A nice passage from Conscience of a Conservative:
A civil right is a right that is asserted and therefore protected by some valid law…. There may be some rights—“natural,” “human,” or otherwise—that should also be civil rights. But if we desire to give such rights the protection of the law, our recourse is to a legislature or to the amendment procedures of the Constitution. We must not look to politicians, or sociologists—or the courts—to correct the deficiency.
So much genius here; for example, the word “valid” just sitting there in that first sentence. But the real marvel is the assertion that if we want to change the law we have to go to the legislature or amend the Constitution, not to politicians. Of course, how you go to the legislature or amend the Constitution without going to politicians is left as an exercise for the reader.
16 comments
May 24, 2010 at 10:37 am
Vance
Um…insurrection?
By the way, I’m enjoying this blog of yours a lot, Eric.
May 24, 2010 at 11:03 am
eric
You oughta pitch in. Does a boy get a chance to whitewash a fence every day?
May 24, 2010 at 11:04 am
eric
Dave Bowman looks deep into the legislature: “My God, it’s full of politicians!”
May 24, 2010 at 11:36 am
jazzbumpa
And Goldwater would be nowhere conservative (or crazy – take your pick) for today’s republican party.
I re-read his book a couple of years ago, after a lapse of 40+ years. I don’t think there was a single thing in it that I could agree with.
And that is not conservative enough.
We are in such a mess.
Cheers!
JzB
May 24, 2010 at 12:02 pm
NM
Eric, you want to expand on your worry about “valid”? Is this a beef with legal positivism generally? HLA Hart will cut a bitch.
May 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm
eric
Eric, you want to expand on your worry about “valid”?
I just think it’s clever of Goldwater/Bozell to drop that in there, implying that some of these laws we have on the books might be invalid, without going into any detail on it. Wink wink, you know which laws I mean.
May 24, 2010 at 12:16 pm
NM
Wait, which laws do you mean? Sorry, not being intentionally a dick, just wondering– sounds like there’s a context here that I’m not picking up on. I thought you were complaining that he was smuggling in some normative natural-law style criterion for validity in under false pretenses, whereas I thought he’s imagining some positivistic formal test for valid law. But given the source…this probably isn’t what he has in mind.
May 24, 2010 at 12:21 pm
eric
Civil rights; Brown, etc.
May 24, 2010 at 12:23 pm
NM
Oh, those invalid laws, gotcha.
May 24, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Julian
It is disduised circular reasoning to say that a “civil right” is asserted by a valid law. What’s a valid law, you ask? A law that asserts a right that’s not civil. All things are defined by negative opposition, kthxbye!
May 24, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Julian
Two regrettable errors fixed here: “undisguised” and “kthxbai.”
May 24, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Vance
But it’s kind of a Möbius circularity, with civil right -> valid law -> !civil right.
May 24, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Jason B.
We must not look to politicians, or sociologists—or the courts—to correct the deficiency.
Oh, for FSM’s sake–to whom to we look?
May 24, 2010 at 5:33 pm
andrew
Isn’t there a bit of political tradition, mostly conservative I suspect, of distinguishing “statesmen” from mere “politicians”? I remember it coming up in Parkman’s article on universal suffrage (and how it’s a failure), at least. And I remember hearing someone give a talk on Kissinger who said Kissinger made the same sort of distinction.
In practice, a statesman is probably just a politician the speaker likes.
May 24, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Walt
The answer to your question is in the question itself, Jason. We must not to limited and finite politicians for justice. We must look to the infinite — to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May 28, 2010 at 11:51 am
CSProf
Or, more the point, Cthulu (and tee