MARK HEMINGWAY: The Era Of Presuming Liberal Moral Superiority Is Over. Responding to the now viral video of leftist actor Sam Seder getting his clock cleaned by conservative teenagers (background in the recent Matt Walsh video below), Hemingway writes:

But Seder’s full answer is so much worse than that. First, Seder suggests some vague “humanist vision” of what’s best for the most is what’s moral, and then when he balks at being labeled a utilitarian or consequentialist, he shifts to saying that some also vague version of collectivism is the basis of morality. When his interlocutor then asks what he would think if the small-d democratic collective came together and undermined trans rights, he says that wouldn’t be moral. Then he argues that biological distinctions, such as being born gay, could be determinative of morality. Then when the young guy points out that some people think pedophilia is an innate biological orientation, we see more backpedaling, and Seder then argues that there also has to be consent for relationships to be moral. So then he’s asked whether it’s moral if a father and a daughter have a sexual relationship if they’re both consenting adults, and he says “I think society has determined …” and we’re back to secular collectivism as a moral foundation. It’s just a mess.

Presumably, Seder knew this debate would be hostile, but he seems genuinely shocked a kid would cut right to matters of first principles and question the assumptions of moral authority underpinning bog standard boomer liberalism. But this shouldn’t have been entirely unexpected. When it comes to political punditry, there’s a pretty basic test for whether or not you take someone seriously: How does that person justify the use of political power to implement the policies they favor?

What Seder was asked was far from a trick question; rather, it’s basic American civics. This is exactly the question that the Declaration of Independence addresses, as the founders knew that any attempt to legitimize the rejection of their present government would start with establishing why the government they were proposing was more just and morally superior. In that sense, it wasn’t just a declaration — it’s an explanation of the basis of morality, and how England’s governance was illegitimate for not respecting it. So our founding document is a fairly succinct and compelling natural law argument for a government that recognizes all men are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights that cannot be abrogated, let alone by a king who claims the “divine right” to tax people on a whim.

Of course, the actual structure of American governance is more complicated than that because we have to define and apply those rights, and the most just way to do that involves consent of the governed. So our system hinges on allowing an element of democracy, while putting enough checks in the system to ensure the tyranny of the majority doesn’t overwhelm the God-given rights of individuals. We don’t always get the balance right, but that’s the basic idea. And there’s no getting around the fact that having objective notions of morality, traditionally represented by a belief in God, is foundational to our whole system. You may not like the structure of American governance, but you’d think a guy who’s been doing liberal talk radio and podcasts for over twenty years would recognize why the question he was asked was so important and have a coherent way to answer it.

As Chris Rufo observes, “The remarkable thing here is that the Left’s ‘debate champ’ doesn’t see the entire setup, which means he’s ignorant of basic Christian theology, the natural rights theory of the American founders, and the criticism from Nietzsche to Weber to Foucault. Just doesn’t know any of it.” There’s also an element of blatant hypocrisy here as well. “Seder objects to religion because it ‘imposes’ values on everyone,” notes professor and First Things editor Mark Bauerlein. “It is, however, a dream to think that imposition of values is NOT a precondition of every social order. (Foucault’s prime critique of liberalism is that it presumes such.)”

Earlier: “In describing his ‘Ideological Turing Test,’ [Business Insider’s Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry] explains that the reason is quite simple. Conservatives understand liberals very well, while liberals do not understand — or even try to understand — conservatives at all.”