Recently, I
contacted a local writer about Republicans in Santa Monica, then I shared with
him about moving Congressman Waxman to move on behalf of our veterans, as
Waxman has supposedly represented the Brentwood VA ever since he entered
Congress.
not address the “homeless veterans” matter, at the end of which he tagged:
sadly, are on the wrong side of history politically. At least it gives you
something to write about.
“progressive” changes in marital laws, or in any other social policy, often
rests on the argument that certain trends are on the “right side of history”, while
those who oppose rapid changes or even subtle transformations in such policies
are on the “wrong side of history.”
the right and wrong side of an issue? The 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" then suggest that "right and
wrong" are merely subject to circumstances?
quickly:
Quite a Partisan
Past – Truth is not subject to History
disconcerting and disappointing:
segregationists in
the so were on the wrong side of history
followed by
they too talked
about truth trumping history. good luck artie boy.
trumping history. I merely pointed out that trends in political and social life
are not the final arbiters of truth or “right and wrong”, and this assertion
reduces “right side” or “wrong side” of history to nothing. At one time,
societies have deemed it acceptable to exclude others on the basis of race or
culture. In future or even previous eras, the opposite was the case. Ancient
societies accepted homosexual conduct, while subsequent communities resisted
it. Based on this distinction, are gay marriage advocates on the “right side”
or “the wrong side” of history?
the following questions:
Are you calling me
a segregationist, sir?
following question three times:
that truth = racism?
requests for information to this question, I received no answer. The
assumptions which he indicates do not withstand meaningful scrutiny. Since when
did standing up for verities which withstand the test of time reduce an
individual to enduring allegations of “racism”?
Jr. asserted:
word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil
triumphant.
truth? Apparently, he was not concerned about the “right side” or the
"wrong side" of history. King also appealed to the Declaration of
Independence, which asserted that "All men are created equal,"
followed by "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights". The revelation of this truth may be novel, yet its essence
transcends time and history.
The question of
“right and wrong side of history” suggests that truth depends on power, a
common assumption on the Left and among liberals in general. However, without
any moral authority beyond “I have more people” or “I have more guns”, where
does the Left stand on anything? 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, while
environmentalists are clashing with union interests over the XL Keystone
pipeline. Are they all "right"? They disagree on fundamental
policies, and the passage of time will not necessarily resolve these
disagreements, either.
President Abraham
Lincoln shared:
that right makes might, and in that faith let us dare to do our duty as we
understand it.
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".
I know that truth
and "right and wrong" mean a great deal to the columnist whom I
contacted, as he has alleged many times that President George W. Bush floated
false evidence to induce the United States and a coalition of allies to invade
Iraq. These serious allegations stand on more than “right or wrong side of
history.” Should the invasion of Iraq turn into a long-term boon for the Middle
East, would it justify George W. Bush’s alleged deceit? If the invasion creates
a chaotic satellite state for Iran or a transnational terrorist group, do we
applaud Bush because he reported the truth as he understood it, along with five
other intelligence agencies?
Truth, what
defines "right and wrong", must be determined by more than “the right
side” or “the wrong side” of history, or a matter of time, event, and popular
opinion.
is not a racist statement, either.