The Troubling Robert Bork

I don't always have much time for this sort of thing, but "The Tempting of America" is quite troubling in its creeping tendency, like many later-formulated "conservative"judicial doctrines, to be reactionary to judicial usurptations and offer remedies which actually undermine the very highest laws the conservatives purport to represent. One gets the sense, in truth, Bork was the kind of man who would have himself been swayed as long as something is definite and better presented, that is over substance. Throughout the book, either explicitly or implicitly, he attacks natural rights: like the leftists of the last century he likely would have been just fine with eugenics and forced sterilization "as long as done with due process", and is probably a major player if not THE architect of the knee-jerk hatred of "substantive due process" by certain conservatives--though that intent is to defeat arbitrary power and self-serving judgments and faux-laws with one intent but not another, even though it is hardly applied fairly and often favors what is 'progressive.'

Just going by the index, pages 66 and 209-210 Bork attacks "natural law" even while the founders made it a basis of their Constitution; Bork the conservative writes there's doubtful a right to procreation (66) though he may just be making a provocative example for illustrative purposes (yet inappropriate given decades of murder by the scientificized/bureaucratic progressive-'welfare' State since FDR that has so badly mis-served the poor as much as a Republicratic tycoon that makes a quick buck and name for himself as 'successful' by suppressing wages); he attacks economic rights (as do both major parties) with the cop-out "the meaning of Amendment XIV just isn't well known" (despite extensive records and model legislation originating in another State and its Constitution and being thoroughly explained as enshrining the rights of the black man in America to work no matter what regularly burden the Statist assholes at the State level imposed to try and retard his advancement and well-being) and basically makes an ass of himself to those who don't think throwing-out natural law due to being ambiguous, hard, dangerous, or...inconvenient to an atheistical or agnostic mind that likes simpler mathematical-reminiscent formulas--John Rawls equvocating Justice and Fairness, anyone? Anyone? Bork would condemn Rawls, I bet, for the same error.

Some say "he would at least have been more lawful or better than other candidates", but I would rather if someone is truly "conservative" (meaning "preserving cultural memory/the good things that come before") they be very consistent and if they are not and their ideas are going to lead to catastrophe, then let them show themselves as neither conservative nor liberal (in the sense we can resuscitate classical liberalism despite its lack of attention to certain foundational things like having to deal--even through somewhat-restraining laws--with bad-tenditious human nature, e.g. Adam Smith himself writes that effective regulations are necessary to prevent companies of men devolving into monopolies behaving like mobs) but simply authoritarians de-masked of their pretetions: then they can be rightly despised for what they are, rather than lauded by one or another side for being supposedly virtuous, and those who do laud them can be marked for a future data as is proper.

Meanwhile Allan Bloom (a raging homosexual--see Ravelstein) wrote how a cause that should be his own (gay acceptance) had been twisted to undermine natural rights, edited whole books on natural rights and law vs. legal and what is true law vs. arbitrary power pretending to be for hopes of being considered legitimate, edited books on real originalist Constitutionalism, and agreed with folks like Richard Weaver that the absolute metaphysical right of property must be restored against faux-welfare/general/public health infringements to secure the ability to survive and be well for men who refuse to participate in corrupt systems. Bork the "conservative" meanwhile pretenses to be a friend of Constitution as a veil for his apologies for authoritarians--probably because otherwise you get disorder (too distatsteful for judges who love to preen about 'ordered liberty' while rejected the ordo of nature and its original sense, and to show themselves learned and civilized) and norther aggression undermining "our unique society."

I think one thing that young folks like myself must do, is to reject the pretenses of both major sides of the ideological divide. Bork, oddly enough, seems to be the Statist while the Allan Blooms of the world--a classic liberal--are humanist; it is fine to insist on authority, but let it be right or else call it for the corruption that it is, which is required in the true Constitutional system. Unfortunately this man's influence will probably continue to masquerade as conservative, or Constitute the type of thought that marks the "conservative" establishment in the likes of the GOP (unless libertarians and others can vote them out), even while the tea-party is condemned by the faux liberals while its members demand their rights to work (an extension of their humanity) and not be destroyed through taxation and their rights to defense from arbitrary power and its aggressions unaccountable to anyone be respected...just like the Black Panthers, for instance, in their suspicions and paranoia, do. Neither party actually respects the truly legitimate demands of its constituencies while they do (at least pretend to as politically necessary) work for their (the constituents') more selfish "interests." I think the liberal, in truth, says "fine to both, let us live", but those who must coerce for politics or to achieve some aim, and have the power, tend to throw real tolerance and diversity under the bus, as is convenient: much like America talks "think of the children", but then does to her children (the under-the-bus think) in the name of having me-time and tv-time.