Patriots fight for posterity, Dems do it to cover their posterior

Thomas Lifson:

Posterity was once a central concept of American Civilization. We sacrificed our welfare, even our lives, for the sake of future generations, especially for our descendants unto the remote reaches of time. This concept was so important, that it appeared in the very first sentence of the Constitution, which sought to 'secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'

Posterity is more concrete than the 'future.' We are connected to posterity. It derives from us, and from the difference we made, during that brief span of time encompassing our lives. The Constitution refers to 'our Posterity,' meaning something which belongs to us, or maybe more properly, something which is part of us -- the part of us which lives-on after we die. Posterity is of us, but far greater and more important than any of our individual lives. Posterity is worth dying for. Such a death confers a bit of immortality.

In contrast, the future will occur, regardless of our best or worst efforts. To paraphrase the bumper sticker, 'the future happens.'

Posterity began to go into a severe decline beginning, quite naturally, in the 1960s, with the rise of the 'me-generation.' Deferring experiences, pleasures, or achievements for the sake of others became unfashionable. Living in the moment, and for oneself, became 'what's happening.'

The family itself, both its nuclear and extended versions, came under attack as oppressive and limiting in nature. The rising Sixties Generation, which at first trusted no one over thirty, was studiously uninterested in its role as the inheritor of traditions worth preserving. It follows that concern for those who will inherit our legacy would be equally valueless.

...

Will posterity have a future? The signs are not altogether encouraging.

Economic and lifestyle considerations all favor continued focus on the pleasures of the moment, rather than a revival of concern for the legacy we leave to those not-yet-born. Children are very expensive to raise, and then comes the economic catastrophe known as college. There is no sign whatsoever that any of these costs will decline as a portion of national income, except as the number of children declines. A society which measures its welfare by the amount of stuff we accumulate will never see children as a source of happiness and meaning.

...

Lifson's piece is more about the mechanics of posterity rather than the fight to preserve it from our enemies' attacks. But if you read McCullough's 1776 the fight was not just words in our Constitution, but every setback was seen as a setback for our posterity. In todays war the Democrats are willing to sacrifice our posterity for short term political gain by working for our defeat in Iraq and undermining our war effort in general by showing great concern for the enemy's privacy in his communications with his agents in this country.