The End of a Debate
By Miguel Guanipa (12/07/07)
It is hard to envision anything other than the current dual-party template configuring this country's political landscape anytime in the foreseeable future. For all intents and purposes, the Democratic and Republican parties are here to stay. And save for the few nominal party members who on occasion stray from their presumed ideological bearings, each party is correspondingly beholden - admittedly in somewhat reductive yet not wholly inaccurate characterizations - to its respective ideology; namely the liberal (benignly dubbed "progressive") and the conservative ideologies.
Predictably, these two parties are at enmity with each other, as in many watershed issues both are firmly entrenched in diametrically opposed stances for which there appears to be little if any room for rational compromise. Furthermore, both are keenly aware of the fact that the victor in this struggle will determine which ideology will serve as the recognized standard for actualizing the wishes and aspirations of the American people and the way the country is going to be run foreign and domestically, not to mention what economic, social, and moral principles are bequeathed to the next generation.
Thankfully, provided a modicum of civility and a sense of fair play always prevails amongst the party’s cohorts, this state of contained animus ensures that neither one of the respective parties is vested with an irrevocable sovereignty over how the affairs of the country are conducted. Thus a corollary incentive for this delicate tension is that it yields its own monitoring system against ideological extremes, and may even be one of the primary reasons why the Republic has endured for as long as it has.
But what happens when an unexpected development suddenly makes it no longer necessary for adherents of a certain ideology to engage in conflict?
The recent discovery that gives scientists the ability to turn skin cells into cells that share identical properties with Embryonic Stem Cells qualifies as such a development.
Up to this point, many from the left had comfortably seized control of the high moral ground on this issue. With the aid from the main stream media, and the assurance by the scientific community of the vestigial healing powers of Embryonic Stem Cells, they piously condemned the callous ignorance of those who objected to their demand to expedite legislation requiring that federal tax dollars be used to fund this type of research.
For these so called “progressives”, the fact that human embryos needed to be harvested and killed in the process did not pose the least moral quandary, but was favorably cast as a supremely justifiable means towards an unimpeachably noble end. History should deal with them accordingly.
Were it not for this timely discovery - ever so politely escorted by the media into the moribund registry of superfluous news that do not help advance the progressive agenda - E.S.C.R. would have continued to be enshrined by liberals with the same myopic zeal that - to name a few other examples - the dignity of every woman’s “reproductive right decision” is extolled, the tolerance, i.e. moral acquiescence of sexual deviance is mandated, the unfettered license for physicians to “mercifully” kill their patients is defended, the end of the Global Warming debate is proclaimed, the prepotency of the State over Religion is applauded, and the military interference of empire driven U.S. presidents with murderous and oppressive regimes is denounced.
Ideally, this new development should provide advocates of unrestricted E.S.C.R. – mostly liberals by definition - a rare opportunity to exercise some measure of humility on that, and other controversial issues they have chosen to bind themselves to. But more importantly, it should give them pause to reflect upon the fundamental principles which spur them to wage war against their opponents on such issues in the first place.
The fact that the majority of the causes alluded to earlier are fundamentally premised on life negating principles should be reason enough for liberals to at least consider a nonpartisan audit of their objectives. A sober appraisal of the latter would most certainly awaken a sense of how profoundly misguided they are.
Not that I am intentionally omitting the fact that the conservative ideology is far from perfect. Both ideologies inevitably tend towards coveting supremacy amongst other competing worldviews vying for relevancy in the public square. It behooves adherents of both ideologies not to shy away from periodically re-examining their long held convictions in this our changing times.
But convictions rooted in nonnegotiable principles - by virtue of the fact that they transcend mere fashionable moral trends - should remain unchanged. In so far as such principles are missing from the liberal ideology, the conservative ideology - all its imperfections notwithstanding - stands unrivaled. This disparity is often illustrated by the fact that Conservatives are typically chided for being unfaithful to their core principles, whereas Liberals are indicted by the social decay that ensues as a result of strict adherence to theirs.
Today’s liberals suffer from a marring decrepitude, manifesting itself in what their forebears would quickly denounce as the rather illiberal ethos of guiltless autonomy, speech codification, thought surveillance, and retroactive gender and ethnic bigotry.
Mere cosmetic attempts at re-inventing themselves by changing their brand name, or taking stock of the aggregate moral decay from decades of civic prerogative will not likely solve their predicament.
But perhaps this recent scientific milestone may help them realize that it is high time they revisit some (if not most) of their ideological stances, and decide how much farther they will stray from the once cherished liberal tradition, by continuing to engage in the dispensation of newly invented rights for a few citizen groups fortunate enough to find shelter under their exclusive canopy of “victims”, rather than valuing the fundamental dignity and freedoms of all persons, religious and secular, healthy and infirm, born and in utero.
Here’s to hoping it will.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
