False Dichotomies

Copyright by James Carlson

False Dichotomy for a Young America: Shall I be wise and great, or rich and powerful? (Puck: 1901)

So we are often told in politics that we need to get right or left because in between is no man’s land. We are asked, ‘Are you conservative or are you liberal?’, as fast as someone can shake your hand and introduce themselves. Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Are you in favor of compassion in government or the rule of law? Where do you stand!? The truth is often not at the extremes but somewhere in between. Truth told, when we connect these perspectives together we can see past the empty arguments and see the false dichotomies that we’re forced to decide from.

So stand, number one, on your convictions hopefully based upon your conscience. For in standing you should be promoting liberty and justice. The human heart beats for liberty and the soul for justice. The genius of the American Declaration of Independence was that Liberty was not separated from the Rule of Law. This false dichotomy was practiced in revolutionary France and led to the ultimate breakdown of society where anarchy ensued, leading to tyranny under Napoleon. Liberty under Law, Liberty and Justice for All! This is where our nation began and where we need to stand. Liberty or Law is a false dichotomy.

Following the work of Americans to provide for liberty and justice, the French were dealing with the ideas of liberty in the French Parliament where traditionalists sat on the right side of the isle and the revolutionaries on the left side. The revolutionaries are forerunners of the modern liberals (left side) and traditionalists were of the conservatives (right side) faction. This is where idea of being politically left or right, liberal or conservatives, began. To a large degree, we can say that this divide is historic but not necessary.

If we look to Jesus as an example of how to respond to political issues, he made a stunning conclusion in talking with the ‘woman caught in the act of adultery’ (John 8:1-11).

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.

3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 

4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 

5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 

6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 

8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 

10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Jesus gave no condemnation for sin but forgiveness of sin. At the Cross, he condemned sin as sin but we are forgiven by believing in the Cross of Jesus Christ.

Modern liberalism is born of love and compassion for our fellow man (non-gendered use of the term); social justice issues usually fixes itself to liberal causes. Jesus was ‘liberal’ in this sense as He was an advocate of Love as a means of fulfilling the Law (not dismissing it). In this sense, Jesus was the perfect liberal.

Jesus then warned the woman to ‘sin no more.’ Here we have a rule of law (natural law and Mosaic law) exonerated where compassion forgave SIN; the law defines sin as sin (direct disobedience to the express Will of God) and we are to account for our sin and live our lives apart from sin. As conservatism begins with transcendent principles of right and wrong, Jesus did not dismiss these principles with his love for this woman but connected them together. Here, Jesus is the perfect conservative and liberal at the same time. This divide between liberals and conservatives is a false dichotomy.

So let’s look at 2 champions of liberal and conservative causes. The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior (MLK) graduated with his PhD 3 months after Doctor Russell Kirk published his seminal book, The Conservative Mind, in 1953. In Dr. Kirk’s book, we find that the first principle of conservatism is:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

A belief in a transcendent order or body of natural law is the first principle of conservatism.

What is lacking in our national dialogue about Civil Rights and the abuses the Black community continually faces is that Dr. King presented his appeal to our nation via our conscience. As our conscience relates to us the principles of right and wrong as a matter of transcendent moral truths that God put in each one of us, Dr. King sought to appeal to our conscience, which I think was his genius. He said in summary:

·        Jesus is for everyone, regardless of color

·        People are people, regardless of color

·        The law should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of color

Speaking in terms of transcendence, Dr. King, like Dr. Kirk, spoke to our conscience for the improvement of the rule of law applied to everyone in society. The social justice that Dr. King sought was presented in terms of transcendent moral truths. As social justice movements are typically ‘liberal’ based upon the motive of love, Dr. King was able to connect the dots with the rule of law and transcendent moral truths. Here we find both a Liberal with Dr. King and Conservative with Dr. Kirk on the same page speaking to our conscience appealing to transcendent moral truths in the political arena. The separation between love and the law, between liberalism and conservatism is a false dichotomy. We need to connect them if we are to succeed in the political arena.

The Declaration of Independence used the phrase, Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, to speak to the conscience of the nations across the Atlantic Ocean. If the United Colonies (United States) were to become an independent nation in the constellation of nations worldwide, they would have to justify themselves in the opinion of those nations. Seeking to appeal to their conscience, Jefferson, et al, presented this principle that is largely ignored today.

The Laws of Nature here refers to the natural revelation that God gives to us in our conscience to know right from wrong. And the Laws of Nature’s God refers to the special revelation found in the Bible that helps our conscience when it goes astray. Many people have seared their conscience to embrace aspects of sin where Jesus paid for our sin for our forgiveness. Sin was condemned as sin at the Cross but we were forgiven of our sin at the Cross. The Bible still requires observance of right and wrong in our Christian lives. And the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God provides us a guide to living our lives honoring God. As the Patriot’s Dream was to ‘Do what is right in the sight of God,’ one needs to connect the Laws of Nature with the Laws of Nature’s God; separating them is a false dichotomy where people argue for the right to follow their own conscience even when it violates the accurate reflection of moral truth found in the Bible. We do not have the right to choose our own moral values.

In their appeal to the nations, the Framers used this phrase, Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, to speak to the conscience of people in other nations. They presented their case to include the idea of human Rights to these nations. They said that the Creator who gave us our Rights also taught us the value of what is Right! And as the Patriots Dream was the freedom to do what is right in the sight of God (our conscience and the Bible guiding us), the Patriot’s Dream eventually became the Dream of Dr. King. This is a dream we need to hold onto. Separating Rights from what is Right is a false dichotomy.

In the Declaration of Independence we are told that God gave us the Right to Life. While the Supreme Court ruled that women do not have an unlimited right to choose abortion on demand, many liberals have taken liberty to rewrite the Court’s conclusion to advocate for an unlimited right to choose abortions. The argument of a woman’s right to choose is a false dichotomy first because it doesn’t include the rights of men. But more importantly, rights and responsibilities should connect in the moral conscience of every individual. We do have rights to choose but we also have a responsibility to choose what is right. The right of choice without responsibility is anarchy and a false dichotomy.

Modern Libertarians, however, look to the Declaration of Independence and the Right to Pursue Happiness as an excuse to do whatever they damn well please because they damn well please. This isn’t a right with moral value. In fact,

1)     The Pursuit of Happiness was given in the context of economic happiness (Locke and others pointing this out), and

2)     The lawless, licentious, libertine views of modern libertarians (social liberals and fiscal conservatives) betrays the idea of Liberty under Law. Anarchy is their goal, not liberty.

We have rights and responsibilities and we must choose what is right and do what is right. In the case of abortion, choose life – vote pro-life. Removing our Responsibilities from our Rights, to do what is right according to our moral conscience and Biblical guidance, is also a false dichotomy.

An false dichotomy from the Left (Democrat liberals and Republican moderate & libertarians) is the idea that we need to separate economic issues from social issues. In fact, they belong together in any given context we find one or the other in.

Economics as a word came from the Greek words ‘eco-nomos’, which mean rule of the household. The basis of all economics is the family unit in a single household. Economics is also a sociology that seeks to understand how society deals with its finances. As a sociology and matter of family values, economics is a social issue. To divide economic issues from social issues is a false dichotomy.

Further, the ability of a campaign to reach the voter is dependent upon the ability of the candidate to reach into the conscience of the voter. Connecting social moral issues with the economic impact that is associated with it is key to success in any given campaign for public office. Sadly the moderate & libertarian factions of the Republican Party is at war against conservative values, principles of right and wrong, and the application of social moral issues along with economic issues in any given campaign. This exercise of a false dichotomy in the left wing of the GOP is a formal for electoral failure.

Looking to the Father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, we can look in his 2nd Inaugural Address (1865) to find a guiding light:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds…