Needed: Truly 'Progressive' Presidential Candidate Who Defends Life and Marriage

I write to address a political golden calf; the claim that the current agenda calling itself "progressive" is progressive at all. The term implies progress toward something better. The political agenda being offered under the moniker of "progressive" is, in effect, regressive. What is happening is a clash of worldviews which involves competing definitions of human freedom, human flourishing and true progress.

CHESAPEAKE, VA. (Catholic Online) - As the current President's poll numbers tank I write to address a political golden calf; the claim that the current agenda calling itself "progressive" is progressive at all. The term implies progress toward something better. The political agenda being offered under the moniker of "progressive" is, in effect, regressive. The commentator Glenn Beck has convinced many that the word "progressive" should be abandoned. He asserts that the word has been so utterly co-opted by George Soros and others with left wing political ideologies that it is irretrievable. I refuse to give up this word. Instead, I suggest we challenge the claims of those who have stolen the word "progressive" to disguise a statist, collectivist and immoral cultural and political revolution which will result in the loss of authentic human freedom and impede true progress. The dictionary defines "progressive" as an adjective, meaning "Moving forward; advancing." We have lived through the use of word games too many times in the last few decades. The misuse of the word "progressive" is just one more example of what the late great C.S. Lewis, in his "Studies in Words" called "verbicide." The same C.S. Lewis warned us about allegedly "progressive" governing schemes wherein a collectivist ideology built upon moral relativism is unleashed in his book entitled "The Abolition of Man." In it we find these insightful words, "A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery."

An essay of his, found in "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics" and entitled "Is Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare State," warned, "Let us not be deceived by phrases about 'Man taking charge of his own destiny.' All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be."  There is a concerted effort to paint those who adhere to the Jewish and Christian vision of the human person, the family and a truly just civil society as "backward." We are deluged with direct and indirect efforts to portray us as committed to a kind of return to some perceived "dark age". In fact, what we offer is the path to true progress. We are also accused of forcing "our view" on others. While those who engage in this kind of word game, using the word "progressive" to promote a regressive cultural revolution, are actually the ones who are intolerant of any view other than their own. Let's consider just two of many policy agenda items of the political "progressives" of our age. Abortion on Demand Abortion on demand is the current state of the positive law in the United States since the infamous decisions of Roe and Doe. Our youngest neighbors in the first home of the whole human race can be killed by surgical instruments, chemical weapons or suction, at any time, for any reason. While restrictions on the practice are being slowly enacted in the States, the current state of the federal law has not changed. However, our medical science has advanced. We now routinely reach into the womb and offer surgery to these same children in order to help them live fuller lives after birth. Our criminal codes have advanced.  We now prosecute a criminal offender who, in the course of committing another felony, takes their lives as well as their mothers.

We all know the truth, that child in the womb is our neighbor. We also recognize the Natural Law written in every human heart which gives us the basis for our criminal codes. The real "Right" is the Right to Life. Without life there can be no other "rights" or liberty. The Right to life is the foundation of the prohibition against killing our innocent neighbor. All human persons have a right to life. Those currently stealing the label "progressive" made up a so called "right" to reach into the womb for any reason and kill the innocent child. They now use the police power of the State to secure this fictional "right." Is reaching into the first sanctuary of the human race and killing the first refugees really "progressive"?    Defending the intentional killing of children in the womb at any time and for any reason is grounded in a counterfeit notion of "freedom" as a raw power over those who are vulnerable and not wanted. Those who defend this practice are not "progressives", in any proper sense of the word, they are barbarians. Marriage, Family and Society The leaders of a homosexual equivalency movement are at the forefront of the political movement currently called "progressive". They are committed to a future where homosexual sexual practices are considered morally equivalent to the sexual expression of marital love between a man and a woman.  Is that really "progressive"?  They want a future where the positive law of the Nation will force us to call to be a marriage what can never be a marriage - or face the police power of the State. They are using the courts and the legislatures to enforce a cultural revolution. Marriage is not simply a "religious" construct.  The Natural Law reveals - and the cross cultural history of civilization affirms - that marriage is between a man and a woman, open to children and intended for life. Marriage is the foundation for the family which is the privileged place for the formation of virtue and character in children, our future citizens. The family is the first society, first economy, first school, first civilizing and mediating institution and first government. Defending true and authentic marriage between a man and a woman is defending the common good of society. Fifteen years ago Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act. It was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. On February 23, 2011, President Barack Obama unilaterally ordered the US Justice Department to stop defending marriage. The current Attorney General sent a five-page letter simply announcing the President's decision to the Congress. Government has long regulated marriage for the common good and the President's action is a threat to the common good. The President repeatedly lets us all know he is "still wrestling" with his view on "gay marriage."  This kind of false dichotomy between the President's "personal opinion" and his executive leadership reminds me of his past contrived "moral" struggle over abortion. President Obama has demonstrated that he is the most Pro-Abortion President in the history of the United States. His policies make that clear, no matter what his rhetoric tries to pretend. He still has the audacity to speak of his "moral" concerns over the matter. Actions do speak louder than words. In 2008 he said, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix." Now, look at what he has done. He refuses to defend the very institution which lies at the heart of our social order. To use an old adage, he cries "crocodile tears." Here is the game plan: make defending life and marriage sound "religious" and then argue that "religious" positions have no place in public policy. However, marriage as between one man and one woman is not only a "religious" position. It is an objective and ontological truth which cannot be changed by changing the definition of a word and then using the police power of the State to force us all to bend the knee to the new definition.    To equate how one engages in non-marital sexual acts with a member of the same sex to being a member of a particular race or gender (thereby making practicing homosexuals a "protected class" for civil rights purposes) is also legally and socially dangerous. One is a status; the other involves a behavior and a lifestyle. To confine marriage to heterosexual couples is not discriminatory. Homosexual couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. All other government grows out of - and must support and not usurp - the primacy of this first government, the marriage bound family. Our Challenge

The day that Barrack Obama took the oath of office as the 44th President of the United States he said these words "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America." Sadly, the America which is emerging denies the fundamental human right to life for every human person from conception to natural death. Now, the President refuses to defend true marriage in the face of the counterfeit which threatens the common good of society. Every law student learns that the one who frames the issue usually wins the argument. A shift occurs first in language.  The Press went from speaking of the Right to Life, which is the real issue, to defending a so called "Right" to abortion. Defenders of our first neighbors in the womb went from being identified as Pro-Life to being called "Anti-Abortion Rights". Abortions have no rights, only people do; and that includes little people in the womb! Now, those calling themselves politically "progressive" are reframing the marriage debate, calling their effort to undermine marriage and the family and society founded upon it a "marriage equality movement".  Such Homosexual Equivalency Activists are being assisted by some in the media who support their cultural agenda. We must not let their sophistry go unchallenged!  Words really do matter.  What is now masquerading as the "marriage equality movement" is an Anti-Marriage movement.   Struggle for the Future There are many other policy issues which must be addressed in order to demonstrate that the "progressives" of the age are not really "progressive" at all. I hope to return to them as the campaign for the White House takes shape.  For example, I have written extensively about our obligations in solidarity to the poor. I believe that the market economy must always be at the service of the person, the family and the common good. However, is it "progressive" to impede free enterprise and undermine initiative? The principle of solidarity must be applied alongside of the principle of subsidiarity lest we end up endorsing collectivism, whether of the right or left. The truly "progressive" approach is to expand participation in the robust market economy not suppress it! What is really happening is a clash of worldviews, personal and corporate, which involves competing definitions of human freedom, human flourishing and truly human progress. The positions being espoused and lifestyles being affirmed as "progressive" by those using the term as a political label are anything but. They turn the clock back. It is the promotion of faithful, monogamous marriage, family, authentic human freedom, the dignity of every human person -  and the insistence that there are objective truths that can be known and unalienable rights that are endowed on all men and women - which have guided true progress in human history and always pave the future of real progress. It is this true humanism, this authentic vision of true progress which has helped to overcome the slaveries that have arisen from flawed ideologies that have treated people as property to be used and manipulated.

Supporting FREE Catholic Education with Grass-fed Beef

It is this vision of real progress that has inspired leaders to speak truth to power, condemning the lies that elevate power and function over the primacy of the person, thereby suppressing the deeper and higher values that civilize and set people and Nations free.
 
I would not vote for someone who claims to be a "progressive" these days because of the twisted use of the word. However, what happened in New York yesterday is an example of why I will persist in fighting to reclaim this word.

Progress is not found in homosexual practices being elevated by the positive law any more than it is by allowing children in the womb to be killed at will and calling such evil a "right". Progress will not be promoted through an increasingly bloated federal nanny state usurping freedom and squelching initiative and creativity.  What is needed in Campaign 2012 is a truly 'Progressive' Presidential Candidate who defends life and marriage and helps us all to truly progress to a future of authentic human freedom.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'