These “progressives” know what is best for society. They are pragmatists, not bound by “obsolete” customs, laws or quaint traditions. They have the ability to improve, tweaking things here or there or developing a complete master plan for society. The elite see things that you and I cannot. They are big thinkers, social engineers, problem-solvers. We are mere molecules, blithely moving too and fro. If only we would let them, these philosopher-kings would improve our lives immensely.
Law, tradition and a dwindling portion of the masses prevent them from junking the Constitution, the primary obstacle to them. Only fools and a few laws prevent their victory over this artifact of history. So, they chip away a word, clause or sentence at a time. They approve judges who agree that the Constitution should not be an obstacle to societal “improvements.” They have already emasculated much of it already. Soon they will overcome the rest.
These elite leftists are delusional. They suffer from what Thomas Sowell refers to as “the vision of the anointed.” The self-proclaimed erudite believe that their vision is superior to others. Society could be so much better, if only the ignorant would put them in charge. Frederich Hayek termed this arrogance “the fatal conceit.”
The folly of believing that society can be designed from the top down is pure arrogance. Societies are not designed but evolve. Societies develop as a result of human action but not human design. Rules, laws and traditions emerge from a process of trial and error. Those that work better replace the alternatives. Over time this evolutionary trial and error process produces the set of rules, traditions and customs that govern society.
The rationale for the choice/rejection of rules, traditions and customs is frequently lost with the passage of time. In retrospect, this loss is unfortunate because it provides an opening for the social witch doctors. As rationalists, if something cannot be justified logically, it should be replaced by something that can.
Just because we cannot rationalize some law or tradition does not mean we can remove or improve upon it. The arrogance of believing otherwise is has provided the law of unintended consequences which results in “improvements” creating more problems than they were intended to solve.
Society is complex and not easily dissected or re-designed. The evolutionist view of society runs counter to the progressive view. Superior minds, in their own superior opinion, can improve anything. This fatal conceit is the root cause of the attack on tradition, custom and the Constitution. A superior mind, even if it is truly superior, is not capable of doing all things. Albert Einstein’s views in physics were truly superior. His prescriptions for social improvements were not.
Edmund Burke observed:
In my course I have known and, according to my measure, have co-operated with great men; and I have never seen any plan which has not been mended by the observations of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead in the business.
Even if you grant good intentions on the part of social engineers (and many do not), you will have bad outcomes from the implementation of any grand plan. Knowledge is limited and much of it is local. Tradition and customs in non-primitive societies do not develop arbitrarily. They result from the collective wisdom culled over time by an evolutionary process. No single mind can understand that process or duplicate it.
The fatal conceit of the progressive is believing that he has the answers and can improve anything. Progressives believe they are “the best and the brightest,” a phrase coined by one of them which is a monument to their arrogance.
Believing this, it is easy to assume that they must be able to improve upon what these lesser persons provided. Modern-day Statists know they are smarter than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, et al.
Despite their self-importance, these dilettantes would be unable to hold their own in a conversation or debate with Jefferson and his ilk. Does anyone believe that Barack Obama or any of his epigones are cut from the same cloth?
The current Constitutional issue of the day is guns. Progressives rage against the Second Amendment, claiming it is the root of gun evil. Their arrogance and superiority is immediately apparent in their arguments.
The only thing worse to them than the Constitution is a Constitutionalist who can communicate with common folks. That is why they dislike Andrew Napolitano so much. Here is his take on this issue:
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
If you have listened to President Obama and Vice President Biden talk about guns in the past month, you have heard them express a decided commitment to use the powers of the federal government to maintain safety in the United States. You also have heard congressional voices from politicians in both parties condemning violence and promising to do something about it. This sounds very caring and inside the wheelhouse of what we hire and pay the federal government to do.
But it is clearly unconstitutional.
When the Founders created the American republic, they did so by inducing constitutional conventions in each of the original 13 states to ratify the new Constitution. The idea they presented, and the thesis accepted by those ratifying conventions, was that the states are sovereign; they derive their powers from the people who live there. The purpose of the Constitution was to create a federal government of limited powers — powers that had been delegated to it by the states. The opening line of the Constitution contains a serious typographical error: “We the People” should read “We the States.” As President Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states created the federal government and not the other way around.
Notwithstanding the Constitution’s typo, the states delegated only 16 unique, discrete powers to the new federal government, and all of those powers concern nationhood. The Constitution authorizes the feds to regulate in areas of national defense, foreign affairs, keeping interstate commerce regular, establishing a post office, protecting patents and artistic creations, and keeping the nation free. The areas of health, safety, welfare and morality were not delegated to the feds and were retained by the States.
How do we know that? We know it from the language in the Constitution itself and from the records of the debates in the state ratifying conventions. The small-government types, who warned at these conventions that the Constitution was creating a behemoth central government not unlike the one in Great Britain from which they had all just seceded, were assured that the unique separation of powers between the states and the new limited federal government would guarantee that power could not become concentrated in the central government.
It was articulated even by the big-government types in the late 18th century — such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton — as well as by the small-government types — such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison — that the new government was limited to the powers delegated to it by the states and the states retained the governmental powers that they did not delegate away. At Jefferson’s insistence, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to keep the new government from interfering with natural rights such as speech, worship, self-defense, privacy and property rights, and the 10th Amendment was included to assure that the Constitution itself would proclaim affirmatively that the powers not delegated to the feds were retained by the states or the people.
The Supreme Court has ruled consistently and countless times that the “police power,” that is, the power to regulate for health, safety, welfare and morality, continues to be reposed in the states, and that there is no federal police power. All of this is consistent with the philosophical principle of “subsidiarity,” famously articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas argued that the problems that are closest to the people needing government intervention should be addressed by the government closest to those people. Its corollary is that all governmental intervention should be the minimum needed.
Now, back to Obama and Biden and their colleagues in the government. If the feds have no legitimate role in maintaining safety, why are they getting involved in the current debate over guns? We know that they don’t trust individuals to address their own needs, from food to health to safety, and they think — the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding — that they know better than we do how to care for ourselves. Obama and Biden and many of their colleagues in government are the same folks who gave us Obamacare, with its mandates, invasions of privacy, increased costs and federal regulation of health care. They call themselves progressives, as they believe that the federal government possesses unlimited powers and can do whatever those who run it want it to do, except that which is expressly prohibited.
This brings us back to guns. The Constitution expressly prohibits all governments from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This permits us to defend ourselves when the police can’t or won’t, and it permits a residue of firepower in the hands of the people with which to stop any tyrant who might try to infringe upon our natural rights, and it will give second thoughts to anyone thinking about tyranny.
The country is ablaze with passionate debate about guns, and the government is determined to do something about it. Debate over public policy is good for freedom. But the progressives want to use the debate to justify the coercive power of the government to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding folks because of what some crazies among us have done. We must not permit this to happen.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to insulate personal freedom from the lust for power of those in government and from the passions of the people who sent them there.