Embracing Diversity

Deborah Venable



I have a problem with one stated plank in the Democrat party platform.  I realize there are other great philosophical differences that have evolved in our two party system since America’s birth, but wouldn’t it be something to be able to weed out all the flowery language used by both parties to describe themselves and get to the real difference in the party philosophies?  We could do that, you know – if we ever really tried.  Here’s an attempt at a start to do just that:


Democrats make no bones about describing their philosophy as one that “embraces diversity.”  I believe that most modern Democrats would willingly rip up every other plank in their platform and attempt to float across the sea of politics on that one plank if they had to.  What they do not seem to realize is that “diversity” is not what made or continues to make America great.  The act of embracing diversity invites more government control – and I know darned good and well THAT is not what made America great.  Embracing diversity requires abandoning any thoughts of unity as a principle – and THAT certainly didn’t make America great either.  Embracing diversity requires that we cast aside a very definite American heritage in favor of “improving” on the only thing that has ever worked as well.  Finally, embracing diversity requires that we accept everything in terms of “gray” and shy away from definitive “black and white” thinking.  That last statement is not meant in a racial sense by the way.  Even this disclaimer is illustrative of the subject matter though.


America was founded and fine tuned to reflect a responsible, self-governing people who are eternal optimists in their belief of the basic decency in mankind.  So, what did I mean when I said that embracing diversity invites more government control?  Perhaps this is the most telling of all that is wrong with that plank of the platform.  If a so-called self-governing people decide to “embrace diversity” that can only be translated as “enforce” diversity.  Otherwise, it would not have to be a plank in a party’s platform.  Decent people do not need to be reminded that people are different – nor do they need legislation that forces them to “respect” those differences.  Some of us seem to think that it is perfectly okay to legislate that diversity though.  You see, this goes a long way beyond differences of race and even religion.  This kind of legislation eats away at the heart of decency, doesn’t it?


That brings us to the principle of unity.  In the words of one of the original Democrats: Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated in his Inaugural Address: "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have been called by different names brethren of the same principle. . . . Let us then pursue with courage and confidence . . . our attachment to union and representative government."  What was this difference of principle to which Jefferson referred?  Perhaps it was a warning against legislation to enforce people being treated differently according to their sex, race, religion, or philosophical origins and beliefs.  The “brethren of the same principle” had to do with the principle of unity for liberty, did it not?  Therefore, if the principle is unity, we should not ask to be governed according to our differences, should we?


Alexander Hamilton said: "I have endeavored, my Fellow Citizens, to place before you in a clear and convincing light, the importance of Union to your political safety and happiness. I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed should you permit that sacred knot which binds the people of America together to be severed."  Again, Hamilton seemed to be concerned with the undoing of unity – NOT the embracing of diversity. 


Our heritage is the body of work that our Founders bestowed on us via the foundations of our government.  When those foundations are permitted to crack so that we may insert divisive language into our laws, America is not strengthened – it is forever weakened. 


The idea of acknowledging “gray areas” in determining “good” law versus “bad” law has been an ongoing battle – especially in the area of our great “diversity” in this country.  There is no substitute for virtue.  It is either there or it isn’t.  “Patriot” was once a desired label in America.  Now it has slipped and become a subject of name-calling.  Let us take heart in the words of another original American patriot: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness." - George Washington


Washington did not hint that there was any “middle ground” or gray area in the areas of religion and morality – nor did he state that there was any doubt about the two being a necessary component of “political prosperity” or eventual human happiness.  Respecting the right of “no” religion does not have to be regulated or legislated – but denying that America was formed without any respect for religious beliefs is dishonest at best.  There is much evidence that our Founding Fathers were convinced that virtue was a necessity of American liberty.  Virtue does not respect “gray” as a defining color.


Benjamin Franklin said: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."


James Madison stated: "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."


Samuel Adams said: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue."


 Patrick Henry stated that: "A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom."


Andrew Jackson said: "No free government can stand without virtue in the people, and a lofty spirit of patriotism. . . ."


John Adams stated: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


So, where did Americans get the idea that we must “embrace diversity” in such things as anti-Christian philosophies, anti-virtuous lifestyles and anti-American heritage?  I truly do not know.   Ask the Democrats.  It is, after all, part of their stated platform.  While you’re at it, ask those Republicans and so-called Independents et al who also believe in “embracing diversity.” 


Let us get to the bottom of it, though, so that we may continue to make America great!



Home    Rant Page    Feedback Welcome!