Another reason why Obama must be stopped

As Titus pointed out last week, Barack Obama is a very talented orator. He convinces his audiences to suspend disbelief, skepticism, and knowledge of history. Not only does he dress the failed policies of Carter and LBJ as the change of the future, he leaves grown women in tears as he does so.

Here's another reason why Obama must not succeed in his bid for the presidency: in addition to failed policies he offers obsolete philosophical dogmas. A friend emailed me the following passage from Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. I refuse to buy the book and so have not confirmed the accuracy of the passage, but the source is trustworthy.

It's not just absolute power the founders sought to prevent. Implicit in it's (the constitution's) structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or "ism," any tyrannical suggestion that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad.

Leave aside for the moment the astonishing hubris. Focus on the proposition: "Implicit in [the constitution] was a rejection of absolute truth." This philosophical dogma has a name. It's called legal positivism. Positivism was very fashionable in jurisprudential circles early in the twentieth century but had a very short shelf life. Within less than a generation positivism came and went for the same reason that all relativistic philosophies evanesced: it defeated itself. The folly of the relativistic fallacy, on which positivism was predicated -- all truth claims are relative except the truth claim that all truth claims are relative -- was and is obvious to a fifth grader.

That positivism has endured long after its academic proponents renounced it remains a great puzzle. It makes frequent appearances in the writings of certain Supreme Court justices (see the infamous mystery-of-life passage from Justice Kennedy's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and is sprinkled throughout the arguments of willfully ignorant contemporary liberals. It frequently appears when a secular liberal bemoans the supposed arrogations of Christianity. Most of the people who invoke positivism don't read very much and cannot be expected to know that this academic fad went out with big-band swing dancing. The philosophical company that Obama keeps, much like the social company he keeps, is thus quite suspect. And this from a law professor!

That's not all we can learn from this passage. This is a rich vein indeed. Barack Obama rejects absolute truth claims. "Slavery is immoral and ought to be legally prohibited," is an absolute truth claim. So is, "Fathers ought not sexually abuse their daughters." These tyrannical suggestions ought not, according to Barack, lock future generations into a single, unalterable course.

Of course, this assertion of Obama's, like most of his assertions, is not an argument but a slander. Like the assertion "Poverty in America is a moral issue," it is predicated upon an incendiary presupposition, designed to close debate and draw attention away from Obama's vacuity. According to Obama, the conservative's prudential disagreement over the role of government in aiding the poor results from an inadequate moral syllogism. And according to the Senator from Illinois those who make absolute truth claims in the end resort to the "cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad."

I don't mind being slandered by a man who appears not to read very much, but I cannot abide the thought that he might someday be my president.