Dec 1, 2018 6 min read

It will come as no surprise when I express that all is not well in American politics. We are a nation not just divided but increasingly polarized. What is driving the polarization and what possible outcomes of our current circumstance await us? I will examine these issues in two parts.

This nation is no longer politically defined by simple party designation. The divide is much more fundamental, and while the differentiation is termed Republican and Democrat, the divide is actually one of core philosophy. The divide is so deep that it has been described as a “cold civil war.”

The motive force of our cold civil war is that America is increasingly polarized by two diametric views of the Constitution. Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna College spoke eloquently of this situation in a lecture earlier this year, and I will elaborate on some of his thoughts.

Political science, if such really exists, postulates two types of politics: normal politics and regime politics. Normal politics is generally what we have known since this nation’s founding and happens within the confines of the Constitution and traditional politics. The defining characteristic is that it is focused on means and not ends. In normal politics, national objectives are more or less agreed upon and the discussion is about how best to get there. Regime politics is about the ends, who rules and who has power. Means to an end versus ends justifying the means.

Normal politics is based upon our Constitution and grounded in the “natural rights” of the individual described in the Declaration of Independence.

Regime politics is based on what is termed by liberals the “living Constitution.” This concept views the original Constitution as dead and irrelevant unless it is continuously modified with new ends and fresh interpretation, which redefine the duties, rights and powers of its citizens.

The “living Constitution” is not about natural rights or individual rights but about continuously evolving group rights.

The existing Constitution is difficult, by design, to amend. The “living Constitution” is easily amended based upon contemporary thought and circumstance.

The existing Constitution is a guiding beacon as opposed to the living Constitution being a confirming snapshot.

In short, normal politics holds individual rights as defined in the historical documents to be preeminent while regime politics holds ever changing collective rights to be supreme. It is the clash of opposing Constitutions, manifest in normal and regime politics, that has led us to the cold civil war.

As liberals have been more actively opposed by conservatives, liberals have been forced to act increasingly radically to defend their “new” position, whatever it is on a given day. This has pushed the liberals further and faster to extreme positions, constantly enlarging the gap and creating increasing polarity. This is why we are becoming a divided nation of starkly contrasting views on the nature of the rights, duties and powers of individual citizens.

The liberals attribute rights to membership in a particular group based on race, gender, ethnicity, social class or other identifiable grouping and then endeavor to define each as some type of oppressed minority in need of special consideration.

The conservatives base their concept of individual rights on human nature, which is devoid of race, gender, ethnicity or social class. Rights are a property of the individual as a human being with a soul and reason. Conservatives base their view of the Constitution on human equality, liberty and natural rights. Liberals base their living Constitution on secular group rights.

The manifestations of these differences are evident in how the two groups view specific aspects of government. Nowhere is that difference clearer than in the liberals’ disdain for the First Amendment.

The First Amendment speaks clearly to guarantees of freedom in many areas, including religion, free expression and the right of free assembly. The First Amendment does not grant rights but rather prohibits the government from interfering with natural rights.

With regard to the First Amendment, liberals seek to change free speech into what they call “equal speech.” This, in their view, means everyone gets an equal amount of speech. They propose doing this by limiting campaign spending and by limiting those opposing them the opportunity to speak. They see this as redistributing free speech from the rich to the poor (class envy and class conflict as previously mentioned). The hypocrisy of their position is that they shout down, deride and suppress any speech contrary to their vision of desirable ends. Suppressing truth is not a problem to them because truth, to the liberals, is irrelevant to the cause (remember the focus on “ends” and not “means”).

Liberals also promote conflict in the practice of religion, seeking to create freedom from religion as opposed to the conservative and constitutional concept of freedom of religion. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion. Current liberal interpretation of this provision is that religion and government should never intersect, and this is clearly a misinterpretation. Prayers are still said at the beginning of House and Senate sessions. The Ten Commandments are prominently carved into many courthouse buildings. The Declaration of Independence speaks clearly of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Liberals seek to destroy religion as a moral force, eliminating resistance to their secular ends.

To the liberals, the right of assembly means their right to assemble as violently as they wish while limiting any other group’s right to assemble by disruption and intimidation. This is seen clearly on college campuses where conservative groups are banned from existence under varying pretenses and disrupted when they do meet.

In general, liberals promote larger government with more power concentrated in government as opposed to the conservative concept of smaller government with power focused in the individual. As government gets larger, the power of the ruling elite becomes greater.

In part two, I shall discuss the type of government envisioned by regime politics and speculate on where all this might end.

Dave Ball is vice chairman of the Washington County Republican Party and a Peters Township councilman.