Glenn Hauman quoted:
"But this relationship depends on the secular Left-liberals cooperating, by also making children a transcendental category. That they have done so has less to do with the welfare of children than with a restless search by these elites for a source of moral legitimacy to shore up their managerial foundations." ............................................................
a restless search.....for a source.... of moral legitimacy.... I am moved to preach to the Choir, for this struck me as a significant series of words to remember. (There have been many posts lately to which I wanted to comment, but I'm restraining myself to this one.) . Some people search within the U.S. Constitution or Declaration of Independence, for moral legitimacy to their political stands. Some efforts for moral legitimacy are from people who feel left out and need (desperately) to find a place for themselves within a social/political context. Ex: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [...] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..." i.e., with certain qualities which in reality make them, therefore, no less significant politically than any who would presume to be above them. Some efforts seem hypocritical, appearing to be attempts at creating the image (illusion) of being founded, similar to the concepts of Natural Rights, upon something unquestionable or inalienable, yet upon closer examination resembling less the endowments of a Superior Creator than of certain psychological desires of regular Human Beings. Differentiating between Deific Origins and other Sources: the concept of being endowed with qualities like "inalienable Rights" leads one to think that one (any individual) has within them the justification for standing separately from, and acting independently of, the absolute hold of a "ruler" of a whole group of people. Contrast that with concepts which lead one to forego the idea of oneself as their own person, substituting instead the image of being situated in a hospital, where everyone is the equivalent of a patient and all are cared for by an Official Nurse who looks after their best interest. All officially justifiable and legitimate investments within this domain are identified not by reference to innate strengths which anyone might find within themselves, but instead are categorized as varieties of weaknesses which give argument to the propriety of surrendering to the ministrations of Authorized Overseers - who will sympathize, succor, and tend to those investments. The intent is for everyone to internalize the image of themselves as invalids within an atmosphere of sympathy for their "special" condition; invalids warranting the attention of the only ones who will be sensitive to their delicacies - those worthy causes which everyone else neglects. Whereas the Founders (of the U.S.) looked to innate qualities of goodness for the justification to their rebellion against mistreatment, these Upwardly Mobile Middle Managers look for untended frailties at the "bottom of the barrel" to provide just cause for acquiescence to their programs. Question: what is "moral" legitimacy (more than merely legitimate)? Better than Thine? One which would be so worthy of one's investment, that it would seem like an obligation, a duty; in a society, that which would be deemed worthy of *everyone's* time and effort, without exception. Is it good to search for (establish) a moral basis to use as a defense of one's manner of existence, or is it really unnecessary? If left unreferenced, unmentioned, will that leave a vaccum in the mind which might otherwise support such endeavors? Does one *need* to legitimize one's (political) behavior? When it becomes necessary for a people to "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." The Founders felt the need to justify their break from the Mother Country. Today the UMMM feel the need to accomplish acquiescence to their goal of situating themselves as The Legitimate Ministers of Important Matters. As they must evoke feelings of justification for their intents and purposes, the reasons for these, the source, must appear to be Moral, to be undeniably Basic and inarguably appropriate, neutralizing all argument against it. But "[...] when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Like, inviolable encryption. <g> .. Blanc