During the period before the Civil War, the United States was a federal republic, with primary sovereignty residing in the states. The Constitution enshrined a form of joint sovereignty in which the federal government was sovereign as to certain specific matters delegated to it, and the states retained primary sovereignty. Theoretically, this remains true today; however, in reality, the national government is supreme, with broad powers to control the activities of the states and local authorities. Whether this situation should continue unchanged is a matter that requires the most profound thought and consideration.

The Civil War ultimately settled the issue on the battlefield in favor of a strong central government. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution effectively enshrined federal dominance in the Constitution’s fabric. This dominance became increasingly apparent over time, particularly as a result of the Great Depression and the significant expansion of federal authority it entailed. Some of the most challenging situations that the Supreme Court would face occurred during the Great Depression.

Culturally, the United States entered the Civil War as a primarily agrarian nation, with an emerging industrial base primarily in the northern portion of the country. As a result of the Civil War, the process of industrialization in the United States was accelerated. By the end of the War, the United States had become an industrial power with a unique military experience that would enable it to project its power overseas. The Spanish-American War proved that the United States was a competitor to the imperialistic European powers. By the time the First World War ended, the United States had become the world’s dominant industrial nation.

This week, we examine the constitutional developments that coincided with the emergence of the United States as a global industrial power. This particular study, though perhaps not immediately relevant to most is relevant, for American society is currently undergoing a change as rapid and as important as the change after the American Civil War, and its implications are just as significant.

Reconstruction and Its End

After the Civil War, the South had to be reconstructed in a manner that would prevent the recurrence of the conflict. It was occupied by union forces, an occupation that lasted for about a decade. Over time, it became apparent that the Civil War had only changed the legal status of the former slaves, and the social system that had evolved during slavery would change more slowly. The Supreme Court was compelled to address highly complex and socially challenging cases arising from the Reconstruction era. Eventually, the court narrowed the application of the 13^th and 14^th Amendments to slavery and those social incidents that were addressed by the 14^th Amendment. In so doing, it impacted America for many generations, not always positively.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 affirmed equality of all citizens in the enjoyment of transportation facilities, in hotels and inns, and in theaters and places of public amusement. Although privately owned, these businesses were akin to public utilities, performing public functions for the benefit of the public and, thus, felt to be subject to public regulation. In five separate cases, a Black person was denied the same accommodations as a White person in violation of the 1875 Act.

These cases reached the United States Supreme Court in what are known as the “Civil Rights Cases.” [1] In the Civil Rights Cases, the court held that the 13th and 14th Amendments did not provide a basis for Congress to pass laws protecting African Americans from discrimination by private individuals. Regarding the 13th Amendment, the court held that it relates only to slavery and involuntary servitude (which it abolishes). Although Congress could pass laws directly enforcing its provisions, such legislative power extends only to the subject of slavery and its incidents. The private denial of equal accommodations in inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement (which is forbidden by the sections in question) did not impose a badge of slavery or involuntary servitude. The prohibitions of the 14th Amendment, applied only to state laws and acts done under State authority, but do not extend to private activity. [2]

However, the Court did not completely eviscerate the 14^th Amendment, for it did recognize that:

In this connection, it is proper to state that civil rights, such as are guaranteed by the Constitution against State aggression, cannot be impaired by the wrongful acts of individuals, unsupported by State authority in the shape of laws, customs, or judicial or executive proceedings. The wrongful act of an individual, unsupported by any such authority, is simply a private wrong, or a crime of that individual; an invasion of the rights of the injured party, it is true, whether they affect his person, his property, or his reputation; but if not sanctioned in some way by the State, or not done under State authority, his rights remain in full force, and may presumably be vindicated by resort to the laws of the State for redress. [3]

 In dissent, Justice Harlan made a distinction between the legal institution of slavery and those badges and burdens of disability, which are implicit in the social status of former slaves. He formed the intellectual basis for what would later be an expansion of the 14^th Amendment by suggesting that the court had the right to declare unconstitutional laws that might involve the “incidents and badges” of slavery.

Economic Regulation and the 14^th Amendment

As a result of rapid industrialization, after the Civil War, states began passing legislation to protect workers. However, sometimes this “protection” also aimed to benefit entrenched interests by helping them maintain their economic status. The Supreme Court took two very different approaches to this issue, sometimes “deferring to state legislatures” and at other times overturning laws seen as unreasonable or that violated a specific Constitutional mandate. Generally, the Court applied the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment, deciding cases based on the “reasonableness” of restrictions on individual rights to life, liberty, and property. [4]

Transitioning from evaluating the reasonableness of a restriction to adopting a deferential approach to decision-making, the court ultimately determined that a legislative limitation would be deemed reasonable if there was any rational basis for a person to believe it was reasonable. The concept of “judicial deference” was articulated in a significant law review article published in the Harvard Law Review in 1893 by the prominent legal scholar James Bradley Thayer, a close friend of Oliver Wendell Holmes.[5]

This led to one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions, Plessy v. Ferguson, where the court ruled that a restriction preventing blacks from sitting in areas of a train reserved for whites was constitutional. Plessy upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under what is now known as the “separate but equal” doctrine. The Court ruled that state laws requiring separate facilities for black and white citizens did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as long as the facilities were of equal quality and equal in every respect.[6] In making this decision, the Court was “deferring” to the legislative judgment of the citizens of Louisiana (and the entire South, as well as much of the rest of the country) in a way that followed majority will but denied the rights of individual black citizens. Today, nearly all scholars view Plessy as wrongly decided. Moreover, the tact taken in Plessy created additional problems, as will be seen below.

Economic Regulation and the 14^th Amendment

Over time, the theory of “judicial deference” enunciated by Thayer was enshrined in several cases in which what had begun restricting the 14^th Amendment in Southern Civil Rights cases bore fruit in the area of economic regulation. In thinking about this issue, it is essential to remember the wording of the 14^th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [7]

Without question, the 14^th Amendment was intended to enshrine the notion that all citizens, regardless of race, color, or socio-economic class, had the right to “life, liberty, and property,” which rights were inalienable. The phrase “without due process of law” almost certainly refers to the fact that people can be executed, imprisoned, and their property taken under certain circumstances if due process of law is followed. This happens all the time, for example when a public body forces a sale of property. This clearly implies that economic freedoms, as well as other freedoms do not involve a total lack of restriction and regulation.

As industrialization sped up after the Civil War, states increasingly passed economic laws, some of which were aimed or at least claimed to improve conditions for the now urban working classes. The decision in Lochner v. New York highlights the Court’s involvement in this area. [8]

As background, New York state’s baking industry came under scrutiny when the New York Press published a muckraking report titled “Bread and Filth Cooked Together” in September 1894. The article, which detailed “vermin and dirt abound” and “a grind that makes ambition for personal cleanliness impossible,” drew the attention of reformers, organized labor, and politicians. Unsafe working conditions were not unique to the baking industry; they were also prevalent in other industries. Still, the momentum generated by this exposé led the New York State Legislature to pass the Bakeshop Act in the spring of 1895. The act implemented standards for sanitation and working conditions in bakeries. It also limited working hours for bakers to a maximum of 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week. [9]

As with many such pieces of legislation, the virtue of the New York legislation is somewhat questioned by the fact that it. In the case of Lochner v. New York, the petitioner, Joseph Lochner, was the owner of a small bakery in New York. In April 1901, Lochner was arrested and charged with violating the Bakeshop Act. One of his employees, Aman Schmitter, worked more than 60 hours in one week. The state trial court fined him $50 and sentenced him to 50 days in jail. Lochner appealed. Both state appeals courts upheld the law, citing a need to protect worker safety and public health. Lochner appealed his case to the Supreme Court.[10]

The majority opinion of the Court held that the health risks associated with the baking industry do not justify the state legislature’s interference with the right to work or Lochner’s liberty of contract. In this light, the Bakeshop Act was an improper exercise of the state’s power to legislate for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and deprived workers of their contractual rights. A minority dissent argued that the state legislature’s determination that the conditions in bakeries posed legitimate public health concerns was reasonable. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes filed a separate dissenting opinion, criticizing the majority for using the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to protect a right not explicitly stated in the Constitution.[11]

Lochner was a landmark case in what is known as “Substantive Due Process.” The opinion in Lochner did not address a failure to follow proper procedures in restricting the contractual rights of individuals, but rather a substantive right that the Court found in the Constitution. Although the court has long walked away from the implications of Lochner in the area of economic regulation, it has continued to apply the doctrine in other areas. This has resulted in the development of a highly complex body of law, which will be addressed in a later blog. It is enough for now to note that, during the Great Depression and thereafter, the Court retreated from its decision in Lochner.

Conclusion

If you are like me, it is hard to distinguish between Due Process and Equal Protection. Simply put, Due Process safeguards individuals from government actions that unfairly interfere with their rights or stop them from exercising those rights without proper procedures. In addition, some fundamental rights cannot be limited no matter the level of due process—this is known as “Substantive Due Process.” Equal Protection ensures that people in similar situations are treated equally. It requires the government to apply laws fairly and not discriminate without a good reason. Essentially, individuals in similar circumstances should receive comparable treatment under the law. Initially, the goal was to ensure that former slaves received the same legal protections as those born free.

If the government deprives a fundamental right by treating similarly situated people differently, then both an equal protection claim and a due process claim may be raised. Essentially, a Substantive Due Process Claim can also serve as an Equal Protection Claim if a fundamental right is involved.

Even today, the nation continues to grapple with the legacy of Lochner and the Court’s development substantive due process under the 14^th Amendment. During mid to late the 20th century, the Court established a doctrine of non-economic due process, striking down government actions that unjustly infringe on what was viewed by the Court as fundamental rights. Recently, however, the Court has avoided invalidating government actions based on substantive due process. That story is still evolving.

Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Civil Rights Cases 109 US 3 (1883.

[2] Id.

[3] Id, at 108.

[4] Randy E. Barnett, Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People (New York, NY: Broadside Books (Harper Collins) (2016), 125

[5] James Bradley Thayer, “The Origin and Scope of American Constitutional” Law 25 Harvard Law Review 7 (1893).

[6] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Plessy was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[7] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment XIV (1868).

[8] Lochner vs. New York 198 US 45 (1005).

[9] “Lochner vs, New York” in Supreme Court Historical Society discussion at https://civics.supremecourthistory.org/article/lochner-v-new-york(downloaded July 28, 2025)

[10] Id.

[11] Id. Despite his sympathy with the legislation, Holmes’s dissent contained mischievous language that would impact the Court’s later history. I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health. Men whom I certainly could not pronounce unreasonable would uphold it as a first instalment of a general regulation of the hours of work. Whether in the latter aspect it would be open to the charge of inequality, I think it unnecessary to discuss.” Id =. Holmes was repeating Thayer’s precise language and theory articulated in his earlier article. Worse, the question of justice and truth are vitiated by the language “any reasonable man.” Reasonable men are mistaken and even evil all the time.

The notion that the Constitution should be malleable to the will of a majority finds its philosophical basis in the work of the philosopher Rousseau, who was not influential among the founders of our Constitution, but whose work became more and more important during the 19^th Century. Marx, with his notion that governments would eventually be under the sway of the “Will of the Proletariat, derives support for his theories directly from the thought of Rousseau.

The Ghost of Rousseau

Rousseau is the originator of the notion of a “General Will” expressed by the voters in a democratic society. Many people think of it as his foundational achievement as a social and political philosopher. If the idea of a Social Contract provides a vehicle to construct a society of atomized individuals, the General Will as a political idea is an answer to the question the mechanism that can form a society based on the Social Contract.

While ancient writers focused on ideas like “The General Good” or “Public Peace” (transcendent public goods inherent in human society), Rousseau develops the concept of a “General Will” of the people. From the beginning, one can observe the individualistic and power-driven nature of modernity. The General Will is not something outside the human individual; society seeks it, and it is part of the human condition to be imposed. As a “General Will” of the people, it has no inherent limitations. This idea underpins the modern tendency toward large-scale tyranny. A more modest perspective might be to view the general will and general good as goals we strive for as a society, but which our human finiteness and self-centeredness make it impossible to fully realize.

For the modern progressive movement, it was essential to establish that the Constitution was a human document to be interpreted in accordance with the will of the people at a given point in time. This notion of the will of the people transfers the discussion from one of the duty of the state to proto individuals to a discussion of the extent of the power of the government to institute the given “will of the people. In the process, the role of government is inevitably changed to accomplishing the presumed will of the people, not the protection of the rights of individuals.

The Democratic Party, initially formed by Andrew Jackson, embraced the notion of the will of the people as part of its belief that the will of the majority was embodied in the Democratic Party and its principles. President Martin Van Buren, who followed Andrew Jackson as President, adopted the view that the will of the people, as embodied in the policies of his party, was and should be the ultimate guide to determining the meaning of the Constitution. [1]

This view shifted the notion of the sovereignty of the people from being inherent in each individual citizen to an abstract concept of a discernible will of the people that existed in the collective. This notion is not different from the Nazi notion that there was a will of the German People or the Communist view of a Will of the Russian Proletariat. And interestingly enough, this will could be used in each case to enshrine in law the prejudices of its proponents, in the case of the early Democratic Party, the notion that slavery should and could be constitutionally protected.

In the years prior to the Civil War, successive Democratic Party leaders sought to find a way around the problem of slavery. Many of the founding generation, including some such as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, disliked slavery and thought it incompatible with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, to address the problems of the Articles of Confederation, they were required to delay resolving the issue of slavery. Congress tried successive strategies, such as the Missouri Compromise (1820) and the Kansas and Nebraska Act (1854), but these only made matters worse as the nation became divided between those committed to the abolition of slavery and those who would protect the institution.

Salmon Chase, an early abolitionist lawyer, Senator from Ohio, and Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury, argued early that no legislature, state or federal, could abrogate the fundamental laws of nature, of which personal freedom was the first and most basic.[2] As a Senator, he put the matter plainly: “What kind of popular sovereignty is it that allows one portion of the people to enslave another portion?”[3] Thus, the pre-civil War Republican Party was characterized by its belief that the people had rights reserved by the Constitution, which a majority cannot abrogate, however large.

The Kind of Natural Rights Protected

During the Civil War, Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress took the position that the president was entitled to free any slaves, whether in a slave or free state, as a matter of military necessity. This is the genesis of the Emancipation Proclamation. After the war, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 designed to protect the rights of former slaves to make and enforced contracts to sue and be sued, to give evidence in court, to inherit property, and to purchase, lease, cell holding convey real and personal property and have the full and equal benefit of all the laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, as enjoyed by any other citizen of the United States.[4] When President Andrew Jackson vetoed the major, Congress drafted the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution, which overruled his veto and put the matter beyond alteration by the Supreme Court.

14^th Amendment

On April 9, 1868, three years after the war’s end, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states. Section 1 of this Amendment provides as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [5]

The 14^th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that citizens of the United States have certain rights that cannot be taken away from them without due process, including life, liberty, and property. In other words, those rights “reserved to the people” by the Constitution, and which rights presumably preceded the Constitution, cannot be abrogated by either state or federal government.[6]

Selective Incorporation

The plain language interpretation of the 14^th Amendment suggests that the Bill of Rights applied to both the states and the federal government. However, in the Slaughterhouse cases of 1873, the Court seemed to close the door on applying the Bill of Rights to state governments. [7]Nevertheless, starting in 1897 and continuing throughout the 20^th century, the Court issued several decisions indicating that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14^th Amendment also apply to state governments and other governmental entities, such as schools. They did so using a case-by-case approach known as “Selective Incorporation.”  Today, the vast majority of the Bill of Rights has been held to apply to both state and federal authorities. Nevertheless, it is my view that Selective Incorporation ignores the plain language of the 14^th Amendment that “no state” may impair the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

Conclusion

The Civil War and the amendments that resulted from it went a long way toward securing the fundamental rights of all citizens of the United States. It was left to a specific constitutional amendment to ensure women’s rights to vote. [8]However, on the whole, the Civil War’s amendments can be seen as supportive of the notion that each individual American has certain civil rights that no government, however majoritarian, can infringe upon. Unfortunately, the Progressive Movement of the late 19^th and 20^th Centuries placed stresses on this view which may only now be being overcome.

Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Randy E. Barnett, Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People (New York, NY: Broadside Books (Harper Collins), (2016), 88.

[2] Id, at 94

[3] Id, at 97.

[4] Id, at 102. Civil Rights Act of 1866 14 Stat. 27 (1866).

[5] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment XIV (1868).

[6] Id, 107,

[7] The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36 (1873)

[8] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment XIX (1920).

This week, I am launching a new series of blogs on the Constitution based on Randy Barnett’s book, Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People. [1] Due to the excessive politicization of our culture, it is important right at the outset to note that the word “Republican” is used as in political science and philosophy and not in its partisan meaning.

A republic consists of a form of government in which the leadership is not vested in a king, tyrant, or dictator, but in constitutionally designated leadership. A republic is organized in such a way that governing power belongs to that body of citizens entitled to vote, and the legislative and executive powers of government are exercised by the leaders and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law. [2] The United States of America is a republic in this sense of the word, and the founders were very deliberately forming a constitutional republic.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, the United States was not a republic. It was a confederation of sovereign states, which were themselves republics. This form of government did not work well, leaving the United States militarily, economically, and politically weak and unable to function. Thus, the Constitutional Convention was called in 1987. The convention opened on May 25, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The story of the convention is beyond the scope of this blog, but it merits study by every American. There are many fine studies of the event, the most popular of which is “Miracle in Philadelphia” by Catherine Drinker Bowen. [3] The convention is unique in history for the quality of its leadership and the experience and judgment of its members, in particular James Madison, whose leadership and scholarship profoundly impacted the convention and its outcome.

The Preamble of the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [4]

Barnett’s book is a detailed discussion on the meaning of the term “We the People of the United States” and defends his view that the term should be understood as referring to individuals rather than as a collective, “the People.” As this blog continues, you will see that a lot is at stake in how one interprets the Constitution—as either a collective or as referring to individuals.

“Republican” vs. “Democratic” Constitution

Barnett begins by defining just what he means by a “republican” as opposed to a “democratic” constitution:

Under a democratic constitution, the only individual rights that are legally enforceable, or a product of majoritarian will whether the wheel of the majorities in the legislature who create ordinary, legal rights or the Will of majorities who ratify the constitution and it’s amendments and created constitutional rights. [5]

…

Under a republican constitution, then, the first duty of government is to equally protect these personal and individual rights from being violated by both domestic and foreign transgressors. The agents of the people must not themselves use their delegated powers to violate the very rights they were empowered to protect.[6]

The first tradition maintains that today’s majority should not be limited by the influence of past majorities in interpreting the Constitution. The Republican view argues that the Constitution’s meaning should not change over time and that it primarily exists to protect individual freedoms from the tyranny of hostile majorities. A Republican Constitution considers the individual rights of the people to be more important than the collective rights of a majority or their representatives.

Protection of Individuals

In Barrett’s view, the idea that the “will of the people” should necessarily dominate political discussion and allow courts to disregard the explicit language of the Constitution is mistaken. The “will of the people” was not what the Constitution aimed to protect. Instead, the Constitution was designed to safeguard the rights of individuals against the government and its leaders at any given time. Individual rights come first, and after individual rights, the government. Those in government are to serve and be subordinate to, not an abstract concept, but the actual people who make up the citizenry at any moment.[7]

In the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress put it this way:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [8]

For the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, people have rights (what have been historically called “Natural Rights”) that precede the institution of government because they are inherent in the human condition. One reason the defense of personal rights against majorities is so challenging today is the decline of a natural law orientation in government and among those governing.  If government is merely the rules made by those in power, then there are no such things as “unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This idea conflicts with the views often expressed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose opinions remain influential even today, years after his last decision as a justice of the United States Supreme Court. Holmes’s theory of law starts with the idea that the majority of people (what the “dominant forces of the community want through their elected representatives” and “want hard enough to disregard whatever inhibitions stand in their way”) can do whatever they wish. Therefore, Justice Holmes saw law as a tool for achieving an end set by the lawmaker, with almost no fixed constitutional limits on what the majority might want to do. As one commentator said:

Holmes believed that the Supreme Court presides over an empty Constitution — empty of purpose, of moral content, of enduring meaning — bereft of any embedded principles defining the relationship between man and the state. This distinctively Holmesian view, novel in 1905, is today’s orthodoxy. It dominates constitutional interpretation, defines public debate, and furnishes a litmus test for evaluating nominees to the Supreme Court.  [9]

In short, Holmes’s perspective is that the dominant powers of an era and society create or deny rights through acts of legislative, administrative, or judicial will, enforced by the state’s police power. Holmes believed that objective values would prevail in the “marketplace of ideas:”

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. [10]

In my view, this is precisely where America is today. With the ascendancy of postmodernism, which denies the kind of objective reality that Holmes and his followers assumed, made more toxic by a revolutionary Rousseauian notion of democracy in which there should be no limitations on the power of dominant groups and their leaders, we find ourselves in a much different  (and dangerous) position.

It seems to me that one avenue out of the dangerous situation in which we find ourselves is a recovery of the notion that the Constitution protects the rights of every individual American, whether they are part of the majority or not. No one doubts that leaders, elected by the majority of the people, should have the freedom to enact the policies for which the public voted. However, in our system of government, that freedom is limited by our commitment to protecting the rights of minorities. This is an essential aspect of the Constitution that is currently at risk.

There is a biblical proverb that reads, “A deep respect for the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and humility goes before honor” (Proverbs 15:33). Respect for the Lord, which biblical translators literally translate “fear of the Lord” is that respect that we give to a being more powerful than we are who we cannot necessarily control. The humility and respect for the Eternal brings is that respect we have because we understand that we are limited, finite, and do not always see things correctly or with a view toward the consequences that emerge. Therefore, we must be careful in what we say and do.

A commitment to a personalistic view of the protections that the constitution provides to people will only work if we understand that the reason this is so important is because the majority are very often wrong. Sometimes, as in the French and Russian revolutions, they are tragically wrong with long-term consequences for millions of people. Therefore, when implementing any public policy, we must be careful, and we must protect the rights of everyone, especially the minority and most vulnerable. This is the essential element for maintaining a free society where people have the freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and happiness.”

Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Randy E. Barnett, Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People (New York, NY: Broadside Books (Harper Collins), (2016).

[2] See “Republic” in Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Online) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republican (downloaded July 7, 2025).

[3] Catherine Drinker Bowen: Miracle in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention May to September 1787 (New York, NY: Little Brown and Company, 1966). This is a very well-done popular history. For those with a more scholarly bent, there are various others with a more academic tone. I believe her work to be unmatched for interested laypersons.

[4] US Constitution, Preamble.

[5] Our Republican Constitution, 21.

[6] Id, at 23

[7] Id, at 34.

[8] Declaration of Independence (US 1776).

^[9] Tom Bowden, “Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution” The Objective Standard (Summer 2009),https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/justice-holmes-and-the-empty-constitution/ (downloaded July 8, 2025).

[10] Abrams v United States 1250 US 616  (1919), Holmes dissenting at 630.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

This week, I revisit a subject that is crucial for the moral and spiritual renewal of our civilization: overcoming its widespread moral decline. One of the most unfortunate legacies of Rousseau’s Romanticism, combined with Marx’s dialectical materialism, is the widespread immorality present in modern societies, along with the common belief among many, including numerous elites, that immoral actions are justified in the pursuit of political victory which they identify with their vision of the common good. Frequently, this masquerades as support for “democracy” and the need to accomplish the “will of the people.” [1]

As I write this week, a report has been issued indicating that a former Attorney General, who presents himself as a Christian well-versed in the works of certain Christian writers on moral and political philosophy, engaged in deliberate deception to harm the election chances of a candidate he disapproved of. To achieve this, he was joined by several high-ranking law enforcement and intelligence officials. Behind this activity was their moral conviction that they were entitled to lie because it was in the public interest.

To understand what is wrong in the actions of certain (often political) actors in our society, it is crucial to clarify in one’s mind what is meant by moral inversion and moral posturing.

1. Moral Inversion: Moral inversion means exactly what it says. It is a distorted morality where committing an immoral act is justified by a morally impoverished actor influenced by the pervasive ideologies of our society.
2. Moral Posturing. Moral Posturing involves claiming support for widely accepted ethical positions that cost the speaker nothing, which suggests they are not genuinely moral agents. It often includes expressing opinions or stances aligned with popular views to appear ethical. Moral posturing is typically aimed at gaining power or social approval without taking meaningful action.

Taken together, these two moral perversions characterize much of the moral discourse of our time.

Moral Inversion

In his writings, the philosopher of science Michael Polanyi describes a process he calls “moral inversion,” which he believes is a common trait of totalitarian regimes on both the right and the left. Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Communist China were all driven by an extreme moral energy disconnected from any form of traditional morality. Moral inversion, Polanyi argues, is the demonic force behind dehumanizing and violent social movements and the oppressive governments they establish. Despite the destruction they cause, the leaders and their followers in these movements see themselves as working toward utopian visions of the common good, shaped by their narrow worldviews. Moral inversion, unfortunately, is not limited to totalitarian regimes.

In his book, Logic of Liberty, Polanyi describes the phenomenon (speaking of Russian Marxists and German Nazi’s) as follows:

“In such men, the traditional forms for holding moral ideals had been shattered and their moral passions diverted into the only channels which a strictly mechanistic conception of man and society left open to them. We may refer to this as the process of moral inversion. The morally inverted person has not merely performed a philosophic substitution of moral aims by material purposes, but is acting with the whole force of his homeless moral passions within a purely materialistic framework of purposes.” [2]

Human beings are, by nature, motivated by moral passions. When by education or training they are denied an intellectual ground for their moral passions, these passions, like a river that has run out of its banks, flow in an uncontrolled flood into whatever channel lies conveniently at hand. In modern, materialistic societies, that channel has been revolutionary action designed to create a new society along strictly materialistic notions. Communism or some form of national socialism has been the preferred channel. The disasters of the 20^th and 21st centuries have been fueled by a moral energy resulting from the misdirected channeling of human moral passions.

The materialistic impulse of moral inversion does not necessarily have to be connected to radical movements like Nazism or communism. For example, I might simply be a capitalist who believes that any action I take to make money is justified. I might feel it was perfectly right to stretch accounting principles or engage in dubious tax avoidance schemes. In each case, I have decided to make something that is fundamentally immoral, moral on materialistic grounds. This is why I sometimes call “moral inversion” “moral reductionism.” Not only does moral inversion result in immoral acts being held good (“Violence is justified to bring in a more perfect state”) but it also can involve taking one value (working hard) and turning it into a supreme value the pursuit of which allows one to ignore other values as or more important.

Moral Posturing

With the Enlightenment and its celebration of critical reason, Christian faith and morals—as well as the beliefs of other world religions and philosophical systems—were subjected to the dissolving power of reductionist, critical thinking. The materialism of the modern world reduces all reality to material particles and forces acting upon them. Ultimately, this way of thinking led to Nietzsche’s critique that God (spirit) is an illusion, Christianity is a slave religion, and the Will to Power is the ultimate trait of sound moral reasoning. The widespread acceptance of this view among elites has led to the terrible, irrational immorality evident in contemporary politics, where winning is everything, and any action—no matter how immoral—is justified if it advances a particular group’s moral ideal.

Many people in modern society who identify as Christians or followers of other major moral systems sometimes use their moral statements to gain a sense of power and boost their social standing within their group. They aren’t genuinely trying to uphold morals but are more focused on gaining others’ approval. This is the essence of moral posturing. We’re not truly acting morally. We’re not making difficult moral sacrifices. We’re simply putting on a show to seek approval.

Politics and Moral Inversion and Moral Posturing

Nowhere is moral inversion and moral posturing more prevalent than in politics and on social media. Politicians constantly make moral statements not because they genuinely believe in them or even think they are true, but because they aim to gain power from voters who may agree with these statements. Even more troubling, they often encourage others to commit immoral acts, such as destroying the lives, reputation, or property of others. This occurs on both the right and the left. In any given political debate, there is usually an intentional effort by one or both parties to label the other as immoral due to their political beliefs, with the aim of creating hostility that they believe will give them a political advantage.

In response, people often make moral statements on social media that cost them nothing. They are frequently the reverse of ethical statements. A good example exists whenever we say that the government ought to do something that we wouldn’t do if we had to pay for it. (To give current examples, I would have to enter into current debates, which I try not to do in these blogs.) Suppose, for instance, that I was a slaveholder before the American Civil War, publicly declaring that I agree with the abolition of slavery from my home in New York City, but continuing to own slaves on my plantation in South Carolina. That would be a perfect example of moral posturing. I don’t intend to take any moral action. I just intend to gain the approval of others and avoid their moral judgment of my behavior.

Politicians often act in ways designed to influence us into voting for them, even when they have no real intention of keeping their promises. For instance, a politician might say they will cut defense spending but then fail to follow through because they receive large donations from defense contractors. This pattern can apply to any government program, regardless of political affiliation, where powerful financial interests support politicians with the expectation that they will push their special projects. Whenever anyone makes moral statements that contradict or don’t involve moral actual behavior, they are engaged in a form of moral posturing.

Absolutizing Relative Values

The Christian writer, C. S. Lewis, insightfully discusses the danger of relative values that are removed from their context in a larger moral framework. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Taoism are all complex and comprehensive systems of morality. In any such system, my moral actions in specific situations involve applying various moral principles within a complex context. Too often, modern moral systems involve the ideological adoption of certain principles while ignoring others. The result can be a kind of moral confusion or even madness.

In his short book, The Abolition of Man, Lewis discusses the harmful consequences of Ignoring or downplaying the importance of the great moral systems throughout history. After introducing the central moral ideas of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, Lewis suggests that the results are the creation of people without the kind of heart understanding of morality and wise action upon which civilization depends. We have, he says, created “men without chests,” that is, humans lacking the character needed for a civilization to thrive. [3]

Throughout most of human history, people have recognized that although not everyone agrees on all the values of a particular group, there is a moral basis for human action. When we remove the complex foundations of moral reasoning within a tradition of moral thinking and acting, we inevitably leave people relying on their own prejudices, upbringing, and the social and immediate pressures they face. This inevitably leads to moral failure.

A civilization in which the moral leaders of society, from individual family leaders, to neighborhood and community leaders, to church leaders, to state and federal leaders, have forsaken the “Tao,” as Lewis puts it, has taken a road that cannot help but lead to moral and social decay and human suffering.

Dialogue and Moral Discourse

One of the most serious effects of moral inversion and moral posturing is that it prevents true dialogue about important issues. For dialogue to occur, both parties must respect each other, understand their own position and its potential weaknesses, and be open to considering the political or moral issue from another perspective. Even more importantly, as the theologian Martin Buber emphasized, we must be willing to see others as a “Thou” and not as an object or an “It.” In other words, we can’t reduce human beings to objects; we must see them as persons with inherent value.[4]

To overcome the dysfunction and fragmentation of modern society, a different approach needs to be adopted. To overcome the fragmentation of our society, its fundamental paradigm for understanding reality (atomistic materialism and individualism) and its fundamental view of how to change that reality (material power) need to be changed. The process of change involves communication in the form of dialogue. Creative transformation in which fragmentation is overcome can be achieved through dialogue.

In the philosopher and physicist David Bohm’s view, the Greek roots of this term shed light on its meaning. “Dia,” meaning “through,” and “logos,” meaning “reason.” Dialogue occurs when two or more people share meaning by exchanging views. Of course, there can be honest and dishonest attempts at dialogue. In honest dialogue, new understanding arises as meaning is conveyed and differing perspectives illuminate reality. For two individuals to engage in real dialogue, they must commit to a mutual exchange of ideas and information to better understand reality. Authentic dialogue involves a continuous flow of meaning. Those participating in the dialogue are immersed in a moving flow of information and thought that constitutes the dialogue itself. A dialogue implicitly seeks a truth that the parties are humble enough to recognize and requires sharing ideas, thoughts, and perspectives.

Dialogue is more than just discussion. “Discussion” shares the same root as percussion or concussion. In a debate, conflicting views are expressed to undermine or challenge the other’s argument. People try to win, score points, and prevail in a discussion. Discussion and debate can create more fragmentation. In genuine dialogue, however, participants aim to discover new meanings and reach mutual understanding. Through this process, fragmentation and its negative effects can be overcome.

Participatory Thinking and Transcendental Ideals

Bohm views the search for knowledge as a scientist does. In practice, science involves a continuous dialogue or exchange of reasoning as investigations are conducted, results and theories are published, criticisms are made, and adjustments are implemented. This scientific way of reasoning should continue to be used in practical activities, but in delicate areas like religion and politics, it is often difficult due to blockages—emotional, ideological, and other types. These blockages hinder communication and the flow of understanding, blocking new discoveries and change. As a result, modern society is marked by widespread fragmentation and conflict. This fragmentation can be addressed through a kind of participatory dialogue where people share meanings and attempt to understand one another.

The significance of transcendental ideals (or potentials) for political thought is that such potentials reveal themselves to a community under concrete circumstances in a provisional but appropriate way.  Each determination is provisionally valid in a specific context. There can be no permanent and unchanging specification of justice as an abstract concept but there can be contextually valid approximations. [5] Because of the inner relationships among people and institutional structures, every determination of justice in a specific context, is relative to, and may be modified by a new emerging context and future understandings. Thus, no determination of justice can be final or fixed but is part of the movement of society, toward a more comprehensive understanding of justice and social peace. [6]

These insights have profound implications not only for our understanding of physical reality but also for our understanding of the social reality in which we live. As Bohm states in , the fragmentation and conflict in society arise from an outdated worldview. promotes, is leading to a loss of social coherence and meaning, as well as the decay of Western democratic institutions. To reverse these trends, a new perspective and approach to social reality are necessary.

Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

¹ This blog is partially based on prior blogs and a book I have written on the subject of a postmodern political theory. G. Christopher Scruggs, Illumined by Wisdom and Love (College Station, TX: Virtual Bookworm, 2024). Our current situation is the continuation of a long line of moral reductionism. In recent years, the aging of what has been called the “Enlightenment Project” has given rise to a form of cultural and political nihilism. The power orientation of our culture is a part of its plausibility structure. Lesslie Newbigin, Truth to Tell: The Gospel as Public Truth(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1991).

[2] Michael Polanyi, The Logic of Liberty (Indianapolis Indiana, Liberty Fund, 1998), 131.

[3] Id, 35.

[4] Martin Buber, I and Thou 2^nd ed. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958)

[5] David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London ENG: Routledge, 1980), at 151.

[6] Id, at 157

Several times in recent days, I have participated in prayer vigils for those who lost their lives and families impacted by the recent floods in central Texas. I have been especially impacted by the services led by Christ Episcopal Church in San Antonio, where we live. I have tried to reproduce some of the content of these moving and sad services for those who might need prayer and comfort.

Opening Prayer:

God of All Mercy: We come before you this day with heavy hearts amidst the pain and loss of a great natural disaster that has impacted our lives and loved ones. We lift our hearts in unison, seeking your wisdom, comfort, and consolation in our loss. Hear our common prayers.

Leader: God of all grace, whose love is deeper than mighty waters and stronger than any storm, we beseech you to hear our prayers for those impacted by the floods in the Hill Country and elsewhere in Texas.

People: Lord, hear our prayers that your love may be shown to all who mourn or who are impacted by the floods.

Leader: For the families who have lost loved ones or who wait anxiously for news of their beloved,

People: Lord, hear our Prayers for comfort.

Leader: For those who have lost their lives or have been injured in the storm,

People: Lord, hear our prayer for your amazing grace.

Leader: For families who have been disrupted, separated, or whose homes have been destroyed or lost,

People: Lord, hear our prayer for mercy and peace amid the storms of life.

Leader: For those who are sheltering, grieving, or searching in despair,

People: Lord, give them a sense of your presence amid pain, grief, and loss.

Leader: For those who have lost their lives in this disaster,

People: Receive them by your grace, and give comfort to those they left behind to mourn their loss.

Leader: For first responders, volunteers, and state, federal, and local officials who must work under tremendous pressure and exhaustion.

People: Lord, give them your strength.

Leader: For the many churches in the communities impacted and beyond who seek to provide refuge and help for the suffering,

People: Lord, give them success in their mission.

Leader: For the gift of life eternal and the hope of the resurrection,

People: Lord, give the families impacted hope amid their pain.

Leader: O Lord of the wind and storm, who brings order out of chaos and peace out of despair,

People: Be with those impacted and help restore the homes, families, and communities affected by this great tragedy.

Leader: For all, let the love of Christ who shares in our humanity, our failures, and our suffering,

People: Allow us to sense your presence in our pain and loss.

Closing Prayers:

Oh God, whose property it is always to have mercy upon your servants, we humbly and earnestly pray for the souls of those whom this disaster has taken from us. We give you thanks for our memories of the departed, trusting that you have delivered them from all suffering and pain, and brought them into your presence and the eternal life that only you can bestow. We look forward in hope to seeing them and being rejoined with them through the glorious resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen.

The peace of God which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and souls in the love of God, and the blessing of God, Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be among you and remain with you always.

Amen

An old friend of mine, who was also a debate partner and fellow camper at the YMCA Camp in Springfield, Missouri, recently published an article in the Springfield Daily Citizen, a newspaper in my hometown.[1] Dan happens to be an environmentalist and has encouraged my occasional environmental comments in these blogs, as well as my hope to write a somewhat longer piece. His farm outside of Springfield has encouraged many people, including one of my children, who works in the environmental area and is an organic farmer herself. In his article, he wrote in part:

I step over glowing green plants crisscrossing the hobbit trail.  Sparkling water gushes from every opening along the bluff: a gift from hundreds of sinkholes higher on the Springfield plateau and now headed for Stockton Lake by way of the twisty Sac River.

The Oracle has put away her delicate ephemeral spring flowers and she watches over a riot of chlorophyll fueled fauna leaping out of the ground and staking out their claim before the heat and drought of August. I can’t find proper footing for my lawn chair and all my clattering and mumbling tells the Oracle something is wrong. She sends a butterfly and waits for me to hold forth.

…

She explained the forest around us is a complex, balanced ecosystem composed of a web of dependent relationships between plants, animals, fungi, geology and climate. Millions of independent actors live and work in this system that survives tornadoes, fires, droughts and biblical plagues. Ecosystems can thrive for eons until the arrival of the invaders.

Invading plants and animals spread with aggression and malice for those in the web: not because the system is weak, but because these intruders ignore cooperative interrelationships and the value of diversity. They leverage their single-minded strategy to capture shared resources and spread their genes at the expense of everyone else. Kudzu eats the South. Burmese pythons invade the everglades. Fire ants fill Texas pastures. Hog weed carpets corn fields. Multiflora rose, bush honeysuckle and poison hemlock crawl over the Ozarks.

These invasive newcomers shrink cooperation and resilience to a minimum,” she said. Invaders may release allelochemicals to poison native plants. Keystone species die; colors fade. Productivity and genetic diversity disappear. [2]

An Organic World

The kind of postmodernism I frequently argue for in these blogs is often called “organic.” [3] A part of the reason for using the word organic is that it implies a kind of logic and view of the world that is not mechanical, but rather organic in the sense that nature is organic. The modern world has been dominated by the idea that the world is like a gigantic machine built up of parts. The best way to understand how this machine works is to take everything apart (called reductionism in the parlance) to see how it works. Reductionism is, of course, diametrically opposite of what is called “wholism,” or the idea that we cannot understand a thing reductively but must also understand it wholistically.

When people indicate that we are entering a “postmodern world,” they say that the idea that we can understand the world by taking it apart doesn’t work. In fact, from quantum physics to environmental studies, it’s become a kind of buzzword notion that wholism characterizes reality. That is the say, matter how useful it may be to take things apart to see how they work, the fact is that the whole is very often greater than the parts. Just to give an example that might be relevant, if we were to have a nuclear disaster and thousands of years from now, people from another planet were to discover a brand, new automobile, they could take it apart all they wanted to, but in the end, it couldn’t really be understood unless they viewed it as a whole, as a machine designed to take people from one place to the other.

A second characteristic of any organic philosophy is that it is inherently historical. From quantum phenomena to the rise and fall of great nations, our world is fundamentally shaped by a history of events. Each moment is built upon previous moments. Each thing in the world is a part of an emergent process in which “decisions” are made. Once again, from the famous double slit experiment of quantum physics to the decisions of governments, the past must be taken into account, and that past limits current decisions.

While sometimes these previous moments may appear to be mechanically connected and flow in a predictable manner, this is not always the case. For example, at an atomic level, one can only statistically predict where an electron might be. There is an element of freedom or chance in how the subatomic world operates. The same principle applies to human society. There is always an element of freedom in how history unfolds. In this sense, in an organic ecological logic, the past both restricts our choices and opens up avenues for future growth.

Dan’s Helpful Narrative

Now, back to my friend. When I responded to his insightful article, I told him that I believed he exemplified a kind of organic logic. Logic is simply a way of understanding things—it’s a form of rationality. Whether we’re talking about mathematical logic, Aristotelian logic, symbolic logic, or the various forms of computer logic, logic is an orderly way of understanding reality. That doesn’t mean that it’s a way of predicting reality. It is at this very point that the modern world view begins to deteriorate. The world is simply not mechanical.

Dan’s article helps us see some of the factors that characterize the “logic” of organic systems. Among them, it seems to me that Dan mentions five:

1. Independent Actors (Free Actors)
2. Web of Dependent Relationships (Ecosystem)
3. Thriving for Eons (Constant Adaptation)
4. Value of Diversity (Multiple Actors)
5. Invading Plants or Animals (External Forces)

It can be helpful to look at each one separately.

Independent Actors

It may be useful to note where modernity and postmodernity (often a form of hypermodern thinking) begin to differ—with the importance of the particular. Things have an independent reality, a reality that they can create and maintain. Modern science tends to examine and define these independent realities into smaller and smaller units (reductionism). But reductionism can only tell us a part of the story.

The “ephemeral spring flowers” of which Dan speaks will do. Here in Texas, we have a version of spring flowers called “bluebonnets,” which my wife particularly likes. They are specific things that need to be seen and respected for what they are. No matter how many of a particular there may be, each particular is in some way unique. Bluebonnets are a case in point. They are most beautiful and most commonly seen in great numbers along the roadside and in fields. From a distance, they look very much alike. Up close they are particular.

From subatomic particles to galaxies, things are what they are. This is particularly true of living things and especially of human beings. Each human being is unique and different carrying a different DNA (the carrier of uniqueness and historical determinism). For those of us of a religious bent, not only are human beings unique, but they are also infinitely valuable in their unique humanity.

Web of Dependent Relationships

The “ephemeral spring flowers” do not, however, exist without relationships with other things. The soil, surrounding plants, the sun, weather, and many factors determine what can and cannot be grow. My father grew roses in Springfield, Missouri, but in San Antonio, Texas, the roses my father grew cannot survive. The summer heat, the July and August drought, and the nature of the soil in the Texas Hill Country all make growing roses difficult in our part of the world. (There are a few breeds that do grow here, though I have had a hard time getting them to grow in my own yard.)

 All of reality is like this: Everything is related to some degree or another to other things, and ultimately to everything. When we ignore that relationality, we create problems for ourselves and other parts of the common reality we all inhabit. This web of dependent relationships should also make us humble. It is very rare that any decisionmaker can foresee or understand all the relationships that can and may impact the results of a decision. This is especially true in human relationships, personal and social.

Value of Diversity

When I go see the person who manages my retirement, we often talk about the need for “diversification” in my portfolio. Smart investors are diversified in the companies and industries that make up their portfolios. Nature, and all of reality, is no different. There is strength in diversity. I no longer grow vegetables in my garden (too small and too hot) but it is always good to grow a diverse crop of plants. If in a summer there is a particular blight or infestation, and something does not grow well, other plants take up the slack.

A couple of summers ago, I planted three roses in the flower bed outside Kathy’s office window. It happened to be one of the driest summers San Antonio has ever experienced. We came home after a vacation to find that two of the three had died. Luckily, the cactus and other plants we had planted survived the summer.

Modernity, and especially what I may call “arrogant modernity,” is inclined to think it can predict what will work the best and demand uniformity. This is a big mistake. There is power as well as beauty in diversity.

Invading Plants and Animals

We have a small home out in the country. It is near a river, and we are very proud of the pecan trees on the property. Last summer, we took a long trip to Greece and Turkey following the missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul. When we returned, we were shocked to see that webworms had invaded our pecans, covering the entire property with their destructive ugliness. Fortunately, the arborist said the trees would recover, and they have. When I was young, Springfield had many beautiful elm trees. Then the Dutch Elm Disease invaded the town, and they all died. These are both examples of invasive destruction.

Nature is like that. Things do not last forever. There are invasive plants and animals, and there are also natural disasters. Millions of years ago, a meteor hit North America, and the mastodons went extinct as a result. Science tells us that the universe itself will not last forever. Either it will experience what they call the “Big Crunch” and collapse upon itself, or it will experience the “Big Inflation,” continuous expanding and descending into chaos.

Currently, one of the most invasive animals on the planet is the human race. We have finally, after millennia of trying, achieved a kind of mastery over nature. Today, our mastery of nature threatens our own existence. If we do not want to be the invasive cause of our own destruction, we need to find what ecologists call a more sustainable relationship between the human race and nature. Mother Earth, our home, depends on it.

Wise and Loving Stewardship

We cannot deny that humans influence nature. Our impact is unavoidable. What we can prevent is wasteful, excessively violent, or overuse of nature and its resources. This is not a matter of the political left or right getting its way. Years ago, I traveled in Russia. One would be hard-pressed to find a greater case of environmental abuse than that caused by the “master planners” of the Soviet state. On the other hand, Kathy and I have lived very close to a center of the refining industry, and we saw what it was like before modern environmental protection. It was not a pretty sight.

Ultimately, responsible stewardship of nature relies on the commitment and effort of all of us. We all make choices that impact our environment. This might seem like a minor example, but plastic water bottles and bottled water are a particular concern for me. Having traveled extensively, I can attest that you can’t go deep into the jungles of Africa without seeing how nature has been polluted by people dropping plastic water containers along roads or trails. In the central Pacific Ocean, a vast area is entirely covered with discarded plastic containers.

It’s hot in Texas, and I enjoy playing golf. I’ve learned to carry my own thermos and avoid buying water from the pro shop. Of course, sometimes I forget my water and end up buying a plastic bottle or two. It happens about once or twice each summer, but not every week. I’ve driven a small, fuel-efficient, and relatively safe car for many years. Its size helps conserve metal and plastic, and its good mileage saves gasoline. And guess what? I can go wherever I need to.

We all need to develop a different and better way of looking at the world, and Dan has given us a small glimpse of what that means.

Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved 

[1] Dan Chiles, “The Oracle says, ‘Be True to Your School Even in the Face of Federal Pressure’” Springfield Daily Citizen (June 9, 2025).

[2] Id.

[3] See, A. N. Whitehead Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York, NY: Free Press, 1929, 1957), at 90, Adventure of Ideas (New York, NY: Free Press, 1933), Modes of Thought (New York, NY: Free Press, 1938, 1968).