Political Rhetoric, Civil Discourse and the Morality of Means and Ends

Rhetoric, as described by Locke, Campbell and other classical thinkers is something used to help men find truth and develop virtue. It is the way men use language to not only better themselves, but to better understand the world around them and the natural truths it contains. Locke, for example, argued that men should take care to acknowledge God’s truth first, opposed to other forms of knowledge put forth by men because natural religion, or God’s word, is not easily misunderstood. Campbell, basing much of his work off Locke, argued there was two types of reasoning, moral and scientific. Moral reasoning took precedence because it was based on human experience and testimony, tying the ideas of moral virtue directly to the absolute truth of God. Furthermore, Campbell also believed that the way we use our language and convey our thoughts has as much weight, or more, as the logic behind them. In other words, you could be making a factual argument but the way you are presenting it is preventing people from listening. This is called the eloquence of persuasion and relates to the issue of civility in our current, national conversation.

America is certainly at a point where two worldviews diametrically opposed to one another, are fighting for dominance. On one side is the belief that man was endowed by our creator with certain, unalienable rights which cannot be deprived of us. Proponents of this view believe people can self-govern, and that government itself, being a necessary evil, has a limited role in human affairs. On the other ̶ the belief that government should have a more prominent role in people’s lives while also, gaining power through central control of the economy. People making this argument tend to believe government should have the responsibility of ensuring resources are distributed equally. In simpler terms it is an ideological battle over the liberal nanny state and free market capitalism. These conflicting worldviews cannot realistically coexist in a world where truth exists as an absolute. The former view is based on the Christian worldview positing the idea that God created men with freewill; thus, representing an absolute reality. The latter, that government should essentially be the central power in people’s lives. The question then arises as to whether a real sense of civility can be brought back to the national debate with two views which contrast so strongly.

What is civility? Who defines its terms? Unfortunately, this is something that the opposing sides of left and right cannot even agree upon. If the terms of civil debate are not mutually agreeable, how could any consensus over such controversial issues that we face today possibly be reached? For example, Dr. John Livingston writes that civility requires first, that one respect themselves to respect and engage in civil conversations with others. This coincides with both John Locke’s and Hugh Blairs assertion that rhetoric should aim to produce men of virtue that seek the betterment of their own understandings. Dr. Livingston is arguing that there are certain virtues a man must possess to engage in civil dialogue. These are faith, hope charity, courage, providence, justice, and temperance. These virtues are largely associated with the Christian religion and reflect the inner morals of faithful men.

In the book Crisis in Civility? Political Discourse and Its Discontents, Anthony Simon Laden, in chapter one, suggests that civility in politics revolves around winning arguments or turning people from their previously held positions to leaning more towards yours. He hints at the uncivil nature of such strategies by pointing out the fact that politicians often turn to smear campaigns designed to discredit and humiliate their opponents. Civil discourse, he suggests, revolves around coming to agreements. He also refers to a concept known as civility of politeness which suggests, in the course of day to day life, people in a society such as ours owe it to each other to live and let live and at the very least, conduct ourselves in a polite manner towards one another. Furthermore, Laden also points out that the consequences of political discourse that take on an uncivil tone tend to create tension in society while appealing to what he refers to as man’s violent tendencies. This is ironic because the book itself seems to be defining the terms of civility by suggesting on page 24, that being civil sometimes requires the “sacrifice of political advantage in the name of fairness.” The author of chapter one also shows his political bias by suggesting that Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton and George Bush were the ones calling for national civility amongst what he referred to as the nation’s most uncivil time, the 2016 presidential election. As if Republicans were the ones calling everyone racist.

Today’s political discourse revolves around whether man can be free and govern himself, as our founding documents set forth, or, the idea that we need government to manage our affairs. Considering the concepts put forth by Laden, is it possible that the two opposing sides can come to any agreements? Would we even want them too? Our nation is founded on the ideals of self-governance, individual responsibility and unalienable rights which are naturally inherent to being human. Of the two opposing parties fighting for political dominance one side allegedly believes in these principles while the other clearly does not. The hard-political left clearly displays their uncivil nature by viciously attacking anything that stands in their way. They actively seek to rip the fundamental principles of our founding apart while replacing them with Marxist philosophies which go against the very word of God and natures self-evident truth. How can you be civil with people who seek to destroy everything you believe in?

Of the two opposing factions fighting for our loyalty and votes, one side all too often displays a willingness to compromise and seek terms of agreements while the other shows them no respect for doing so. This comes down to the nature of the philosophies driving the parties. The Republicans, which are supposed to represent the Christian right, are more likely to compromise because it is often seen as the civil thing to do.

The political discourse taking place today is driven by the perceptions each side have of the country in which we live. The definition of equality and freedom are vastly different as Republicans tend to believe in personal responsibility and equality of opportunity while the left argues America was founded on racism and only certain people are afforded opportunity; therefore, the government must intervene. They believe their visions for America represent a superior morality, and they are more concerned with winning an argument to achieve their vision, than they are coming to any compromise. They have demonstrated an “ends justify the means” morality when it comes to winning arguments and pursuing their objectives.

It is no secret that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is the major playbook for the Democrat party. In the first chapter simply entitled “The Purpose,” Alinsky makes it perfectly clear the aim is to create mass organizations that can take from the haves and give to the so called have nots. In other words, take from the rich and give to the poor. Is that civil? Is that moral? Civility and morality take on new definitions when viewing things from Alinsky’s perspective. To the Republicans, wealth is earned, and all Americans share equal opportunity to pursue that which makes them happy. Some people will become rich and others will not. To the Democrats, this represents a system of inequality and unfairness. Their visions for America entail a government powerful enough to dictate equal outcomes for all. This represents a higher morality for them because it is out of a sense of general concern, so they argue, that they pursue such power. The standard definitions of civility and politeness cannot be applied with such stakes presenting themselves at the table.

Alinsky argued that morality was subjective in the sense that people should be willing to surrender their own personal salvation or display a willingness to corrupt themselves for the greater good. He writes on page 25 ̶

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's "conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action"; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough for people to be "corrupted" for them. (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals)

If a concept like absolute morality can be twisted like this for the purpose of pursuing political objectives, what meaning does the word civility have anymore? Alinsky views Christians as “means and end moralists” who are not willing to put their principles and beliefs on the line to pursue their goals. Democrats, being the party mostly recognized for not believing in God, continuously display uncivil behavior designed to discredit and humiliate their opponents and, persuade people to their positions through vicious lies and smear campaigns that not only attack individuals, but political processes and traditions as well. For example, House Speake Pelosi is not only attempting to institute a mail in voting scheme, which would enable fraud on a massive scale, she also has established voting by proxy policies for house members. This enables certain congressional representatives to cast votes for others in their absence. This is an example of an ends justify the means strategy. They believe their end represents a more just and moral America, and anything they can do to push towards that end, is justifiable no matter how corrupt.

The same can be said when it comes to defining the terms of civility. The Republicans, having largely a conservative Christian base, are not as willing to sell out our principles and morality in pursuit of political goals. Many conservatives certainly wish they would grow more of a spine and defend those principles, however. Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents, suggest that some people view mere disagreements as being uncivil, so there is cause for worry when presenting our party in a moral and civil manner is the main concern. The hard left, having a moral base in “means and ends morality” have no such concerns, and see the employment of strategies that seek to insult, discredit and destroy reputations as civil dialogue in pursuit of their Utopian ideals because the end is a better, fairer world where everyone is guaranteed equality from a compassionate, caring government.

When two political parties are operating from a completely different base in morality and principle, driven by ideological beliefs which totally contradict one another, is it possible to have civil political discourse? Would one side even want reasonable compromise with the other? America is supposed to be a place where the ideals of freedom, individual liberty and personal responsibility are the bonds that bring us together. Underneath those unifying principles is the belief in a universal truth, that men are meant to be free to pursue their own ambitions. We were all born with the same empty slate of opportunity and we can follow it to whatever ends our own wills and drive will allow. Under such principles there is room for civil dialogue and disagreements. Debates can take place between two parties who have at their hearts the sustainment of such a system. When they oppose each other as vehemently as they do, and one side desires radical change while the other seeks to maintain what they believe to be the last best hope for freedom, civil dialogue is unlikely to occur. That is where we are now.

David Risselada earned a bachelor’s degree in social work form Northeastern State University in 2012 and is currently two classes from completing a master’s degree in professional writing from Liberty University.

Operant Conditioning and the Face Mask Pandemic

The Coronavirus has shaken American life to its core. Not only has this alleged pandemic wrecked a booming economy, putting millions on unemployment and forcing businesses to close; it has left countless millions living a life of perpetual fear. Across the country, an untold number of Americans are fooling themselves into believing that wearing a mask will save them from a pandemic that has proven to be nothing short of an over hyped attempt to gain coercive control of our lives. Despite the over abundance of emerging information proving, for example, that the death numbers were over exaggerated, and hospitals are not as overwhelmed as the media portrayed, the official narrative presenting the Coronavirus as the doomsday threat of our lifetime persists. The consequence is a population with a diminished ability to reason for themselves, not knowing how to discern reality from fantasy while just going along to get along.

To date there has been no official study that has sought the effectiveness of wearing clothe masks, or N-95 respirators as protection from the Coronavirus. This is according Dr. Blaylock M.D. He states that because there have been no conclusive studies, the only comparable illness to compare to Covid-19 is the flu. There is no existing research which indicates that a healthy person wearing a mask is protected from any illness associated with influenza. There is substantial evidence however, according to Blaylock, that wearing a mask can cause serious problems due to low oxygen levels in the blood.  This is referred to as Hypoxia and affects our ability to fight off infections like the flu, or other diseases. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that a person who is infected with a respiratory virus could cause further harm to themselves as particles of the virus will get caught in the mask as they exhale, causing them to be re-inhaled. This leads to a build up of the virus in their system, potentially making them seriously ill.

Despite the availability of this information and other studies like the one released by The World Health Organization suggesting that healthy people don’t need to wear a mask, people across the country are masking up as if their lives depend on it. In 2014 the National Institute of Health published a report from the Singapore Journal of Health entitled “The Use of Facemasks to Prevent Respiratory Infection: A Literature Review in the Context of the Health Belief Model.” This study revolved around people’s motivations for wearing face masks. It found the following-

We found that individuals are more likely to wear facemasks due to the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of being afflicted with life-threatening diseases. Although perceived susceptibility appeared to be the most significant factor determining compliance, perceived benefits of mask-wearing was found to have significant effects on mask-wearing compliance as well. Perceived barriers include experience or perception of personal discomfort and sense of embarrassment. Media blitz and public health promotion activities supported by government agencies provide cues to increase the public’s usage of facemasks.

This study suggests they knew what our reaction to Covid-19 would be and, that they knew how easily we could be convinced to follow along. This is the application of social science at its finest. They have been studying human behavior for decades and know exactly how to manipulate us to their ends. B.F. Skinner wrote in his book “Science and Human Behavior” that man’s behavior can largely be determined by the specific conditions to which he is exposed. In other words, he believed that the environment largely predicted the way men would behave.

If we are to use the methods of science in the field of human affairs, we must assume that behavior is lawful and determined. We must expect to discover that what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions and that once these conditions have been discovered, we can anticipate and to some extent determine his actions (Skinner, Science and Human Behavior). 

This substantiates the results of the NIH article. That study was conducted to determine what motivates people to wear face masks. The manipulation of the environment and pushing the story of a deadly pandemic was the stimulus, and people falling into compliance was the expected response. This was determined in 2014.

What Skinner is essentially saying is that people are programmable, and our behavior is not the result of our own will, or chosen course of action, but a result of environmental circumstances.

Prevailing philosophies of human nature recognize an internal "will" which has the power of interfering with causal relationships and which makes the prediction and control of behavior impossible. To suggest that we abandon this view is to threaten many cherished beliefs—to undermine what appears to be a stimulating and productive conception of human nature (Skinner, Science and Human Behavior). 

In an article entitled “The Psychological Manipulation of Universal Masking,” published by Health Freedom Ohio, the author points out the long used tactic of discrediting people who do not go along with social norms. People who refuse to wear masks are uncaring, selfish and pose a danger to everyone else. No doubt this is social conditioning for the acceptance of mandatory vaccinations. Those wearing masks have been fooled into believing that they are morally superior and that their actions show that they have some deep concern for the safety of us all, despite the evidence proving otherwise. B.F. Skinner had something to say about this as well. In “Beyond Freedom Dignity,” Skinner says that people can be persuaded into behaving in certain ways out of a fear of being rejected. “People who get along together well under the mild contingencies of approval and disapproval are controlled as effectively as (and in many ways more effectively than) the citizens of a police state” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom Dignity.) In other words, those wearing masks are doing so out of a deep-rooted fear that they will be perceived as contributing to the problem, or not caring about humanity. They will then viciously defend their actions because they have been led to believe that their compliance represents a moral superiority.  

Those who work productively because of the reinforcing value of what they produce are under the sensitive and powerful control of the products. Those who learn in the natural environment are under a form of control as powerful as any control exerted by a teacher. (Skinner, Beyond Freedom Dignity.)

The social sciences have made great progress in understanding and manipulating human behavior. People can indeed be conditioned to behave in predictable ways, making it easier for those seeking to exert their control over society. Skinner’s theories on operant conditioning have attempted to prove that people’s behavior is largely determined by the environment around them, which often can force people to act in ways to save their lives. He put forth a thesis which suggests we have no control of our behavior at all, and that certain factors like the fear of rejection, or appearing to have a morally superior position can reinforce behavior patterns no matter what the truth is. Can those wearing a mask be brought to see that it is making no difference at all? Or, will they continue to do so until they are told they are safe? The one thing that proves Skinner’s theories to be incorrect is the self-evident truth that people have a choice. Just as there are millions wearing masks, there are millions who know the truth and will refuse to do so. If Skinner’s theory were completely accurate, those refusing to wear masks could be pushed into doing so by portraying them as uncompassionate or uncaring. What is the difference?

People are more easily manipulated when the foundations of truth have been ripped out from under them. In America, the concept of absolute truth has been replaced with moral relativism while the very character of our national morality has been under a vicious assault. Americans are turning to atheism at an alarming rate, making them more susceptible to the type of behavioral manipulation described by Skinner. For a person grounded in truth and following God’s word knows they can choose their behavior and not be led by fear. The very foundations of this country are based on the premise that religious and moral men can be free because they can control their behavior. B.F. Skinners theory represents a system which denies God’s truth and leans on men’s own understanding. Which is something the Bible clearly warns us against. A society living in perpetual fear of an over-hyped flu virus is the consequence of developing systems antithetical to God’s and looking to science instead of God.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not, on your own understanding.

 

 

Welfare and Marxism: A Deliberate Attack on Man's Will

America is facing potential economic ruin which could make the Great Depression look like a roller coaster ride. The so called Covid 19 pandemic has decimated a booming economy, bringing the unemployment rate up to a staggering 14.7 percent. This past week another 3.2 million unemployment claims were filed, brining the number of unemployed Americans to over thirty million. The federal government responded to this crisis by passing a six trillion-dollar stimulus bill, which provided families with twelve hundred dollars per adult and, an additional six hundred dollars per week on top of regular unemployment benefits. Many people are earning more on unemployment than they would be working. The government is insistent on passing a universal basic income as a means of helping American families through this alleged crisis. This has been a long-time goal of Democrats before Covid 19 came along. With the economy in shambles, and more people losing their jobs, will a growing welfare state solve the problem or put more Americans in poverty?

There is a correlation between government subsidies to the unemployed and the desire to work. According to a study entitled “Declining Desire to Work and Downward Trends in Unemployment and Participation,” there was a massive decline in a desire to work among those not participating in the labor force. People considered outside of the labor force are not looking for work and are therefore, not counted in the unemployment rate. Over fifty percent of this lost desire to be gainfully employed was the result of government paid benefits to those not seeking work, like disability insurance. The welfare reform of the 1990’s wasn’t necessarily a culprit because programs like the earned income credit were incentives to work in some cases. For some married mothers however, it created a seventy-one percent increase in a lost desire to find employment. The bottom line is people change their behavior when it comes to their income. If they are earning more through a government subsidy than they would through working, they are going to opt for the government payment. In another article entitled “Quantifying The Lasting Harm To The U.S. Economy From The Financial Crisis,” Robert Hall argues that the loss of benefits such as unemployment, and or disability insurance,  along with food stamps and other benefits is a contributing factor to the drop in labor force participation. This is true among those with no job or part time workers seeking full time work, or even two parent families with only one income. This is because the cost of taking work does not necessarily justify the loss of benefits. In other words, if they make more taking a government payment, they are not incentivized to find work.

Much of this can be traced to Lyndon Johnsons “Great Society” programs. Since this time, the federal government has spent over twenty-two trillion dollars on welfare programs that were designed to eradicate poverty. Johnson, according to Timothy Goeglein, believed that extending welfare benefits to broken families would rise them out of economic despair and lead them to prosperity. Citing the work of Labor Department Sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Johnson focused his efforts on black families as Moynihan argued they were experiencing severe economic hardship. The results were devastating as the benefits given were largely dependent upon whether the family was intact. The benefits also paid more than most people could earn at the time; therefore, it encouraged single mothers to remain unmarried while creating government dependence. Many people attribute Johnson’s welfare programs to high rates of poverty and fatherless homes found in the black community today.

America is founded on the ideal of individualism and reaping the benefits of your own labor. A booming economy offers opportunities for advancement and higher earnings. When people are motivated to work, they are doing so out of a desire to better themselves, which in turn, contributes to a better society for all. When working decreases your chances of upwards mobility and welfare is paying the bills, people will not be motivated to return to work. At a time when the unemployment rate is so high and so many businesses closing, is the promise of more welfare a wise move or a deliberate attempt to further crash the economy? Former Sociology professors from Columbia University Richard Cloward (deceased) and his wife, Frances Fox Piven, wrote in “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in 1966, that there is a disparity between those receiving welfare benefits and those eligible to receive them. They argued that welfare policy generally sought to shame those applying for benefits into not doing so to keep the numbers low and budgets balanced. Their proposed solution was to create a crisis by enrolling everyone in welfare, which would crash the economy and force the government to implement a universal basic income for all. This is what the government is calling for today.

Cloward and Piven, as they have come to be called, are known for their Marxist ideologies teaching at a university that is largely anti-capitalist in its philosophies. Marx hated capitalism and believed that it was the root cause of inequality among the masses. He believed a society could be made where everyone willingly worked for the betterment of others and not for themselves. The term social justice has become synonymous with much of Marx’s ideas pertaining to issues like the redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots. So much so that even many Christians have bought into Marxism’s deceptive nature. Richard Wurmbrand writes in his book, Marx and Satan, that many Christians have turned to Marx’s ideas as the best way to help the oppressed overcome poverty. This sentiment is echoed in a book called The Fragile Absolute, where Marxist Slavo Zizek argues that “Christianity and Marxism have a direct lineage and should be fighting from the same side of the barricade.” This of course lends to the idea that Jesus Christ and Marx both had the same goal, helping the poor. Even today, many churches are pushing for the ideals of social justice without giving any real explanation as to what they are arguing for. Jacob Brunton writes in the Cristian Intellectual that there is a push for socialism in the churches that purport to be theologically, Christian conservative. Why would this be the case when there is so much evidence that shows wealth redistribution and welfare policy destroys a desire to work and creates dependency?

The church was infiltrated by Marxists in the 1920’s and 30’s. This is largely substantiated in an article called “Behind the Barricades with Lenin? Making Sense of the Marxist Turn to Christianity in the Literature Classroom” by Mitchell Harris. (Note: This article was available to me as a student at Liberty University). Harris pointed out that many Marxists were joining the Christian religion because they viewed Jesus as the embodiment of struggle. It was not so much that they believed Jesus died on the cross for their sins but Christianity, in its historical context, was compatible with their message of class struggle. Or so they believe. Bella Dodd, a member of the National Council of the Communist Party USA, and graduate of Columbia University admitted to infiltrating the church in the 1930’s. She believed that Marxist philosophy was more concerned with helping the poor than the Christian Church was. Dodd later left the Communist party but admitted that the goal of infiltration was to not to destroy the institution, but faith itself. According to an article entitle The Greatest Conspiracy at freerepublic.com, Dodd intended to convince the Church that their beliefs were oppressive, arrogant and close minded in the sense that they claim to be the sole institution of truth at the expense of every other belief on Earth.

Marxist philosophy is a direct attack upon man’s freewill. At one time, according to Wurmbrand, Marx was devoutly Christian but later turned against God for unknown reasons. Many believe that Marxism is inherently atheist, this is not true. Marx wrote in a poem that he sought to avenge himself against the one who rules above (Wurmbrand). This indicates that he indeed believed in God but became angry with him. In another poem Marx wrote-

So, a god has snatched from me my all, In the curse and rack of destiny.

All his words are gone beyond recall, nothing left but revenge for me.

I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.

For its bulwark superstitious dread, For its marshal blackest agony.

Who looks on it with a healthy eye, shall turn back deathly pale and dumb,

Clutched by blind and chill morality, may his happiness prepare its tomb?

Marxism is a direct attack against God himself and all he created. Man was given free will as a gift from God so that we can choose between good and evil. Marxism, wealth redistribution, the welfare state and government dependency are all the result of an ideology built from a man who wrote in his own words he that was seeking revenge against God. Marxist philosophy has led to nothing but suffering and despair because it seeks to redesign what God created. Marx believed he could create a world where man surrenders his inner inclinations to work for his own betterment. “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.” This is not in man’s nature, and just as the fear of losing government benefits contributes to a loss desire to work, the realization that you are laboring for the benefit of someone else has the same effect. When the government is taxing the working class to give benefits to those who are not working, or even seeking work, there is only one result. Economic ruin. The idea of a universal basic income is the product of Marxist philosophers who are seeking to destroy capitalism and institute a socialist state. They are doing this despite the existing evidence that it does not lead to financial equality, but further contributes to economic decline. It is indeed intentional. Through the welfare state they are destroying man’s incentive to take care of himself to place their throne above Gods.