From Jonah Goldberg Sorry, Elizabeth Warren: DNA doesn’t define who we really are
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with the fake Indian. He concludes by writing:
The idea that you are what your DNA says you are is illiberal, because liberalism (in the classical sense) is premised on the idea that the individual is more than just bloodlines.
He’s redefining the meaning of ‘classical liberalism’ to suit his thesis, demonstrating an ignorance of basic political science, human biology, and political philosophy. Considering the laws of Heredity was not codified until the 1860′s, and that blood types were not discovered until the early 1900′s, and the structure of DNA was not discovered until the 50′s, classical liberals of course had no conceptualization of bloodlines as we know it today. Second, to equate classical liberalism with biological equality and racial blindness, or equality in general, is also wrong. Classical liberalism is a philosophical thought and form governance that opposes divine rule and papal authority, preferring constitutional and parliamentary forms of government predicated on ‘natural law’ instead of ‘divine law’. It makes no assurances of equality, nor is it racially or ethnically blind. The Constitution of the Untied States has its roots in classical liberalism and draws upon the philosophies of Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes, in which individuals have unalienable rights delineated by a ‘social contract’ rather than granted by kings. Race is an inseparable part of American history (Three-Fifths Compromise anyone)? The American progressive movement (as I describe in more detail here) of the late 1800′s and early 1900′s, whose Puritanical roots (in opposition to Catholicism) date back to the Enlightenment and the English Civil War, was heavily steeped in biology, just as the aforementioned discoveries were gaining traction, such as supporting eugenics and subscribing to ‘social Darwinist’ philosophy, for example.