Advocate Liberty

No matter the complexity of a political debate, conservatives win when they define the core element of liberty in a question. 

Too often, the wonkish among us are prone to nail down the details of a case at the expense of the most powerful line of argument – that liberty is better than bondage.  The advantage goes to the speaker who can simplify the complex yet command the supporting details in an elegant way.

The great classical philosophers approached moral questions by finding the logical core and following it to a rather black and white conclusion.  To them, only contemporary habits and human weaknesses make resolving such questions difficult.

Familiarity with basic philosophy and western history can be of enormous help in structuring a powerful debate approach.  Patrick Henry summoned the best of both elements in making his famous 1775 speech on the question of war with Britain.   

Henry dismissed the emotion that clouded his opponents’ logically weak argument noting, “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren ‘til she transforms us into beasts.” 

His argument touched on many facts of the debate, but he oriented each to his proposition that liberty was better than bondage regardless of the risk. 

Achieving liberty is the ultimate objective of the LPR program.  Through our many graduates, friends and acquaintances we’ve added dramatically to what Henry called “the millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty.”  

4 comments (Add your own)

1. Mark wrote:
Absolutely true. A healthy, cogent, and refreshingly (yet timeless) concise framework for demistifying the hyperbole and muckracking sensationalism around our God-given gift of personal choice and liberty.

Kudos! Keep it up!!

February 24, 2008 @ 12:44 PM

2. Enos McSphinkter wrote:
The new website is coming along well. You can't go wrong relying on Patrick Henry. Were he around today, I have no doubt he would have ended his speeches with, "Give me LPR, or give me death!"

February 27, 2008 @ 1:28 PM

3. Doc One wrote:
Yes, let us advocate liberty with all of Patrick Henry's gusto - we'll need it. But more fundamentally, let us advocate reason. For all the passion the founders possessed for the cause of liberty, they succeeded to the degree that they championed rationality.

The French Revolution is an excellent example of advocating liberty first.

And our current foreign policy has demonstrated the misguided primacy of liberty in Iraq only to have them freely choose the law of Sharia. So we have the embarrassing spectacle and lost opportunity of our leaders advocating first for liberty - only to have this freedom used to further subjugate the Iraqi people. Did we think that a Patrick Henry would rise up from that context? The stubborn facts, which only reason sees, would have dictated different policy.

Yes, advocate liberty - not the selective freedom of conservativism trying to hold onto tradition; not the anarchic freedom of wandering libertarianism - advocate genuine liberty. Advocate liberty based on rationality and the requirements of human existence.

March 20, 2008 @ 11:31 PM

4. David L. wrote:
Shouldn't we first advocate God, duty and country? Wouldn't Patrick Henry have acknowledged that both reason and freedom are gifts from our creator? The Leadership Progrma of the Rockies is based on the Founders vision of America which was informed by their faith in our Christian God. We have a duty to protect and defend the constitution and that is what this country has been missing for a long time.

April 18, 2008 @ 12:31 AM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.