Is our society that close of losing the idea of self-responsible "internal governor" for the Progressive "external governor"? - Granite Grok

Is our society that close of losing the idea of self-responsible “internal governor” for the Progressive “external governor”?

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ”

– Ben Franklin, Constitutional Congress

 "No controlling legal authority."

– Al Gore,  1996 Presidential campaign

The country is all a Twitter by Uber-Progressive Congressman Weiner (D-NY) acting as a sales dude for "tidy whities" and working out at the gym all the time – but for someone other than his new bride. I’m not going to post the pic – our main blogging rule is "Adult themes but kid friendly", and in this, I have no intention of putting up one that would cause a "Hey Mom, what is this?" moment.

Rather, I’d rather (as you can tell from the top quotes) bring up the idea of the differences (again) between a society that is made up of people with internal governors (self-responsible and self-governing) and one that has to have external governors (laws and regulations) surrounding its people.  In essence, either we can literally control ourselves ("virtuous") by internal rules (our hearts, our minds, our moral compasses) or we are forced to be controlled by external rules (decrees from others).  Which camp do you think Anthony Weiner falls into?  More importantly, which camp do you think our country is falling into?

As to the first – Hint: "I have…


…broken no laws or ethical rules of the House".  Yeah.  Essentially an attitude of if I haven’t broken any explicit rules, I have committed no crime; therefore, I will not resign. Tell me, readers, did you see any sense of morality, the internal governor, saying "but I have dishonored my wife, betrayed my family, saddened my friends, and have betrayed those that have defended me as I lied about this whole affair"?  Did he say "I will take the logical consequence, the right consequence, because it is the right thing to do and resign"?

No, I didn’t either.  He holds that as he has committed no crime, so he will stay.  Once again, we hear from the usual useful idiots on the Left that this is a personal matter, not related to his official duties (er, consider blackmail?), why should he resign?  After all, what’s a lie to save oneself, to allow innocent people to be smeared, and concoct scenarios to throw off the scent of the investigations? After all, the lie was not in connection with official duties, eh?

Honor, integrity; character virtues.  Character virtues that are manifestations of that internal governor that declares what is right and what is wrong without depending on those iron bars that are the Law.  Unlike those bars, that external governor, that allow for open space through which one can wiggle, the internal governor follows you through that open space to convict.  And exists at all times – and not just in the halls of Congress.

Unless that internal governor has been derided out of existence – and given Ben Shapiro’s new book (how Hollywood has pushed the Progressive / Left ideals and issues), exactly what the Left has been about doing all along.  Clueless Dads, prudish church goers (those knuckle-dragging Bible thumpers!), patriotic flag wavers, traditional value holders – all either instill or strengthen that internal governorship, those self-governing principles, have been nothing but empty bottles for the pop-guns of the Liberals.

No, he has relied and justified his action, and his lack in doing a right thing, based on the external rules rather than the moral internal ones.  Am I saying that he is morally wrong, that he has none?  No, I am not.  I can only judge his actions and their results – I cannot see his heart nor divine his thoughts.  Yet, the former normally follows the latter two.

Grok friend and proprietor John Hawkins wrote this in his latest Townhall column and points out the need for that internal governor:

 

7) You have a responsibility to be a good person. As Samuel Adams noted way back in 1779,

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Self-responsibility REQUIRES self-governing.  In this case, it simply means that we all need to be able to say "No" even as society seems to keep urging "Oh, don’t be a fuddy-duddy, go ahead and do it" with the imtimation that if you don’t give into temptation, you’re just not cool (shades of high school?  Or just the level of moral maturity of most Progressives?).

 

Let me end with Chuck Colson:

They can only be restrained in two ways: 1) personal integrity coupled with personal responsibility, or 2) the power of the state and the law. The less you have of the former, the more the latter becomes essential.

Freedom cannot be maintained without the cultivation of virtue.

The converse is also true – the more that the State and Law become intrusive, the less personal responsibility becomes in importance.

 

>