American Nationalisms

“In fact official American belief regards the Declaration of Independence as the beginning of an endless process of active movement toward an ever more egalitarian and universalist society. This is because of the intervention between us and the Founding Fathers of that sea-change in the thinking of men that is summed up in the term ‘the French Revolution.”

Dr. Clyde N. Wilson
From Union To Empire

Wilson’s thesis is that American Nationalism has undergone a series of transmutations, the degree of which, has left the successive American Nationalism incomprehensible to the previous American Nationalism. Wilson suggests that the taking of the Declaration of Independence as a document that insures a endless process of active movement toward an ever more egalitarian and universalist society, is the consequence of the second American Nationalism, as crafted by the French Revolution and birthed in America through the war of Northern Aggression. Wilson seems to suggest that the American commitment to the idea that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights was a far different stripe from the French Revolution egalitarianism that came to be eventually accepted in the American Nationalism that was successive to the form of Nationalism of the Founding Fathers. It would seem that the difference between these two competing notions of equality is the difference between the older belief that men are equal in respect to the application of law and the newer belief that men should be equal in opportunity and outcome.

Wilson goes on to note that there was another American Nationalism that was propelled during the Progressive era and consolidated during the after WW II.

“During and after WWII American society for the third time made a perilous leap into the cauldron of history, boiling down its existing consensus in the optimistic prospect of molding itself into a newer and more daring form. The Civil Rights revolution and a revolutionary alteration of the immigration laws were simultaneously undertaken in the 1960’s. It was as if the Melting pot, having proven itself able to boil down all of Europe, was now to test its capacity to do the same for the whole world.”

The question that Wilson raises is whether or not such a stripped down American Nationalism that is posited only upon unitarian notions of egalitarianism provides enough ingredients in order to make a cultural glue by which a culture may find cohesion.

In a culture where there exist no communitarian mystic chords of memory that includes either a shared ethnicity, a shared literature, a shared music, a shared religion, a shared history, or a shared language there exists nothing that can bind a people together except a shared prosperity. The question that begs being asked is whether or not a nation can stay together when national prosperity turns to national adversity except by brute force as used by the State.

Preston Brooks & Joe Wilson — South Carolina Congressmen

Tuesday night US Congresssmen Joe Wilson broke the etiquette rules of political decorum by shouting out “You Lie, You Lie” during a Yankee President’s speech. The last time a South Carolinian Congressman broke Washingtonian decorum in such an arresting fashion for the sin of Yankee lying US Congressman Preston Smith Brooks beat the snot out of a Yankee Senator named Charles Sumner using a walking cane to administer the lashing. Given the firestorm that Wilson’s shout out has created one would have thought that Wilson had cane lashed Obama as opposed to merely boisterously correcting the Yankee President’s lies.

Congressman Brooks lived in a culture of honor that demanded retribution against Sumner’s lies against a family member serving in the US Senate. Having long jettisoned a culture of honor it may be that shouting out “You Lie, You Lie” is the closest thing a South Carolinian today can get to administering a cane lashing to a notable liar. At the very least in both cases, each of the South Carolinian Congressman felt deeply aggrieved by the lies that they were being subject to. Congressman Brooks, living in a culture of honor, and having vindicated his family’s honor never apologized and was amply resupplied by well wishers and admirers for the cane he broke over Sumner’s back. Congressman Wilson, living in a culture of political correctness, immediately apologized for speaking the truth at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

The one and only point here that we need to take to heart is how each response to lies heard by our respective US South Carolina Congressmen reflected and reflects, during their respective eras, the division that was then and is now present in this country. When Rep. Preston Brooks took exception to a Jacobin Politician’s lies the nation was being violently pulled apart over a intense disagreement over the role and nature of the Government. On one side were those, like Sumner, who sought to expand the role of the Federal Government beyond its Constitutional boundaries. On the other side were those, like Brooks, who sought to restrict the role of the Federal Government to its Constitutional boundaries. The occasion of, what was to become a bloody disagreement, was the issue of slavery.

153 years later is a South Carolina Congressman once again serving as a harbinger of a violent national contest? Like Brooks, Wilson took exception to a Jacobin Politician’s lies. Like the era that Brooks lived in, Wilson lives in an era where the nation is violently being pulled apart over an intense disagreement over the role and nature of government. Today, on one side are those, like Obama, who is seeking to expand the role of the Federal Government even further beyond our Constitutional boundaries. Today, on the other side are those, like Wilson who is seeking to restrict the role of the Federal government to its Constitutional boundaries. The occasion of this disagreement once again is the issue of slavery.

Both in 1856 and in 2009 Jacobins and Marxists in the country were and are seeking to enslave men to the Nation State. It was in order to avoid enslavement to the ambitions of a burgeoning National government that the South seceded. We are once again at the point where we are going to have to make some difficult decisions on how to deal with the ambitions of a burgeoning National government that intends to enslave the citizenry through controlling our lives through a socialized health care mechanism.

Citizens today should perhaps look at the attempt at socialized health care the way that Southerners looked at the attempt at the socialized Morrill Tariff act. Both proposed acts, in the end, were about the ability to enrich the government at the expense of impoverishing American citizens. Perhaps the way we are threatened to being financially squeezed today by the Federal Government will cause us to sympathize with the way that Southerners were being financially squeezed in the run up to the War.

South Carolina US Congressman Preston Brooks was upset by that.

So is South Carolina US Congressman Joe Wilson.

Maybe we should send Joe some canes in appreciation.

Mohler and Piper Fall Into The Obama Soup

Dr. Mohler’s Thoughts:

The controversy over President Barack Obama’s speech to America’s school children scheduled for Tuesday morning continues to incite controversy. On the surface, this seems incredible. Why would a speech calling for students to remain in school and set personal goals for themselves incite any controversy at all? Is this just another eruption of the Culture War?

At first glance, that seems to be exactly what this fracas is all about. Much of the controversy is reckless, baseless, and plainly irrational. Some have called the speech an effort to recruit America’s children into socialism. Others have argued that any presidential speech piped into classrooms is illegitimate. But a presidential speech to students is hardly unprecedented. This speech by this president has led to an unprecedented uproar.

At this level, the controversy is a national embarrassment. Conservatives must avoid jumping on every conspiracy theory and labeling every action by the Obama administration as sinister or socialist. Our civic culture is debased when opposing parties and political alignments read every proposal by the other side as suspect on its face.

Instead of gushing over Obama’s words why can’t Mohler say something like,

The problem with Obama’s speech to America’s school students is not so much in the content as in the presuppositions behind the speech. There was a time when Parents understood it was their responsibility to raise, educate and motivate their children. Now, not only have we turned to the state to educate and raise our children, but we find it perfectly acceptable for the President to play the role of “Parent in Chief.”

The great Dr. J. Gresham Machen understood this. Machen, speaking of education could say,

“The most important Christian Education institution is not the pulpit or the school, important as those institutions are; but it is the Christian family. And that institution has to a very large extent ceased to do its work.

~ J. Gresham Machen, in Education, Christianity, and the State.

But instead of taking the opportunity to once again emphasize to his natural constituency the necessity to get their children out of government schools, Mohler takes the opportunity to lament over cultural war resistance to a man who desires to implement his Marxist ideology on America.

Certainly Obama’s speech is not the most sinister thing he has yet done but Obama, unlike many Christian spokesmen, doesn’t compartmentalize his belief system. All that Obama does, including speaking to America’s children is done with a view towards the cultural Marxist end he desires to achieve. As such, any resistance to Obama in anything that he does is a necessary resistance.

The fact that Mohler can warn people against finding something sinister or socialist in every deed Obama is a warning that reveals a great amount of naivete.

John Piper’s take:

This is the speech I expected the President to give to our children—excellent.

Given that he is not directing them to Christ, which would be the best counsel, his advice is a wonderful gift of common grace from God to the students of our land.

If you settle for the news headlines that say the president tells the kids to wash their hands and take care of the environment, you will miss the wisdom and courage in this speech. Within its spiritual limitations it is simply amazing.”

Like Mohler, Piper doesn’t seem to realize what is going on in government schools. Why would Piper refer to this as common grace? Given the worldview that America’s children are learning in government schools, the encouragement to children to do well in government schools would seem more like the doctrine of common damnation.

Would Piper have spoken this way if Joe Stalin had given the speech? Would Piper have gushed about Stalin’s speech being simply amazing? No, Piper wouldn’t say that because he would realize how hypocritical it would be for the Murderer of millions to be blathering on about the necessity to do well in school. Yet Piper speaks in glowing terms about a man who has voted repeatedly to deny babies born from botched abortions medical care. Piper speaks in glowing terms about a man who shares the same exact ideology and faith system as Joe Stalin.

If one realizes the stakes there is nothing irrational about opposing Obama at every turn. I don’t want America’s children admiring Obama any more than I wanted them admiring Bush or any number of other leftist politicians.

Observations On The Regnant Follies

** This morning I was watching a round table discussion on the all things neo-con Fox News Network and I heard Charles Krauthammer say, in reference to the Van Jones resignation that,

“it was the (9-11) truther signature that did Van Jones in, you know you can have a Communist or two in the White house … but you can’t have somebody in the White House who believes in a Bush Conspiracy that the government was involved in 9-11.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/07/special_report_panel_on_van_jones_resignation.html

Nobody on the panel blinked at Krauthammer’s statement.

Friends, this shows us how far out of touch the inside the beltway crowd is with both History and middle America. You can have a Communist or two in the White House? You can have a person or two in the White House who embraces the ideology that is responsible for the death of over 100 million people in the 20th century? How insane is that?

What if Krauthammer had said instead,

“it was the (9-11) truther signature that did Van Jones in, you know you can have a Nazi or two in the White house … but you can’t have somebody in the White House who believes in a Bush Conspiracy that the government was involved in 9-11.” (?)

Obviously such a statement would never have been given a pass. This another indicator to me that the worldview warfare that happens in Washington is between two different expressions of the Left. Fox News represents the Trotskyite left wing of the conversation.

** The American Pravada press insists that the reason Van Jones was fired was because of his “9-11 Truther signature,” and due to publicly calling Republican “a**ho*es.” Don’t you believe it. The reason that this reason is given for Van Jones being fired is due to the fact that if Van Jones Marxism was given as the reason for being fired then Obama might have to resign since his Marxism makes Van Jones’ Marxism look like romper room stuff. In the end they got rid of Van Jones in order to keep people from connecting Van Jones’ Marxism to Obama’s Marxism.

** If you watch Obama’s speech tomorrow night keep in mind that the man embraces the Alinsky method that teaches that the means justifies the ends and if the means to socialized health care is violating antiquated notions of being honest then so much the worse for being honest. Keep in mind in the Obama Marxist worldview honesty is not defined as speaking in such a way that words correspond to reality. Rather Obama’s Marxists worldview teaches him that honesty is speaking in such a way that words create the reality that the Marxist is seeking to bring in.

** So what if Van Jones had to leave?

Big Whoop!

For every Van Jones that has to leave this administration there are 100 more waiting to take his place. The problem wasn’t Van Jones. The problem is the Marxist in Chief who is appointing fellow travelers like Van Jones, Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Valerie Jarret, The Emmanuel Brothers — Zeke and Rahm, etc.

** Much of what we are seeing in Washington reminds me again that the problem behind our problem of Washington Doofuses is our University system. It is our Ivy League schools and other top line Universities that keep spitting out “our best and brightest” who are thorough going collectivists, statists, and tyrants. Republicans and Democrats alike, who have been marinated in our University system, are inevitably going to be people who are tainted with a large collectivist giddy-up in their thinking.

** Prediction — The Democrats will pass a socialized health care bill with a public option.

Ask The Pastor — What Is “General Equity?”

Dear Pastor,

What does the phrase, “General Equity,” such as we find in the Westminster Confession Of Faith in 19:4 mean?

As I understand it, the General Equity answers the question as to how the Old Testament civil law is to be applied in the Nations today and perhaps the best analogy for understanding it is the metaphor of kernel and husk. The general equity advocates the idea that the husk of the Old Testament civil law is discarded but the kernel of the matter remains. So, in the classic example, the requirement of fences being built around roof tops in the OT finds the husk of the requirement expired while the kernel of protecting your neighbor remains in a law, for example, that insists on building a fence around your pool. So, “general equity” means to find valid and obligatory the principle articulated in the civil law, keeping in mind that the civil law was nothing but God incarnating His moral law into every day life.

Remember, the conviction is that the civil law was merely the case law of the moral law. Much as our Supreme Court makes decisions applying the Constitution to the cases that comes before it, God’s given civil law was God applying His Constitution (i.e.– The moral law — Decalogue), in concrete ways, to the society in which His people lived. Now, obviously we no longer live in an agrarian B.C. culture, and so much of the husk of the civil law remains behind, however, what the case law was aiming at in principle remains… and it remains only because it was a true flowering of God’s Moral Law. When we advocate for the general equity we are advocating for God’s own application of the moral law, as He revealed it in the OT Civil Law, for our era.