…with chaos and friction for all.” We should probably update the Pledge of Allegiance, since Old Glory no longer flies over “one nation, under God, indivisible…” As Matt Walsh writes:
Are we joined by our shared desire to be free? No. In the minds of many, the ultimate vision of freedom is a socialist utopia where the free market is abolished and the government provides all basic needs. To me, and many others, this is a vision of slavery, not freedom. It may be true that all Americans talk about freedom, and say they want freedom, but the only commonality between the competing views of freedom is the word itself. (emphasis added)
Can we be bound by our passion for human rights? Again, no. The situation with rights is much like that with freedom. Those on the Left – not just the leftist fringes, but the mainstream of the movement – would say that mothers have a “right” to kill their offspring, some Americans have a “right” to the money and property of other Americans, biological males have a “right” to access women’s locker rooms, gay couples have a “right” to the goods and services of Christian business owners, and so on. They see a “human right” as a claim always in competition with other rights claims. One right must supersede another. The woman’s right to autonomy must trounce, violently, a child’s right to live. A college student’s right to be free of debt must overpower a wealthy man’s right to the fruit of his own labor.
What they’re really describing is one group’s struggle for power and dominance over another. It has nothing to do with rights. Rights are inherent to our human nature; by definition, human rights cannot be in competition with one another. But since we have fundamentally opposing definitions of the term, we cannot be united around it.
If we cannot be united around tradition, language, or heritage, and we also cannot be united around a shared belief in freedom and human rights, then what is left?
Not much, it would seem. The component elements of the formerly united States are worlds apart in their worldviews, and on the crucial issues of the day, compromise is impossible between those views (i.e. either an unborn child is or isn’t a human being and worthy of protection — there is no middle ground). In these circumstances, our elections have become less one of minute adjustments of the national course, and more one of which worldview gets to impose itself on the other for the next cycle. That’s not a Union – it’s an abusive relationship.
The question is whether the divorce will be amicable or contested. But I firmly believe the split, while not desirable, is now inevitable.