From The Heritage Foundation

 This weekend I found this fascinating article online, so I printed it out and wish to critique it. It is from a thinker at the Heritage Foundation, an article entitled "Truth Is a Casualty in Our Culture War". It was written on 8/3/20 by Joseph Loconte, Ph.D, Director, Simon Center for American Studies.

Loconte starts off by John Locke was singular in seeking a solution to the political-religious problem.

Here are Loconte's Key Takeaways:

The "Enlightenment project of human freedom depended on courageous individuals who, on a quest for truth, defiend the orthodoxy of the establishment.

A healthy society required give and take of conflicting ideas, even ideas that challenged our most deeply held beliefs.

This was the freedom that fired the imagination of the individuals who helped build our liberal democratic order.

I cannot disagree with these Key Takeaways. If Mavellonialism takes over, a citizenry constituted by individuating anarchist supercitizens would generally be courageous, open, direct and fearless in excercising their freedom to think, work, explore, create, love and worship as they saw fit, whether the government or the community in which they live approve or not. They would assent that a healthy society requires give and take of conflicting ideas because metaphysical moderate Eric Hoffer reminds us that the clash of ideational opposites is where creativity and new ideas are born. As Kierkegaard regarded each person's soul as the ground where the mortal and the infinite meet and make their accommodations, there too the clashing inspires and goads the thinker, the mystic, the artist in each of us.

 Supercitizens would not care if their most deeply held beliefs were constantly challenged, with some agreed-upon preconditions. First, the proponents of alternative cultures and political structures must make their appeal to the public in nonviolent, peaceful, legal ways. In a free society, if the revolutionary ideas are rebuffed, the revolutionaries must peacefully accept the rejection of their project. If changes are to be made, they must be done slowly, gradually, quietly at room temperature (to quote Hoffer again) so that the best of the status quo is maintained, by transformations are gently implemented.

Where the clash of ideas, freedom of thought and freedom of expression are openly allowed and even invited, this lively exchange of ideas will advance the level of knowledge, science, theology, ethics and new technologies necessary for keeping the social order democratic and open to change.

Let me quote Loconte: "Americans seem to be in the throes of a struggle to define not only history but the meaning of our democratic republic.With the stakes so high, the temptation to impose ideological  conformity, by vilifying dissenters and shutting down debate, is fearsome. In her resignation letter to the New York Times earlier this month, former columnist Bari Weiss warned about a new consensus among media elites: 'that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.' Yet the "Enlightenment" project of human freedom depended on courageous individuals who, on a quest for truth, defied the orthodoxy of the establishment.

My reaction: the current cultural war is a struggle between conservatives seeking to speak the truth and salvage historical understanding about the American experience and what is the meaning of our constitutional republic, especially in line with traditional modernist and Enlightenment values, indicative of Western canonical thought. I have written extensively about the current mass movement underway, a Marxist, secular, postmodernist cause whose ideologues, regardless of education, degrees and intelligence mouth the part line, insisting upon orthodoxy, conformity in thought, word and deed. These true believers seek power and the universal spread of their cause at all costs, by any means, no matter who is silenced, canceled or even murdered. No free speech any more. No further dissent. All dialogue ends. All must submit and conform to the lockstep worldview and pronouncements of the elite few, those pure fanatics in service to their Communist agenda.

 

Loconte laments that all the European monarchies in the 1600s " . . . maintained a tight control over dogma of all kinds--religious, political and scientific." 

Things go better after the English Glorious Revolution of 1689. Loconte notes: "Like no one before him, John Locke (1632-1704) sought a solution to the political-religious problem.  In his Two Treatises of Government (1689)and A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Locke vigorously defended the concepts of human freedom, equality and government by consent. He laid the philosophical foundation for the liberal, democratic state. And he did it by defying the prejudices and dogmas of establishment elites. 'To love truth for truth's sake is the principal part of humane perfection in the world,' he wrote, 'and the seed plot of all other virtues.' Our cultural and political debt to Enlightenment philosophers like Locke is incalculable.

Loconte further writes: "This idea was the motive force behind Locke's lifelong struggle to protect the rights of religious conscience in an age of rage. . . Locke argued that every person must be free to pursue truth without fear of censure. . . In Locke's vision of a just and pluralistic society, there was no place for cancel culture."

Loconte concludes: "The free exchange of ideas in the pursuit of truth, wherever it leads: this was the freedom that fired the imagination of individual who helped build our liberal democratic order. We dare not turn our backs on their achievement when we need it most."

May we long defend the basic freedoms bequeathed to us from English and Englightenment thinkers.