About “The Right and Wrong Side of History”

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.

 His response did not address the “homeless veterans” matter, at the end of which he tagged:

 YOU, sadly, are on the wrong side of history politically. At least it gives you something to write about.

 The argument for “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.”

 What constitutes 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?

 I responded very quickly:

Quite a Partisan Past - Truth is not subject to History‏

 His response was 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.

 I never 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”, 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?

 I responded with the following questions:

Are you calling me a segregationist, sir?

 Followed by the following question three times:

 Are you saying that truth = racism?

 Following my three 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”?

 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. Martin Luther King racist for speaking up for the 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:

 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".

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.

 And this assertion is not a racist statement, either.