As a Fence-Hopper I Say “Bugger Off!”

Courtesy of Fumare:

I think that this clip speaks for itself, quite honestly. My initial sentiment was to drive directly to the Capitol building and cause Tom Tancredo to choke to death by (brace for irony) a burrito, but then I thought it was better to let him live and continue to do inadvertent violence to his cause through his asinine xenophobia. I’ve been on both sides of the fence around this issue, I will confess, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Holy Father was making an observation on human nature and fundamental moral rights. I think the underlying point is that since prosperity is a gift from God and not (as the Puritans, Pharisees, and William Kristol would argue) a right stemming from some sort of virtuous industry, then it is something that is properly shared as much as possible. To that end, I would say that the deepest the Holy Father would wade into the nitty-gritty of the immigration debate is to say that our border shouldn’t aspire to the security of Fort Knox.

I don’t mean that Benedict isn’t saying that there’s something wrong with the way we do business now, but he, like all good Pontiffs, isn’t going to presume to give us a 12-step plan for immigration reform. He just gives us the moral imperative. What we do with it (or not) is our business, and that of our eternal souls. Or in Tancredo’s case, his racist, fascist little raisin of an animating principle.

In other news, it was brought to my attention that last Friday’s post was at least potentially obscure - specifically, it was alleged that my treatment of mores created the impression that I was merely swapping a simplistic determinism for a complex determinism. This bothered me, so I went back and reread the thing and came to this conclusion: I am assuming a knowledge of Tocqueville that may be a bit greater than standard, so let me briefly revisit the subject before going forward.

Mores are not deterministic in the way that Marx claims economics is. Mores are, roughly speaking, “habits of the heart” that form a communal morality and generalized code of conduct across the entire polity. It is not adhered to with total consistency throughout (especially in a polity as large as America’s) but it is present in the minds.

Perhaps an example will help. Take the democratic idea of equality, which I mentioned in Friday’s post. This principle advances the idea that all men are basically equal, deserving of parity in treatment. This is not an equality of condition - such an idea would ignore natural inequalities that we can do nothing about and would be, therefore, absurd - but rather of dignity. I have no exalted dignity over and against any other human being, for example. At the most basic level, we are equally created and loved by God. This rule remains the same regardless of who you plug into the equation. I and my brother are of equal in dignity. I and Pope Benedict XVI are of equal dignity. I and Hitler are of equal dignity. Barack Obama and George Bush are of equal dignity. Clear?

This is the principle. The mores that follow from this principle (at least in Tocqueville’s estimation) are social judgments on acceptable conduct. The idea that nobody is particularly entitled to have more weight accorded to their opinion than to another’s, for example, is a democratic more. It’s a faulty judgment, to be sure - since it is a priori true that my opinions are automatically at least twice as weighty as anyone else’s, except for the Pope’s - but it colors the American mind subconsciously.

Again, this is not deterministic because it’s a social moral, not an instinct. The former arises after birth and is seldom compelled, doing its work purely by implication and suggestion; whereas the latter are hard-wired into the brain and are inexorable - it is only with great force of will that they are overcome.

A preview of Friday’s episode: I talk about freedom and its limitations in a society. Stay tuned!