which democracy relies. Our reverence for w! hat Lincoln achieved keeps us from seeing that it is Douglas attitudes not his that have come to rule modern American politics. We deify democratic choice and then try to restrain choice s excesses by rules and guidelines rather than by right and honor. We conflate rights and privileges to the point where the right to life becomes a choice but a national health care system becomes a virtuous necessity. To a certain extent we and Douglas may be perfectly reasonable in making process what we live by. After all Lincoln s implacable insistence on treating slavery as a question of right and wrong really did help bring on civil war. Can we safely retreat to our private castles on questions of public morality Civil wars and culture wars are not the only threat to the survival of a democracy. When democracies define themselves purely by process rather than principle they lose all passion for solidarity and all interest in the self restraint and self sacrifice that serve as the prec! ondition for self government. Democracy shuns moral absolutism but it does not shun all absolutes. Which is why years ago Abraham Lincoln didn t shun them either. Allen C. Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College. This article appeared in The Christian Science Monitor. THE TROUBLED economy soaring health care costs the Iraq war these may be the issues we re hearing the most about this year. But anyone who s decided that this means the culture wars are over could not be more wrong. It s wishful political thinking to imagine that the demands of religion morality and culture can be dismissed just with a comment about being beyond a candidate s pay grade. What lies behind the insistence on injecting morality into politics and what lies behind the resistance to it is a battle between two basic concepts of democracy itself between democracy as process and democracy as purpose. This conflict is hardly an aberration of the s or the Religious Right. It s a battle that was spectacularly played out years ago in the! great debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. Then as now politicians preferred their problems to come with neutral dollars and cents solutions. In slavery was legal in states and slaveholders were demanding slavery s legalization in the Western territories as well. These demands had paralyzed Congress and triggered bloodshed in the Kansas Territory. As the senior U.S. senator from Illinois and chair of the Senate Committee on Territories Douglas s solution was simply to let the people who lived there decide for themselves. He called this popular sovereignty and it bothered him not at all that some people in this case white settlers had the authority to decide whether other people in this case black slaves should be held in a lifetime of forced labor. Law for Douglas was mere traffic regulations So long as the proper procedures were observed what people thought was right or wrong was irrelevant. Abraham Lincoln believed as devoutly as Douglas in democracy. ! But it has no just application to the question of slavery. Enslaving another human being was a denial of one of the primary natural rights the right to liberty. For that reason there can be no moral right in connection with one man s making a slave of another and no moral right in allowing a majority of white people to vote black people into slavery. But questions about moral right were exactly what Douglas believed had to be avoided in American public life. Once morality became mixed up with politics then people began looking for firearms. The genius of American democracy Douglas insisted lay in its commitment to process. Let the process of popular sovereignty dictate the outcome of political debate and people will be able to live in peace with each other surrounded by prosperity and satisfaction. But Lincoln responded that majority rule will never actually settle a question that disturbs the moral balance of the universe. A democracy without a sense of the sacredness of those rights was like a tornado hollow at the core and purposeless in di! rection. The real issue in the slavery controversy was the struggle between right and wrong. Anyone who ignored the real issue in the name of secularism and choice was eroding the moral capital on which democracy relies. Our reverence for what Lincoln achieved keeps us from seeing that it is Douglas attitudes not his that have come to rule modern American politics. We deify democratic choice and then try to restrain choice s excesses by rules and guidelines rather than by right and honor. We conflate rights and privileges to the point where the right to life becomes a choice but a national health care system becomes a virtuous necessity. To a certain extent we and Douglas may be perfectly reasonable in making process what we live by. After all Lincoln s implacable insistence on treating slavery as a question of right and wrong really did help bring on civil war. Can we safely retreat to our private castles on questions of public morality Civil wars and culture wars are not ! the only threat to the survival of a democracy. When democracies define themselves purely by process rather than principle they lose all passion for solidarity and all interest in the self restraint and self sacrifice that serve as the precondition for self government. Democracy shuns moral absolutism but it does not shun all absolutes. Which is why years ago Abraham Lincoln didn t shun them either. Allen C. Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College. This article appeared in The Christian Science Monitor. Reader Comments There are no current comments at this time

Source: http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/34380929.html


Another site recomended to review: namcars cars ( http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=25811 )

My life's been pretty boring. Nothing notable happening lately. That's how it is. I guess it doesn't bother me.

Feel free to read: namcars autos ( http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main/namcars.com )