Sunday, May 12, 2019

Contra Mark Levin, Americanism Rests on Reason, Not Faith


In Chapter One of his book Rediscovering Americanism, Mark Levin discusses the basis for the “self-evident truths” of the Declaration of Independence--political equality, unalienable individual rights, and constitutional republican government. Americanism cites the work of many of the Founding Fathers. He cites Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Locke, and Montesquieu, among others, to uncover the source of the ideas that support Americanism.

Levin spends pages explaining how the source of rights, morality, justice, virtue, and truth is Natural Law--that is, the facts of reality. “Self-evident,” he explains, means “knowable through right reason.” In other words, there is a rational, scientific basis for Americanism.

Or, at least, that’s Levin’s implication. After pages of convincingly explaining that Americanism is rational and reality based, Levin undercuts his case with this one paragraph. Quoting from his previous book Liberty and Tyranny, Levin writes:

Is it possible that there is no Natural Law and man can know moral and unalienable rights from his own reasoning, unaided by the supernatural or God? There are, of course, those who argue this case—including the Atheist and others who attempt to distinguish Natural Law from Divine Providence. It is not the view of the Founders. This position would, it seems, lead man to arbitrarily create his own morality and rights, or create his own arbitrary morality  and rights—right and wrong, just and unjust, good and bad, would be relative concepts susceptible to circumstantial applications. Moreover, by what justification would “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” be “unalienable Rights” if there is no Natural Law, since reason alone cannot make them inviolable? What then is Natural Law if its origin is unknown or rejected? It is nothing more than a human construct. An individual may benefit from the moral order and unalienable rights around which society functions while rejecting their Devine origin. But the civil society cannot organize itself that way. It would become unstable and vulnerable to anarchy and tyranny, imperiling all within it, especially the individual. The abandonment of Natural Law is the adoption of tyranny in one form or another, because there is no humane or benevolent alternative to Natural Law.

Levin offers no evidence for the proposition that there can be no Natural Law--inexorable truths observable in observation of the natural world--without God or a supernatural force. We must accept the divine origin of Natural Law on faith. If we don’t, we abandon Natural Law altogether, which in turn, Levin asserts, leads to arbitrary constructs and ultimately tyranny.

But is not his claim for the divinity the arbitrary construct? Otherwise, why would he rely on faith? The principles of Americanism, Levin concludes in the Epilogue, “are born of intuition, faith, experience, and right reason.” If you can validate Americanism by studying the facts of nature, why do you need faith in God as proof of Natural Law? That paragraph is an obvious (and wholly unnecessary) contradiction to the previous pages, in which Levin argues for a reason and reality based approach to validating Americanism.

It’s true, as Levin says, that Locke and the Founders believed in God as the “Creator” of nature. But that is a separate issue. Ayn Rand once observed: “Regardless of how one believes existence came about,” she said (I’m paraphrasing), “the fact is that man is a being of a specific nature, with specific requirements for survival, discoverable by observation and logic.”

The Founders vision was a tremendous advance. Rand completed their project. One doesn’t need faith to justify Americanism. In fact, Rand observes, it’s counter-productive. The Second Chapter of Levin’s book is titled The Progressive Masterminds, where Levin turns to tyranny. If, Levin asserts, Americanism ultimately rests on faith in a supernatural, he in effect anoints the Masterminds with the mantel of reason and reality. That is Rand’s view, and I agree. Why do that? Reason and reality, not faith, are the absolutes that undergird Americanism. Keep faith private, if that’s what you believe. The battleground for Americanism is reason and reality. If we give that up, we lose.

Americanism boiled down to essentials is simply this: Reason is man’s means of survival and flourishing. Reason is an attribute of the individual. Therefore, individual man--every individual--must be free, via inalienable right, to live and act by his own reasoning mind. To secure his rights equally, limited constitutional government must be instituted. The facts support it. Reason can discover these truths. There is no need to undermine this argument with faith, even if you are a “person of faith.”

Levin is a great scholar. I’ve read most of his books. I recommend them. There is much to learn from him. He knows how to integrate history and ideas with current trends. I read his previous books, Men in Black, Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia (which I reviewed for The Objective Standard), and The Liberty Amendments. I was looking forward to reading Rediscovering Americanism. I am disappointed. He undercuts the whole case he had been building by resting it on a foundation of quicksand. Worse, he dismisses some powerful allies. He doesn’t mention Ayn Rand, except indirectly, as one of “those who . . . distinguish Natural Law from Divine Providence,” or are outright Atheist. Building on the work of scholars going back to Aristotle, Rand strengthened the case for Americanism, mainly by building the moral case for Americanism, and anchoring it to objective reality and man’s rational capacity. On Americanism, Rand pointed to a potential common ground between Objectivism and Enlightened Christianity. Both sides value reason and reality. They can be powerful allies in this great cause. Yet here we have a leading voice of Conservatism turning his back, in order to save faith’s role.

It’s a shame. Faith is a private matter. A Christian freedom fighter doesn’t have to give it up. Just keep it out of the debate over freedom. Why grant the enemy the powerful undeserved weapon--the illusion of rationality? Levin goes a long way to proving that you don’t need faith to justify freedom. Why use it? Faith is the province of some, but not all. Freedom is for everyone, not just theists. It is under siege. Freedom lovers should be as united as possible, and uniting behind a rational justification for Americanism is within reach. We should seize it.

Related Reading:



Related Audio:

No comments: