How the Left Exposed Itself
We’ve just witnessed the collapse of the Left. It only took one image to cement its fate. No doubt you’ve seen the statue or image attempting to depict the Republican candidate in an unbecoming and humiliating light. Last Thursday, in five American cities a life-sized naked statue of Mr. Trump went on display in a blatant attempt to influence the public. The architect behind this immature display is a low budget studio located in Los Angeles, CA called INDECLINE, save your punch lines for later.
The typical conservative response is to point out, then argue a clear double standard of gender exposure, an insensitivity regarding body image issues, and the “why we shouldn’t stoop to Trump’s level, we are better than him” fallacy. However, I see this moment as a far-reaching bankruptcy of the Left on two fully connected levels; moral restraint theory coupled with general irrelevancy. In the process, the Left has left itself exposed and discredited their position. As an important reminder, they provided a graphic souvenir for ages to come.
Suppose for a moment you were a wolf in a pack of wolves roaming the North American woodlands. It would be true to say within your pack there is no particular set of rules to guide or direct right behavior. Your existence predicates upon survival at any cost. There is no absolute right or wrong behavior. From time to time, you have learned to work within the pack, however, in the wild, there are no supreme moral commands. You do what you need to do in order to survive. However, humans are not animals. We have a fixed set of rules or moral guidelines to steer our behavior. It’s how we know when a particular thing is right or wrong. The critic to moral restraint theory would have to argue otherwise. He would have to argue there is no such thing as moral absolutes, and he would need to argue his point absolutely. The obvious breakdown in his view is self-evident. Furthermore, do we really want to consider our humanity as little more than a pack of wild wolves doing whatever it takes to survive without any moral restraint?
To be clear in what I’m saying, the responsibility of creating and displaying a statue of this sort rests exclusively on the shoulders of those who produced and posted the work. However, in the response is where the Left reveals the collapse of its position. One would be hard-pressed to find a hint of liberal anger over this brazen event. In fact, the opposite response is true. From a position of retribution, glee, disdain, and self-assuredness comments and posts stream across the Twittersphere, the Internet, and media outlets. If you hold to a liberal point of view, you most likely find yourself participating in the gaiety. I can already hear the rebuttal, “there should be no outrage, it’s freedom of speech,” etc. Except, that is to miss the point. It seems to me when one chooses to use profanity in order to make a point; he forfeits the legitimacy of his position.
The fact is, INDECLINE decided to utilize a profane methodology in communicating their contempt for Mr. Trump. Our nation has plenty of room to express disdain. However, I would like to think the people of our country would choose to hold some level of decorum in public debate. The morally appropriate response from both sides of the political aisle is to denounce this type of reprehensible political theater. If both sides do not reprimand this sort of behavior, only the depth of the lowest sewer will limit what is next and in what manner the profanity decay. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Left to rebuke the actions of INDECLINE.
The liberal critic will hastily reply, “Profanity is subjective and who are you to judge what is profane and what is not profane? One person's obscenity is another person's art.” This is where the Left exposes itself. For the leftist critic to be correct, he must again argue the point of subjective moral values and duties. However, what the critic fails to see is the bankruptcy of his position. If one is to hold to a theory of subjectivity, by virtue of no virtue his very position crumbles. For a more extensive reading on the subject, I recommend Alvin Plantinga’s pivotal work entitled, An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. The essential argument exposes the breakdown in holding to an evolutionary view of humanity, which ultimately destroys the concept of subjectivity about moral theory. This argument is somewhat formulated from Charles Darwin’s famous “Darwin’s Doubt.” In a July 3, 1881 letter to William Graham, Darwin wrote, “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
Therefore, it seems to me that real moral duties and obligations do exist, and our Creator gives those duties to us by virtue of his nature. William Lane Craig provides an excellent animation entitled, The Moral Argument in which he lays out one of the finest opinions regarding this subject. From a practical point, the Left already holds to the idea of objective moral values every time they use the words “we should” or “ought to.” Where does the impetus for the “shouldness” or “oughtness” come from if not from objective moral truth? Unknowingly, the Left painted themselves into a corner on this issue. The inscription on the sculptures should have been fittingly entitled, “THE LEFT HAS NO CLOTHES.”
Simply put, the undressed statue of Mr. Trump serves as a visual reminder to the nakedness of the Left’s position. Finally, their lack of response unknowingly pushes their viewpoint into irrelevancy.