Sunday Morning Debate
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Jan 8 at 1:26am
Is it true that a house divided against itself cannot stand?
A "Ricochet Glory" merit badge will be awarded to the member of Ricochet who provides the best 200-word response in the coming 24 hours.
(For new members who don't know how we judge these contests, a review.)
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
No, because such a house that never divides invites stasis, and eventual extinction.
Any house, to prosper, must reinvigorate itself from time to time, which necessarily means a change of direction. Sometimes that change may be from a previous path generated through weak, unguided meandering over time, back to one of purity.
The house of conservatism was divided in 2010. The Tea Party weighed in behind a new, and sometimes scary, breed of GOP candidates. Many in the party establishment could rightly have screamed 'Splitters!', and certainly some blamed the failure to secure a Senate majority on the likes of Christine O'Donnell.
Perhaps, but this side of the divided house by nominating O'Donnell and Sharron Angle arguably injected backbone into the business-as-usual re-elected incumbents, giving the new Speaker Boehner a majority composed of people more disciplined. Some were the successful Tea Party nominees. But some were incumbent RINOs who for fear of being Castled toed the line.
The problem would be not with a house being divided, but with it remaining divided. When division occurs, an early rejoining is required. But the tricky question is always: which side of the divide should be ascendant.
Dec '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
No, a house divided against it self cannot stand. The question itself does not speak to the idea that a house SHOULD remain standing, though its rhetorical use assumes it.
In Mr. Lincoln's house divided speech it was said that one part will have to prevail over the other or split, he did not intend for there to be a split. This works provided you have the means to impose a resolution to the dispute, and can corral those who disagree by violence. If you are in an institution of gentler means, and you rely on mutual agreement and cooperation, you do not really have the ability to solve this problem.
Nearly all democratic institutions have 2 factors by which they continue exstence in the self-determinitive tradition: That continued participation remains worthwhile, and the consequences of losing is not great. If either of these get out of whack an institution without the will or ability to forcibly impose will collapse.
In many of our pursuits a house divided is divided for a reason. The normative question on whether a house SHOULD remain standing is up to the components of the house based upon the previously mentioned factors.
Edited on Jan 8 at 4:15amMar '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
A house divided? Isn't that a duplex?
Jan '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
A house divided merely copes and will do so up until the costs to form a new household becomes less prohibitively costly. Everyday people that have been part of this Grand Ol' Party should know exactly what I'm getting at here.
Nov '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
As I understand Lincoln to have used the statement that a house divided against itself cannot stand, it is true. This does not mean that serious divisions cannot be tolerated, nor that we are doomed to anarchy. It means rather that when the house is divided against itself, i.e., against its own core principles, it cannot survive. Since there are always factions that oppose core principles, this begs the question of when a house is so divided against itself that it must fall, but that interesting question was not posed.
Jul '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
An apartment simple?
Dec '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
According to the first 24 words of the Declaration, apparently there are instances when the house can not stand:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,"
Nov '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
It's the Gospel truth, Claire ...
Of course, you gotta correctly understand "house", "divided" and "stand".
Sep '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
The phrase originates in the gospels. Matthew 12:25: And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. These "thoughts" are those of the Pharisees, who claimed Jesus healed the demoniac because he was from Satan, not the Messiah. Confounding them, Jesus tells them, either way, when the end times come, those who are not with the kingdom will be scattered to the wind.
Lincoln, anticipating his listeners' knowledge of the apocalyptic context of the verse, boldly uses the phrase in June 1858 to link the continuation of slavery with disunion: I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. ... I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.
History tells us that political entities cannot endure when basic loyalties are divided. Divide and conquer becomes the norm; things fall apart. Its warning should give us pause, urge us to consider what it is that we actually believe.
Feb '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
A house divided against itself will stand much better than an undivided one, if it is divided properly. This is what Woodrow Wilson failed to understand when he critiqued the separation of powers, arguing that government is organic rather than mechanistic and that "no living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live." But in reality a government with separation of powers will endure much better than a monolithic one.
Similarly, a large corporation organized into multiple decentralized business units is likely to be much more long-term successful and enduring than a monolithic one, even if theoretical efficiency is lost through the decentralization.
However, as Leslie noted above, the basic loyalties must not be divided. It is fine for the Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive to contend; it is not fine for any one of these to be lacking in fundamental loyalty to America. It is good for the executive who runs GE Locomotive to feel a strong sense of loyalty to that specific business; it would not be fine for him to be utterly lacking in concern about what happens to the overall company.
Jan '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
A very solid point! I like the way you bucked the conventional wisdom on this one. The separation of powers as it pertains to our federal government, though, only remains/(remained?) valid until the divisions realize that they're on the same team...that's when they'll collaborate and realize that when working together they can both achieve the Leviathan-like growth of the sum of their parts; still growing their individual part.
Yes; but only, as you wrote earlier, "..if it is divided properly."
Apr '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
I define the term "house" to mean people who have united themselves under mutual promises, divided against itself to mean a condition in which part of the membership has set a course that intends its destruction, and to stand to mean to fulfill internal and external commitments.
We revisit Lincoln's Springfield Senate speech; we again debate slavery. The issue then was the enslavement of people whose forebears had come to our continent against their will, to do work of others' choosing, without freedom to negotiate terms of their service.
Today, we face a new issue: the enslavement of our children and grandchildren so that today's adults may postpone vital decisions about the nation's finances and the role of government in citizens' lives. More is at stake, today, however: not only has this government made internal promises that are manifestly inoperative, it has also obligated itself to people around the world by practice and contract to stand for freedom, particularly for Europe, Israel, and Taiwan, who live in the shadows of formidable and oppressive enemies. If those promises are inoperative then our divisions may lead to war around the world.
Our house must stand. Where is our Lincoln?
Dec '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
A house does not stand. It resists gravity and the other elements only with diligent maintenance. In the absence of critical maintenance a house transitions to a ruin.
A divided house can stand, as long as there is sufficient maintenance from those that monitor the critical aspects that conserve the structure. As the resources available are ultimately limited, progress towards ruin is inevitable when those resources are imprudently allocated towards the addition of a pool, the remodeling of a kitchen, or the construction of guest cottages.
The deterioration of the structure will be accelerated by initiatives that consume resources, and those that reduce the total resources available.
Jul '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
I couldn't win a contest here if I had a year to prepare. Lack of embarrassment is my personal goal in writing and falling short of that is a frequent outcome. I think of this topic as analogous to the conservatives sorting their way through to an acceptable candidate. It would appear that we have three distinct groups with social conservatives, moderate conservatives, and libertarians all having some members declaring a no vote if one or another candidate gets the nod. To all the social conservatives so hung up on homosexuality or abortion issues that they would in essence support Obama by default if one of their own fails to win, you are wrong. To moderates so hung up voting against Christian conservatives that they would avoid a Santorum/Gingrich/Perry and by default support Obama, you are wrong. To the libertarians so stuck on their issues that a war hawk or a lobbyist tainted candidate is unacceptable and therefore you go Johnson, assisting Obama with your third party, you are wrong. Obama and his social progressives are the greatest enemy our country has ever faced. Failure to unite against this evil is an abomination to me. Yes!
Edited on Jan 8 at 1:01pmMay '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Is it true that a house divided against itself cannot stand?
What does this mean? I'm not an idiot, I know where its from. But I think a precise meaning would help to reduce confusion.
Nov '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
"But he (Jesus), knowing their thoughts, said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not subsist."-- Matthew 12:25 and repeated in Mark's and Luke's gospels.
I am most surprised that so few Ricochetti have mentioned the source of the quote. Since it is the statement of Divinity it most certainly must be true. John's gospel also states that "Grace and truth subsist through Jesus Christ" -- John 1:17.
QED.
Edited on Jan 8 at 8:22pmOct '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
President Lincoln was the master of concise quotes. My personal favorite is "Whatever you are, be a good one." As the preceding quote is open to so many various interpretations (especially if you perceive yourself to be toward evil endeavors), it's almost a disservice to look too in depth at the "divided house."
However, a house divided does stand by intention and design. What is not described in the quote is the condition of the standing house. A house with a fallen tree through it still stands though such an abode might not be inhabitable. Similarly, a condemned house may be sufficient shelter for someone in a storm.
The metaphorical house is divisible into metaphorical plumbing, drywall, trusses, and other components. These aspects are separate by design to be collectively a standing house. In the division and failing of individual parts, it allows the house to remain intact with only localized repairs to failing parts. Ask Edison. This mirrors federalism.
The Civil War represented an assault on our foundation, our founding principles, and therefore the Union not only needed to win but reconstruct. A house divided may be repaired to stand, but on compromised foundation, a house cannot withstand.
Apr '11
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
The qualification “the devil is in the details” is particularly à propos. The Pharisees have accused Jesus of using Beelzebul's power to cast out demons. He turns their objection into an a fortiori argument: Even better! Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself (Mt. 12:25-26).
The fatal division is over essentials, not the agreeing to disagree of democratic elections. Thus, in war time, when a nation must win lest it lose something essential to itself, treason creates such a division. Lincoln, interestingly, affirmed the converse inference. In his "house divided" speech, he warned that if the Union was divided on the fundamental principle that all men are created equal, it was the division, not the nation, that could not endure. Rather than remain half slave-half-free, the nation would become wholly one or the other.
Contrast the divided house with Paul’s concept of marriage, wherein the spouses become one flesh (Eph 5:31), and The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife (1 Cor 7:4). As we see daily, a couple who cannot achieve something like this sort of self-giving is divided against itself and their house does not stand.
Edited on Jan 9 at 7:46pmNov '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
Casey Way: President Lincoln was the master of concise quotes. My personal favorite is "Whatever you are, be a good one." As the preceding quote is open to so many various interpretations (especially if you perceive yourself to be toward evil endeavors), it's almost a disservice to look too in depth at the "divided house."
However, a house divided does stand by intention and design. What is not described in the quote is the condition of the standing house. A house with a fallen tree through it still stands though such an abode might not be inhabitable. Similarly, a condemned house may be sufficient shelter for someone in a storm. · Jan 8 at 8:31pm
Does it totally elude you that Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ?
Dec '10
Re: Sunday Morning Debate
Abraham Lincoln's house divided speech was in specific reference to the external threats faced by the young United States of America.
With England defeating France and removing her as a continental power, the defeat of the British by the Americans left the continent in our hands. We were something new a pure Republican Democracy. The one issue that was so devisive that it threatened to break the new country in half was Slavery. In 1820 the Missouri Compromise gave the nation a means of dealing with the difference. Again in 1850 the heat between the parties was on and a compromise was worked out.
However, given the pure deontological moral nature of the issue itself, compromise could not be maintained. Lincoln's House Divided Speech is specifically warning us about the danger of faction when we need to deal with enemies from outside the country.
By this time France is sitting in Mexico waiting to influence the Southerners. England, now an international super power sits in Canada waiting to influence the Northerners. If we split, in all likelihood England will absorb the North and France will absorb the South. The grand experiment will be over. Beware Faction!