"In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.
Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?
For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media."
You notice how he's arguing that the liberals (I guess the Republicans now vilify 'progressives' as the Left has begun using that term to avoid the taint of the Republicans campaign to make 'liberal' into a dirty word) want to be God - 'holy mission;' 'remake man and society in their own image;' 'deific end.'
The people I know who see themselves as progressives are interested in making the United States live up to the spirit of the Constitution, whose letter including slavery and other problematic realities. They believe in justice, equality before the law, freedom, etc. I'm not sure what Barr is thinking about when he says progressives want to remake man and perfect him. (I personally would use human instead of man, but for this I'm using his words.) Does he mean freeing slaves? Ending segregation? Giving women the right to vote? And recognizing that all humans, regardless of color, religion, gender, ability, etc. have equal rights under the law? After all, Republicans have been working hard to 'perfect' humans by passing laws to prevent abortion and other practices they don't like.
But I didn't post this to argue these points. I think they are so ludicrous they don't need anyone to point out the problems. But obviously if an educated man like Barr believes what he's written here, others do too. So I did a little critique. I could go on if anyone who sees this doesn't understand what I object to.
My purpose here is to point out the blatantly partisan tripe that Barr has posted on the Department of Justice website. The attorney general of the US is supposed to enforce the law without bias. But this speech raises great doubt whether he can actually do that. I can't help but believe that under his idea of justice, progressives would be given less benefit of the doubt than would conservatives. Because, he believes they are simply wrong.
Part of me thinks the whole attempt to suppress the actual beliefs of academics and journalists and judges in an effort to make them 'neutral' is a misguided cause. It's better to know what they believe so we can judge whether they are able to act neutrally when they do research, report news, or pass judgment. But the ability to put aside one's personal loyalties in one's professional capacity is not something everyone (many?) can do.
But Barr's behavior regarding Trump suggests strongly that he can't do that - from the misleading summary of the Mueller Report to his defense of Trump over the Constitution and the people of the United States - suggests he can't. And his comments in this speech are so ideological and so off the mark in both his characterization of liberals and conservatives as to raise question about his abilities to interpret the world. Or his honesty.
I should thank two Tweeters for point this out: Shalev Roisman and Justin Levitt who I follow because he's an expert on voting and redistricting.
My natural instinct was to take a screenshot before they take his speech down. But in this administration there is no shame. And they probably see nothing wrong with this speech. And they really don't care what the liberals think anyway. They've got the US governments websites to plaster their ideology. But I did take a screenshot (and of course they can be doctored too, but the forensics team will be able to see that this shot wasn't doctored - but that question should always be in your mind.
And I need to mention Anchorage got its first snow today. We haven't even had traces. But we got a good white cleansing today.
