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:
George
Will: A Conservative “None” in Need of Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights by Stephen Bourque and Craig Biddle for TOS
Related Audio:
No comments:
Post a Comment