I had dinner a few years ago with a another lawyer and two lobbyists/public relations "specialists" from Washington, D.C. The other lawyer was a died-in-the-wool Southern liberal of the "old school" (meaning late 60's, early '70's vintage) who still believes that he and his ilk are the "New Elite," destined to rule the world by dint of their superior performance on standardized tests. The two lobbyists, a man and a woman, were veterans of both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. The dinner conversation became more lively with each bottle of wine consumed.
My leftward leaning lawyer acquaintance told us that he was living and working in Europe for much of the 1980's and was "embarrassed" that Reagan was our President. He said that to Reagan was too simplistic, to folksy, too unsophisticated for European tastes. He said he had a hard time looking his European friends in the eye during that time period. I responded that it's hard to look a man in the eye when your nose is shoved up his ass. The Republican operatives sat back grinning, letting me do the heavy lifting. That was fine by me.
As I reminded my liberal dinner companion, one of the major aspects of Reagan's legacy was his rejuvenation of the idea (fallen out of favor in the 20 years preceding his election) that there exist basic principles that are correct for all people at all times. He rejected "moral relativism," not in a cruel or hateful way, but nevertheless, with determination. He articulated, in terms that non-intellectuals could understand, the central idea that America must adhere to and promote the basic principles upon which this country was founded and which are embodied in our Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution. These principles are not merely "opinions" or "preferences," on a par with other principles or preferences; they are fundamental principles that the people who founded this nation believed were more worthy of acceptance than principles that opposed, and that continue to oppose, them. They are "good" in an absolute sense, and they are superior to contrary principles.
Moral relativism holds that no specific values ought to be considered to be superior to any other specific values, in an absolute sense. Perhaps in a given situation at a given time, a particular value ought to prevail, but in other circumstances, at other times, other principles could prevail. There is no such thing as a value that is "absolutely correct," other than the value that no value is absolutely correct. Of course, moral relativism, when applied to political values, undermines liberal democracy itself. Yet, for many reasons, relativism will continue to be embraced and promoted by many in our individualistic society. Certainly, the concept of relativism seems to hold sway in Western Europe, at leas that part of it that is not becoming, through a demographic freight train that is barreling down the tracks, Muslim. Muslims don't seem to buy off on relativism.
Those Americans who did not live through the period from John F. Kennedy's assassination until the end of the dreary administration of "Lust-In-His-Heart" James Earl Carter may not understand the miasma that encompassed America at the time Reagan first ran for President. Moral relativism had so seeped into the intellectual and cultural elites of the US (not to mention the rest of the "civilized" world) that the American people were being advised by many of their own most-influential political and intellectual leaders that we had failed to achieve the ideals in which we professed to believe; that those ideals were not achievable by us, and, therefore they were not achievable by others whose "cultures" were less amenable to their adoption than was ours; that they were not entitled to preference over other principles; and that only our unjustified arrogance led us to continue to proclaim their superiority. Moreover, these same doomsayers, by their words and their actions, told us that we were a declining power, bereft of the right to assert our supremacy or the supremacy of the principles of our political system. Carter's administration was the embodiment of this vapid and demoralizing "settle in for the decline and fall" viewpoint.
1980 brought us Reagan, and the tide turned. He may not have been as sophisticated in his outward manner as Kennedy or Roosevelt. He might have sounded even "folksy" (although anyone who listened to Carter or, even worse, Johnson, had little to criticize by way of comparison). Yet, he spoke plainly and clearly. While he was firm, he was not mean spirited (as much political discussion has become since he left office). The majority of the American people liked both him AND the ideas he expressed. They struck a fundamental chord. He pushed the country back to the center, where most Americans feel most comfortable. More importantly, however, he told that majority that America and its political values were still great ones, worthy of our dedication to them, and, if required, of our sacrifice to protect and promote them. He gave us hope. He energized us. Frankly, I think he saved us from a downward spiral.
The only thing that embarrassed me was that I wasted valuable time listening to a would-be intellectual "strike a pose" and insult our other dinner guests by berating a man for whom they worked and in whose ideas they believed, because, I assumed, that man didn't wear an Armani suit, puff French cigarettes, and affect a mid-Atlantic accent. If Reagan embarrassed him so much, I couldn't imagine how he could bear the then-current shame of George W. Hell, why wasn't he living, right now, in a cozy little villa in the south of France with Elton John?
The lobbyists took it all in good stride, but then the leftard was their client and they had to let it slide. As long as he paid his bills promptly, much wrongheadedness would be tolerated. I'm not as forgiving...but I'm working on it.
Recent Comments