Nick, Kate and Doris:

The RedState post below won’t mean anything if the damn Republicans fail to rule from principle. Here, I am talking about those enduring forms, the like of which Richard M. Weaver spoke — his “eternal aspect” forms. (“Ideas Have Consequences,” 1948.)

Without adherence to principle, the People will continue to restrain by robbing power, first from one side, then from the other.

And by the way, I would love it if Democrats would finally be honest about the source of their political beliefs: “The unruly mob is too ignorant/selfish to govern itself, therefore we need the restraint and servitude that socialism offers.”

That principle, and the debate to follow, won’t happen for reasons understandable — which of us would admit that we are part of the unruly mob — uncivilized, undisciplined and every demanding of immediate gratification?

(Here, in the email to friends, the the above RedState post was attached).

Doris/Nick:

On page 38 of this week’s The Weekly Standard (“Still being Felt?”) — this: “The French Revolution was a seismic upheaval ultimately pitting those who believe in man’s essential goodness against those who are terrified by man’s capacity for evil.”

Even without the proper context, from the above we can conclude, as Steven Pinker might conclude, that the Utopian Left represents the first, and the Tragic Right are the second. Given Pinker’s case that the Utopian Vision turns on the belief that human nature is malleable, this reading makes sense.

However, I interpret differently — the open sentence asking for the second look. If we believe that man cannot govern himself, that he is hopelessly corrupt and must be constantly corrected, then we are not dealing with essential goodness, but the capacity for evil. And which political side is very big on correction?

My willingness to believe in my fellow man — that is, my willingness to believe we live in a positive, pro-life world — this allows me to allow; allows me to live my life as a free man, one who resists infringing on the rights of others. Thus, on this, I would lay claim to the belief in essential goodness.

The principles put forth in our Constitution are part of the enduring form. If we don’t believe that we are a Free People endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, then, yes, we turn our conduct over to others to decide. If we don’t understand that the Rule of Law and Equal Protection under the law are to be taken as eternal forms, then naturally weconsent to consensus tyranny in the name of “common good.”

When we surrender freedom and personal responsibility for the Collective concept of the “common good” or “social justice,” then it makes perfect sense to embrace the idea that social engineering will eventually get it right; will eventually create goodness out of man’s inherent Goodness.

Except this: Socialism doesn’t just attempt to make the new man, it requires the new man.

To accept Pinker’s Tragic Vision (Thomas Sowell’s Constrained Vision) is to accept human limitation. To look away from political potential, while ever mindful of the Constant Goodness, allows the Human Spirit to exist on its own terms. The soul transcends the tinkering of human intentions.