Last week’s installment of this series asked a fundamental question: Do human beings have an unalienable right to self- defense? There is no question the founding fathers of our constitutional, representative republic believed they do, and they acknowledged that right in the Second Amendment. This was affirmed in the Supreme Court’s decisions recognizing, for the first time in American history, that right: the Heller decision,  and the McDonald decision, which applied the right to the states.

It is now time to consider a second, related question:  DOES EVIL EXIST?

The answer to this question represents a fundamental dividing line between conservatives and socialists (for that is what the contemporary Democratic Party has sadly become).  Socialists believe that human beings are inherently racist, sexist, and a variety of other “ists,” but are perfectible.  This Utopian perfection can be reached if only there is sufficient (absolute or near absolute) governmental power and the right kinds of taxes, redistribution of wealth, laws and regulations to make people behave in appropriate ways, to perfect them for their own good, a good they are unable to recognize or seek unaided.  These laws and regulations will be created and enforced by a small class of elite “progressives” (the term they generally prefer; who, after all, could be against progress?) who are, by virtue of their education, sophistication, beliefs and highly attuned sense of social justice (generally best understood as whichever social and economic policies elite socialists prefer at the moment), already perfected.

Therefore, for the socialist, the only true evil is resistance to the evolved social consciousness of the elite socialist.  One might quibble about labels, and might be more comfortable with the labels “progressive” or “statist,” but I trust you understand that I am not engaging in gratuitous name-calling, but merely trying to clearly explain defining contemporary philosophical and political trains of thought.  I trust that if you apply them to the policies and stated beliefs of our current “leaders”–if “leading from behind” can actually be called leadership–you’ll find these descriptions to fit rather well.

For the Socialist/Progressive/Statist, unalienable rights do not exist; indeed they cannot exist.  The only rights are those allowed at any given moment by the state.  In this polity, rights are reduced to the reality and force of mere privileges.  Religion, with its quaint, superstitious adherence to the doctrine of an eternal battle between good and evil, is just that, quaint and superstitious.  It may be, from time to time, politically useful, particularly when the votes of believers might be won through stealth or outright subterfuge, or when a denomination takes up the banner of preferred leftist social causes, advancing it before—or instead of—religious doctrine, but religion is always dangerous and to be feared and suppressed because of its inherent general resistance to progressive socialist enlightenment, which is always ongoing and evolving because it can never be falsified.

This is another fundamental conflict between the religious and the socialist.  Religion relies upon certain God-given, unchanging truths and principles.  Socialism constantly evolves as ever more intelligent, elite scientific socialists perfect it and labor to perfect the ungrateful masses against their will.  The only unchanging truth and principle of socialism is that socialism represents the only hope of man—despite millennia of failure–and may never be falsified.

If glorious socialist perfection has not been reached, it is only because the unenlightened resist and because insufficient socialism has been applied.  Because man is always in the necessary process of being perfected by his betters, neither unalienable rights nor adherence to a moldy, faded, yellowing document written by privileged white men in the late 1700’s can be allowed to stand in the way of the brave, inevitable march of socialist progress.  The greatest weakness of socialist thought and policy is always a fundamental misunderstanding, even willful ignorance, of human nature.  That, and as Margaret Thatcher said, you always run out of other people’s money.

Conservatives have no doubt of the existence of evil or of its eternal work in the world. They overwhelmingly embrace Christian theology and its bedrock understanding of men as fallen sinners who can never attain perfection on Earth.  Mankind cannot be perfected—he will sin; it is his very nature and for those who will see, the evidence of history is irrefutable–yet the social contract works best when he has the greatest possible freedom and autonomy.  He has, above all, free will and can chose to be altruistic, kind and considerate of others. Even so, he sometimes will choose otherwise, and consequences for personal misbehavior must be made swift and certain and must be justly applied while upholding the essential dignity and worth of the individual.

Thus do Conservatives accept the necessity of the Social Contract, of the equality before the law of all men, of the rule of law, and of a supreme law of the land–-the Constitution–-which may not and should not change–-as the Founders put it–-for light and transient reasons, because the fundamental nature of human beings does not change.  This is why conservatives are so alarmed and disgusted by President Obama’s lawless behavior.  For conservatives, any balance of power that favors the state at the expense of the unalienable rights of the individual is illegitimate, tyrannical and must be resisted, and if necessary, overthrown by the force of arms recognized and affirmed for The People by the Second Amendment.  This is its real purpose and the reason it is so hated by Progressives.

Such republican (as in our federal republican form of government) rhetoric is often decried with mock horror by Progressives who cry “anti-Americanism,” but this is merely one of the straw men Socialists—such as Mr. Obama—reflexively erect.  Who can take seriously such people as former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano who claimed military veterans returning from the battlefield pose a greater danger than Islamist terrorists?

Understanding the real purpose of the Constitution, and particularly of the Second Amendment, one realizes that Conservatives are not at all radical, are surely not dangerous–except to those that wish America ill–and merely reflect and adopt the thinking of the Founders and the text and intent of the foundational documents of the Republic including The Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.

[article continues on next page]