I recently contacted a local writer about Republicans in Santa Monica. I shared with him about impressing on U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Westside, South Bay) to move on behalf of our veterans since Waxman supposedly has represented the Brentwood VA ever since he entered Congress in the mid-1970s.
The writer’s response did not address homeless veterans but, rather, his previous connections with the Congressman.
“You, sadly, are on the wrong side of history, politically,” he said. “At least it gives you something to write about.”
This argument from liberals and progressives infuses current debates on marital laws and other issues. Their defense often rests on the argument that certain trends are on the right side of history. Those who oppose rapid changes or even subtle transformations in such policies are on the wrong side of history.
How Does One Know?
What constitutes the right and wrong sides? Passage of time alone cannot determine the values of a people. For example, time does not heal all wounds, as justified by the repeated appeal by Holocaust victims and their supporters that men and women never forget. Times change. Attitudes change. But do such changes suggest that right and wrong merely are subject to circumstances?
I responded quickly:
“Quite a partisan past. Truth is not subject to history.”
The writer’s answer was disconcerting:
“In the South, segregationists were on the wrong side of history…”
followed by –
“They, too, talked about truth trumping history. Good luck, Artie boy.”
I never had mentioned trumping history. I merely pointed out that trends in political and social life are not the final arbiters of truth or right and wrong. Such an assertion reduces “right side” and “wrong side” of history to nothing. At one time, societies had deemed it acceptable to exclude others on the basis of race or culture. In future eras or even previous ones, the opposite was the case. Some ancient societies accepted homosexual conduct. Subsequent communities resisted it. Based on this distinction, are gay marriage advocates on the right side or the wrong side of history?
“Are you calling me a segregationist, sir?” I asked.
“Are you saying that truth equals racism?
He had no answer. His assumptions did not withstand scrutiny. Since when did standing up for verities that have withstood the test of time reduce an individual to allegations of racism?
Martin Luther King Jr. asserted:
I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.
Is Dr. King racist for speaking up for the truth? Apparently he was not concerned about the right side or the wrong side of history. Dr. King also appealed to the Declaration of Independence, which holds that “All men are created equal,” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This revelation may be novel. Yet its essence transcends time and history.
Quantity Is Not the Determinant
The question of the right and wrong sides suggests that truth depends on power, a common assumption on the Left. However, without any moral authority beyond “I have more people” or “I have more guns,” where does the Left stand on any subject?
Even today, competing interests within the Democratic Party are breaking up President Obama’s aggressive agenda. Moderate Democrats are reluctant to support expanses in gun control. Environmentalists are clashing with union interests over the XL Keystone pipeline. Are they all right? They disagree on fundamental policies. The passage of time will not necessarily resolve these disagreements.
President Lincoln declared:
Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us dare to do our duty as we understand it.
Might depends on right, what is true, what is real. Radical Muslims argue that Western nations are despicable regimes, contrary to the will of Allah. Are they on the right side of history? The 3,000 victims of 9/11 probably would not agree, although the hijackers who crashed American airplanes into the World Trade Center would say that they were right.
Truth, and right and wrong, mean a great deal to the columnist whom I contacted, Frequently he has accused President George W. Bush of having floated false evidence to induce the United States and its allies to invade Iraq. These allegations stand on more than the right or wrong side of history. Should the invasion of Iraq turn into a long-term boon for the Middle East, would it justify President Bush’s alleged deceit? If the invasion creates a chaotic satellite state for Iran or a transnational terrorist group, do we applaud Mr. Bush because he reported the truth as he understood it, along with five other intelligence agencies?
Truth, the definition of right and wrong, must be determined by more than the right or wrong sides of history, by a matter of time, event, or popular opinion.
And this is not a racist assertion.
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a writer and blogger on issues both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A lifelong resident of Southern California, he currently lives in Torrance. He may be contacted at arthurschaper@hotmail.com, aschaper1.blogspot.com and at asheisministries.blogspot.com. Also see waxmanwatch.blogspot.com.
