A number of years ago a missionary in India was showing a Brahmin a beautiful microscope which he had just received from England. The Brahmin was intensely interested in the wonderful things revealed by the instrument. The missionary took a drop of water, focused it, and asked the Brahmin to examine it. As he did so, to his surprise and horror he beheld numbers of little creatures squirming and disporting themselves in the water. "Does it speak truth?'" he enquired. On being assured that it did so, he exclaimed, "And I destroy life! I break caste, and I a holy man!"
The Brahmin left the missionary compound in an excited state. The microscope had shown him that in every drop of water there is animal life, and each time he drank it he broke his caste. This was, indeed, to him a terrible revelation. What was he to do?' Would he confess to his co-religionists that he had broken caste, and refuse to drink water again? A happy idea struck him, and he decided to carry it out. He would buy the microscope, and get rid of that which had been the occasion of his trouble. Next day he paid the missionary a visit, and inquired if he was willing to sell the microscope. The missionary declined to part with it. Day after day the Brahmin returned, seeking to purchase it. At last the missionary, wearied with his importunity, and knowing that he could easily procure another, consented to sell it.
The price being paid, the Brahmin took it into the compound, the missionary following. To the missionary's .surprise the Brahmin raised it up, and dashing it violently to the ground, stamped upon it. Then the Brahmin confessed he had been wretched and miserable since the day that he saw the animal life in the water, and determined to destroy that which had been the occasion of his unhappiness.
This incident illustrates what is going on amongst us to-day. In the spiritual world the Bible is God's microscope. It reveals the fact that there are only two classes of persons in His sight—saved and unsaved, converted and unconverted. It, shows that high and low, rich and poor, moral and immoral, "religious" and irreligious, need to be "born again" ere they can see the kingdom of God (John 3: 3). It declares that the unregenerate are under condemnation (John 3: 18), with God's wrath abiding on them (John 3: 36), and are hurrying on to the "everlasting burnings" (Isa. 33:14). But the multitudes accept not the revelations of the Divine "microscope," and do their utmost to "break" it. Hence it is common to hear it asserted that the Bible is full of mistakes and contradictions. Such attacks will not, however, injure the "old Book." This Divine "microscope," while showing us man's ruin, reveals God's provision for our deepest need. In Isaiah 53: 6 we read. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way: and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." In spite of our innumerable sins, God loved us with a fond and tender love; he marvelously proved it by giving His only-begotten Son as a sacrifice for sin.
He cannot be mistaken, and it is impossible for Him to lie. What this "microscope" reveals must be true. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3: 4). Believe His "glad and glorious Gospel," and you will obtain the free and full forgiveness of all your sins,
—From "Faithful Words."
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Extremism in the Defense of Liberty
I always liked Barry Goldwater. It was 1964, and I was voting in my first presidential election - I was 18. Barry Goldwater was my man for president. Several years later, I was an active member of the SDS, a Commie front group. What made the difference? Disappointment that a sensible guy like Goldwater was so mistreated by the media. It turned me against the system. It took a number of years and the Lord Jesus Christ to turn me back to right thinking again.
It can't happen to me again, but the seeds of unrest have been deeply planted in my soul.
Goldwater's acceptance speech at the Republican convention of 1964 featured, among other notable quotables "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! " His words are still true but many who have claimed to be conservatives in our day have forgotten them.
Col Alan West, a man whom I support and admire, came out publicly sounding as if the recent debt-ceiling compromise, which he voted for, was a victory for fiscal conservatives. This post, written on the 6th of August, the day that the US debt rating was (predictably) down graded to AA+, is exactly what should have been expected as a consequence of such careful incrementalism as my friend Col West has embraced. He might have been attempting to appear "moderate" on the talk shows, but as Senator Goldwater so sagely said "...moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue."
He, and others who we thought were genuinely committed to a pitched battle on the budget, with a mandate to win it - not just make a noisy show and then fold - should have forced the Senate - in a test of wills - to pass a real spending cut crafted by the House - and forced the President to pass or veto real spending cuts - 5 or 6 trillion immediately. The bill passage should have been charged with the explicit warning that there was no compromise on the spending cuts and no compromise on tax increases. For them to fail to pass the House budget plan would be to step out on their own and in effect proclaim that they, the Senate and the President, would be responsible to precipitate a government shutdown and a default. The House leadership should have made it crystal clear that if the Senate and President failed to pass or agree to the cuts, then there would be no further budget legislation coming out the House - in other words, this is your final chance.
I know the Media portrayed it as if the House would be responsible for a shutdown and a credit default, but think this through - the House passed a responsible budget bill that would have prevented all that. It was the Senate and President who refused to agree. But the Lib/Dem Media turned on the House, telegraphing that it was the House who had to to compromise. But why should they have had to do that? Why not just turn the whole question around and point out that the House had no other choice but to to pass large budget cuts. There could be no compromise on the future of the country. Put the onus back where it belongs: on the Senate and the President.
But the House Republican leadership blinked - and fell for the idea that they were the ones who had to compromise. When Boehner announced that "the House was not going to precipitate a default" on FoxNEws Sunday with Mike Wallace, he gave the whole ball game away. The media pulled off a slight of hand and played the hapless House leadership for a loss. They (again) got manipulated by scare tactics when they held all the cards for a victory, (if played right.)
Victory is all a matter of how the game is played, folks. The Republican "leadership" is still the lame, scared, vacillating, cowardly and calculating - and may I say witless - midgets that they have been for generations. I can honestly see why many independents don't trust them: they are wimps. And much of the time, they deserve the scorn of the voters. Were it not for the desperation of a substantial bloc of frightened and responsible voters (of all political stripes) that see our country going quickly into oblivion, and our liberties with it, there probably would not have been a change in the 2010/11 House composition. But the voters had nowhere else to go. And when they handed the House over to the Republicans, they were asking for bold, dramatic action, not political maneovering to avoid blame and political heat. There is no way to resolve this problem without somebody taking hits. Hurt must be in the lexicon of any leader brave enough to storm the Liberal welfare state bastion. But the reward of victory is none other than life from the dead for our poor hurting nation.
The leadership should have been chosen out of the newer and bolder group, for this battle is not won through knowledge of legislative tactics, but through playing a game of brinkmanship against the Liberal establishment. House rules based on seniority inevitably put the oldest and most senior in line to inherit the leadership role. But since when is seniority the measure of leadership? Here is one case where this seniority principle ill-served the best interests of the people of the United States.
The Republican party possesses the needed leadership in the present composition of the House - but they were never consulted or considered. I consider Alan West to be of that calibre, even though I think he made a mistake in hitching his wagon to Boehner's failing star.
And the battle can be won: I say this without fear of contradiction. There is a huge voting bloc in this country that has been holding its breath and yearning for someone - or for some gutsy group - to come along and take on the Libs, exposing them in their lairs as the planless, clueless, heartless, power-hungry thugs that they are. The Libs have most of the media in their pocket but the Internet is still free. Dramatic and creative action could force even a reluctant and hostile Media to dance to the tune of an aggressive use of power and political theatre. Reagan was really good at this, going over the heads of the reporters and seizing the TV spotlight for his own use. The Media cannot control that, and if they try to shut out one who has caught the public's imagination and admiration - the media itself will be pummelled by the public. All that is lacking is such a leader.
To those who say that the Republicans would have been ceaselessly blamed on every evening TV network broadcast featuring poor grannies whining about their social security check, or the medicare payments being cut - that is no doubt true; however, in 1864 Admiral Farragut had to run the gauntlet of the Confederate guns of Mobile, Alabama to capture the city. He had to suffer a violent cannonade from the shore batteries, and sunken mines. He paid the price of one ship sinking from a mine (called "torpedoes" back then), bravely saying "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," and he won the city.
So it is with this kind of situation. If the Republicans are so frightened about taking fire from the Media, then they might as well concede defeat right now. The Media is hostile to conservatism in general, and Republicans in particular, and will remain so until it is decisively defeated in public. (Who knows? Some in the media might be publicly critical of Republicans because they have behaved so contemptibly and been so unworthy of support for years. Who knows the allies that might be lurking, hidden and waiting for a hero to come along?) But that will never happen until a brave principled stand is taken - and the violence of the cannonade and the torpedoes damned - until victory is won.
Old Line House and Senatee Republican leaders are particularly unsuited to this kind of fight because they lost the psychological fight years ago: they have been beaten in their minds, and thus are not capable of thinking like an aggressive leadership party. They have been trained to think like losers, and they act like it. When the Media and the dirty Dems pull their strings this gang runs for cover and folds their tents. We need a new generation of leaders who have not been brain-washed.
Back to the what-should-have-beens: If the House had held the line and forced the Senate and President back to the table for large across the board spending cuts now, not spread incredibly over ten years, we would have seen the stock market take off like a rocket, because the government fiscal path would have been reset on a genuine correction, rather than more debt increases, as usual. Instead, the post-compromise stock market voted with it's feet, correctly assessing the “compromise” to be as hollow as its rhetoric.
Had the Republicans won the round, even through a temporary government shutdown, and credit default (Which I absolutely believe would have been averted), then the positive rebound of the Stock and Credit markets would have shoved the MSM criticism off the front page and exposed their manipulation as crass political theater. Nothing succeeds like success.
Sadly, the one big bugaboo the Media threatened the Republicans with - a downgrade in the US Bond rating - happened anyway, so a substantial part of the power and advantage of the constitutional budget hammer that we voters handed the House in November was squandered with the weak-kneed "compromise" that allowed the Libs to preserve their spending, and Obama to be able to campaign without the debt issue hanging over his head daily. He also won’t have to answer for the increased spending as he goes into what should have been a very negative election cycle for him.
Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice." The word extremism is a pejorative today, but that is only because the Left Media use it to bash those who stand up to their manipulation. Seize the term and reverse it and ram it down their throats. Isn't it really "extreme" to crash the economy through out of control spending? Or is it really "extreme" to balance the budget? If that is being extreme, then this is the time for a little “Extremism in defense of Liberty.”
It can't happen to me again, but the seeds of unrest have been deeply planted in my soul.
Goldwater's acceptance speech at the Republican convention of 1964 featured, among other notable quotables "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! " His words are still true but many who have claimed to be conservatives in our day have forgotten them.
Col Alan West, a man whom I support and admire, came out publicly sounding as if the recent debt-ceiling compromise, which he voted for, was a victory for fiscal conservatives. This post, written on the 6th of August, the day that the US debt rating was (predictably) down graded to AA+, is exactly what should have been expected as a consequence of such careful incrementalism as my friend Col West has embraced. He might have been attempting to appear "moderate" on the talk shows, but as Senator Goldwater so sagely said "...moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue."
He, and others who we thought were genuinely committed to a pitched battle on the budget, with a mandate to win it - not just make a noisy show and then fold - should have forced the Senate - in a test of wills - to pass a real spending cut crafted by the House - and forced the President to pass or veto real spending cuts - 5 or 6 trillion immediately. The bill passage should have been charged with the explicit warning that there was no compromise on the spending cuts and no compromise on tax increases. For them to fail to pass the House budget plan would be to step out on their own and in effect proclaim that they, the Senate and the President, would be responsible to precipitate a government shutdown and a default. The House leadership should have made it crystal clear that if the Senate and President failed to pass or agree to the cuts, then there would be no further budget legislation coming out the House - in other words, this is your final chance.
I know the Media portrayed it as if the House would be responsible for a shutdown and a credit default, but think this through - the House passed a responsible budget bill that would have prevented all that. It was the Senate and President who refused to agree. But the Lib/Dem Media turned on the House, telegraphing that it was the House who had to to compromise. But why should they have had to do that? Why not just turn the whole question around and point out that the House had no other choice but to to pass large budget cuts. There could be no compromise on the future of the country. Put the onus back where it belongs: on the Senate and the President.
But the House Republican leadership blinked - and fell for the idea that they were the ones who had to compromise. When Boehner announced that "the House was not going to precipitate a default" on FoxNEws Sunday with Mike Wallace, he gave the whole ball game away. The media pulled off a slight of hand and played the hapless House leadership for a loss. They (again) got manipulated by scare tactics when they held all the cards for a victory, (if played right.)
Victory is all a matter of how the game is played, folks. The Republican "leadership" is still the lame, scared, vacillating, cowardly and calculating - and may I say witless - midgets that they have been for generations. I can honestly see why many independents don't trust them: they are wimps. And much of the time, they deserve the scorn of the voters. Were it not for the desperation of a substantial bloc of frightened and responsible voters (of all political stripes) that see our country going quickly into oblivion, and our liberties with it, there probably would not have been a change in the 2010/11 House composition. But the voters had nowhere else to go. And when they handed the House over to the Republicans, they were asking for bold, dramatic action, not political maneovering to avoid blame and political heat. There is no way to resolve this problem without somebody taking hits. Hurt must be in the lexicon of any leader brave enough to storm the Liberal welfare state bastion. But the reward of victory is none other than life from the dead for our poor hurting nation.
The leadership should have been chosen out of the newer and bolder group, for this battle is not won through knowledge of legislative tactics, but through playing a game of brinkmanship against the Liberal establishment. House rules based on seniority inevitably put the oldest and most senior in line to inherit the leadership role. But since when is seniority the measure of leadership? Here is one case where this seniority principle ill-served the best interests of the people of the United States.
The Republican party possesses the needed leadership in the present composition of the House - but they were never consulted or considered. I consider Alan West to be of that calibre, even though I think he made a mistake in hitching his wagon to Boehner's failing star.
And the battle can be won: I say this without fear of contradiction. There is a huge voting bloc in this country that has been holding its breath and yearning for someone - or for some gutsy group - to come along and take on the Libs, exposing them in their lairs as the planless, clueless, heartless, power-hungry thugs that they are. The Libs have most of the media in their pocket but the Internet is still free. Dramatic and creative action could force even a reluctant and hostile Media to dance to the tune of an aggressive use of power and political theatre. Reagan was really good at this, going over the heads of the reporters and seizing the TV spotlight for his own use. The Media cannot control that, and if they try to shut out one who has caught the public's imagination and admiration - the media itself will be pummelled by the public. All that is lacking is such a leader.
To those who say that the Republicans would have been ceaselessly blamed on every evening TV network broadcast featuring poor grannies whining about their social security check, or the medicare payments being cut - that is no doubt true; however, in 1864 Admiral Farragut had to run the gauntlet of the Confederate guns of Mobile, Alabama to capture the city. He had to suffer a violent cannonade from the shore batteries, and sunken mines. He paid the price of one ship sinking from a mine (called "torpedoes" back then), bravely saying "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," and he won the city.
So it is with this kind of situation. If the Republicans are so frightened about taking fire from the Media, then they might as well concede defeat right now. The Media is hostile to conservatism in general, and Republicans in particular, and will remain so until it is decisively defeated in public. (Who knows? Some in the media might be publicly critical of Republicans because they have behaved so contemptibly and been so unworthy of support for years. Who knows the allies that might be lurking, hidden and waiting for a hero to come along?) But that will never happen until a brave principled stand is taken - and the violence of the cannonade and the torpedoes damned - until victory is won.
Old Line House and Senatee Republican leaders are particularly unsuited to this kind of fight because they lost the psychological fight years ago: they have been beaten in their minds, and thus are not capable of thinking like an aggressive leadership party. They have been trained to think like losers, and they act like it. When the Media and the dirty Dems pull their strings this gang runs for cover and folds their tents. We need a new generation of leaders who have not been brain-washed.
Back to the what-should-have-beens: If the House had held the line and forced the Senate and President back to the table for large across the board spending cuts now, not spread incredibly over ten years, we would have seen the stock market take off like a rocket, because the government fiscal path would have been reset on a genuine correction, rather than more debt increases, as usual. Instead, the post-compromise stock market voted with it's feet, correctly assessing the “compromise” to be as hollow as its rhetoric.
Had the Republicans won the round, even through a temporary government shutdown, and credit default (Which I absolutely believe would have been averted), then the positive rebound of the Stock and Credit markets would have shoved the MSM criticism off the front page and exposed their manipulation as crass political theater. Nothing succeeds like success.
Sadly, the one big bugaboo the Media threatened the Republicans with - a downgrade in the US Bond rating - happened anyway, so a substantial part of the power and advantage of the constitutional budget hammer that we voters handed the House in November was squandered with the weak-kneed "compromise" that allowed the Libs to preserve their spending, and Obama to be able to campaign without the debt issue hanging over his head daily. He also won’t have to answer for the increased spending as he goes into what should have been a very negative election cycle for him.
Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice." The word extremism is a pejorative today, but that is only because the Left Media use it to bash those who stand up to their manipulation. Seize the term and reverse it and ram it down their throats. Isn't it really "extreme" to crash the economy through out of control spending? Or is it really "extreme" to balance the budget? If that is being extreme, then this is the time for a little “Extremism in defense of Liberty.”
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Put me in charge
This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will be “voluntarily” removed from voting while you are receiving a Government welfare check. Think E-verify for illegal aliens. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will be “voluntarily” removed from voting while you are receiving a Government welfare check. Think E-verify for illegal aliens. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Vashti Democrats of Wisconsin
It is probably necessary to explain the name "Vashti" in these benighted times, when as recently as when I was a kid, every child knew who Vashti was from Sunday School. She was queen of the empire of Media - Persia under King Ahasuerus. That story is told in the book of Esther in the Bible.
The king gave a huge feast for the glory of his kingdom, and during that feast, he summoned Queen Vashti that he might show off her beauty to the assembled multitudes. Putting aside for a moment the disastrous implications of that act if a similar event were to occur in modern America, note that she flatly refused to come when called.
That event would not have much to say to our present day Wisconsin Democrat Senators except for what happened to Vashti, and arguably, what should happen to them also.
When Vashti refused to come at the king's command, furorm ensued. The king called his chief counsellors, who advised him that not only had she given much embarrassment to the king himself, but every husband in the kingdom would be held in contempt by their wives for Vashti's actions if she were allowed to get away with it. In other words, the effects of her refusal were much more wide-ranging than a mere spat between a husband and a wife.
The counsellors recommended removing Vashti from her position - and replacing her with another queen, presumably one which would know not to pull such a stunt herself. That is what happened.
And that brings me to my point. The Wisconsin Dem Senators, by refusing to come when lawfully summoned - not held up by intractable forces so they could not comply or not having some plausible excuse - but simply refusing to do their duty, have brought themselves under the same judgment as Vashti.
I totally dismiss the notion that failing to show up for a quorum call is a legitimate tactic to be used by any group of disaffected legislators whenever the mood strikes them. That deliberate refusal to particpate in debate and voting is an attack on our entire legislative government system and must be met with appropriate action. Slapping down Vashti was the right course of action for the king; so would be slapping down the missing Democrat senators.
The governor of Wisconsin ought to declare that the senators have vacated their seats voluntarily, and therefore are no longer to be regarded as senators. Thus, their absence resets the quorum rules and the remaining legislators who showed up when called can go on with business. It can hardly be argued that the senators have not had ample opportunity - or dutiful incentive to come to quorum. They can only plead that they oppose the legislation that thier plesence will ensure if they return. That is not a legitimate reason to miss a quorum call. They were not hired by the voters to stay away from votes, but precisely to vote - yea or nay - as their representative. To fail to show up is to disenfranchise the voters from their districts. IT is the exact opposite of an elected representatives' job to refuse to represent the voters of his district.
The Dems who have vacated their seats should not be allowed back in. The governor can call a special election to re-fill their seats. They, like the Unionized Boston Police in 1919, who struck and abandoned their positions and their responsibility to protect and defend the public, were fired by Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge and the strike broken. They were never re-hired. His logic was morally impeccable: their sole function was to protect the public, but by refusing to do that prime duty, they had voided their right to hold those jobs. Ronald Reagan dismissed the striking air traffic controllers of PATCO in a similar bold move.
These senators ought to suffer the same fate. If they refuse to do the very thing that they were elected to do - to serve their constituents in the legislature - not hiding out from their responsibilities - then they have abdicated their positions and should be treated as such. They have also attacked the very wellspring of representative government.
How much latitude would any normal employee receive if they refused to come to work because they did not like what they were required to do while at work? What is the normal and expected result of refusing to show up to perform their duties? Yes, they lose their jobs. Same with the Senators.
One can almost anticipate the howling and ranting if he does this. But I'll bet it would get the errant senators scooting back into town, trying to claim their seats. They should be refused, of course. They will sue, and raise a huge ruckus, but their actions, which hitherto have been countenanced, will be a point of national debate. They will have been put firmly on the defensive, attempting to recapture something that they had publicly given up. It would be a great spectacle to watch.
There are plenty of articulate souls who can make this case: quorum busting is not a fair tactic when you know you are on the losing side of an issue because you lack the votes. That is the essence of un-democracy and it ought to proclaimed as such and not allowed to fester in our political system. It might have un-suspected and baneful effects that would crash the system if allowed to go on unchallenged and uncorrected.
I just wonder if Governor Walker has the cahonies to take the initiative. If he continues to dither, he and the new Republican Senate might completely lose the momentum. It is not being right that wins, it is he who takes action. Delay has given the well-financed Dems and Unions, along with Obama, the time to re-shape the debate on public sector unions and collective bargaining. Time is not on the side of reformers who are going after big game. Waiting too long lets the beast escape.
The king gave a huge feast for the glory of his kingdom, and during that feast, he summoned Queen Vashti that he might show off her beauty to the assembled multitudes. Putting aside for a moment the disastrous implications of that act if a similar event were to occur in modern America, note that she flatly refused to come when called.
That event would not have much to say to our present day Wisconsin Democrat Senators except for what happened to Vashti, and arguably, what should happen to them also.
When Vashti refused to come at the king's command, furorm ensued. The king called his chief counsellors, who advised him that not only had she given much embarrassment to the king himself, but every husband in the kingdom would be held in contempt by their wives for Vashti's actions if she were allowed to get away with it. In other words, the effects of her refusal were much more wide-ranging than a mere spat between a husband and a wife.
The counsellors recommended removing Vashti from her position - and replacing her with another queen, presumably one which would know not to pull such a stunt herself. That is what happened.
And that brings me to my point. The Wisconsin Dem Senators, by refusing to come when lawfully summoned - not held up by intractable forces so they could not comply or not having some plausible excuse - but simply refusing to do their duty, have brought themselves under the same judgment as Vashti.
I totally dismiss the notion that failing to show up for a quorum call is a legitimate tactic to be used by any group of disaffected legislators whenever the mood strikes them. That deliberate refusal to particpate in debate and voting is an attack on our entire legislative government system and must be met with appropriate action. Slapping down Vashti was the right course of action for the king; so would be slapping down the missing Democrat senators.
The governor of Wisconsin ought to declare that the senators have vacated their seats voluntarily, and therefore are no longer to be regarded as senators. Thus, their absence resets the quorum rules and the remaining legislators who showed up when called can go on with business. It can hardly be argued that the senators have not had ample opportunity - or dutiful incentive to come to quorum. They can only plead that they oppose the legislation that thier plesence will ensure if they return. That is not a legitimate reason to miss a quorum call. They were not hired by the voters to stay away from votes, but precisely to vote - yea or nay - as their representative. To fail to show up is to disenfranchise the voters from their districts. IT is the exact opposite of an elected representatives' job to refuse to represent the voters of his district.
The Dems who have vacated their seats should not be allowed back in. The governor can call a special election to re-fill their seats. They, like the Unionized Boston Police in 1919, who struck and abandoned their positions and their responsibility to protect and defend the public, were fired by Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge and the strike broken. They were never re-hired. His logic was morally impeccable: their sole function was to protect the public, but by refusing to do that prime duty, they had voided their right to hold those jobs. Ronald Reagan dismissed the striking air traffic controllers of PATCO in a similar bold move.
These senators ought to suffer the same fate. If they refuse to do the very thing that they were elected to do - to serve their constituents in the legislature - not hiding out from their responsibilities - then they have abdicated their positions and should be treated as such. They have also attacked the very wellspring of representative government.
How much latitude would any normal employee receive if they refused to come to work because they did not like what they were required to do while at work? What is the normal and expected result of refusing to show up to perform their duties? Yes, they lose their jobs. Same with the Senators.
One can almost anticipate the howling and ranting if he does this. But I'll bet it would get the errant senators scooting back into town, trying to claim their seats. They should be refused, of course. They will sue, and raise a huge ruckus, but their actions, which hitherto have been countenanced, will be a point of national debate. They will have been put firmly on the defensive, attempting to recapture something that they had publicly given up. It would be a great spectacle to watch.
There are plenty of articulate souls who can make this case: quorum busting is not a fair tactic when you know you are on the losing side of an issue because you lack the votes. That is the essence of un-democracy and it ought to proclaimed as such and not allowed to fester in our political system. It might have un-suspected and baneful effects that would crash the system if allowed to go on unchallenged and uncorrected.
I just wonder if Governor Walker has the cahonies to take the initiative. If he continues to dither, he and the new Republican Senate might completely lose the momentum. It is not being right that wins, it is he who takes action. Delay has given the well-financed Dems and Unions, along with Obama, the time to re-shape the debate on public sector unions and collective bargaining. Time is not on the side of reformers who are going after big game. Waiting too long lets the beast escape.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Un-Democratic Democrats
Wisconsin Democrats are acting in a most un-democratic manner. They are throwing up a barrage of rhetoric and threats to cover up their attempt to overthrow our system of government.
Consider the rhetoric - Americans are traditionally attuned to respond favorably to the use of the word "rights', so it is no surprise that the Unions massing their troops in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois should be loudly decrying any attempt to take away their "right" of collective bargaining.
Interestingly, the things we traditionally associate with rights are those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -and those listed in the Bill of Rights. However, increasingly the word right has been assigned to such notions as a right to a job, or a right to housing, or a right to health care, or a right to collectively bargain.
In the instance of collective bargaining as it applies to public employees unions, it has been historically understood in the US that such unions were not allowed the power to hold the government hostage. The reason is fairly simple and was well-articulated by none other than FDR who said "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." This is more fully explained in the excellent article "FDR's Warning: Public Employee's Unions a no-no."
We must careful of the words we use when debating this subject. Public sector unions have no inalienable right to collective bargaining, In fact, allowing them that privilege is a danger to the Republic, as recent events have borne out. Also, since a civil and intelligent discussion must proceed through the use of accurate - not misleading - terminology, then it is dangerous to leave the erroneous rhetoric unchallenged. .
The Democrats and Unions cannot logically or morally claim that their cause is just. They are not disadvantaged workers, downtrodden by politicians or even the taxpayers; rather, they are the recipients of an ever-increasing cornucopia of benefits that has already outstripped the ability of governments at all levels to pay for them.
The public demonstrations are contrived to hold onto a political advantage that the Democratic Party has held for generations virtually unchallenged, but is now being exposed for the danger it presents to the very life of the country. So, in creating chaos and confusion, they are hoping to retain by force and obfuscation what they cannot win through democratic and open debate.
This point is strikingly clear in the case of the Wisconsin legislature in mid February 2011: The Democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate, now in the minority since the November elections of 2010 swept them out of the majority, have recognized that they don't have the votes to prevent the Republican reform-minded majority from unwinding the collective bargaining privilege that public unions have enjoyed for decades, which they have used to pillage and plunder the treasuries of local and State government with impunity. Faced with the prospect of imminent defeat, they walked out -en-masse - and are hiding out in another State, hoping that the Governor or the legislature will cave in and relent on the issue of collective bargaining. They are hoping to win through their absence what they cannot win through their presence.
It is interesting to hear the bleating of union operatives trying to portray themselves as reasonable and responsible - only desiring to "have a dialog" with the Republicans on the wage cuts and benefit costs - when the only position they took - up until the walkout - was a complete stone wall on any changes to the Union's privileges. Fortunately, the governor is hanging tough, as are the Republican legislators.
One thing, of many, is starkly obvious in this contest: it is plainly a partisan fight. It is clearly not about fairness or what is right for the citizens of the State, for if that were primarily the debate, one would see a smattering of support and differences of opinion regardless of Party. But no. The Democrats are starkly the Party of the extravagant Union position, and are willing to use extraordinary and most un-Democratic tactics to try to win. The Republicans are the adults, playing by the rules. The citizens of the state awarded them the majority to implement their policies, and the Democrats are plainly not going to allow the citizens' voices to be heard if they can help it. They want to win, even if they overturn the election. That is what this walkout is all about.
This idea of absenting oneself from an elected seat is dramatic, but to my mind, also fraught with danger. It must be taken as an axiom that when one is elected to "serve" as a legislator, the primary duty is to represent those who elected him, that is, they must "serve." And the only way they can do that is by being part of the body of legislators, taking their place and operating according to the State Constitution and legislative rules. Majorities have legitmate power that derives from the will of the people as expressed in their elected representatives. Majorities are formed through debate and compromise, so it is utterly destructive to our constituted form of government to attempt to redefine the rules by refusing to serve in the very seat that one was elected to occupy. In effect, it is equivalent to hiding the ball and bat if the game is not going the way you like. That ought to get you thrown out of the game.
That tactic is inherently unfair and undemocratic. The implicit agreement underlying our system of government is that we will settle our differences in the legislature, and whichever position wins the majority of the votes after debate, wins. We have forsworn violence and demonstrations threatening violence for reasoned debate.
The seated legislature is certainly not denying any Democrat a voice. On the contrary, the Democrats are refusing to be present and participate unless the Marjority concedes their their position before the Democrats agree to return. That is turning the whole system on its head.: the minority demands its way or will try to stop the majority from proceeding. Yet, that is obviously not how things are to work, and we should not stand for such tactics.
By their behavior, the Democrats clearly are not in favor of representative democracy when they don't think things are going their way. That was not the way the Republicans acted when Pelosi and Reid rammed their legislation through at the federal level. The Republicans stayed engaged and played by the rules even though they were bulldozed out of the way in the most crass manner, and were loudly critical. The Democrats acted like they did not care. They had "won" as Obama so infamously said in one bi-partisan meeting. Lacking the majority now, the Wisconsin Democrats have demonstrated that they have no stomach for democratic principles when they don't produce the results they want.
That is an utterly rebellious attitude toward the solemn responsibilities they have been elected to fulfill.
To remove oneself from the legislature by one's own choice is tantamount to a resignation, and perhaps that is exactly how the present Governor, Court or Legislature ought to regard their absence. The idea that a minority can check the majority by their absence is abhorrent to democratic institutions, and ought to be met with a firm response. They ought to be given a certain amount of time to present themselves for a quorum call, and if after a sufficient time has elapsed, they should be declared to have resigned from their seat - unseated by their own failure to take their seat - and the number of legislators needed to form a quorum reduced by the number of willfully absent members. An election can be called to fill the vacant seats.
That action by the present legislature can hardly be considered unfair. All that one needs to do to take his seat is to present him or her-self at a quorum call. Those who wilfully refuse ought to be dismissed.
I would argue that it is incumbent on the Governor and the legislature to vigorously address this situation and certainly not allow the renegade Democrats to win anything by this tactic. A failure on the part of the duly-constituted majority would be the destruction of the system itself. That must not be allowed to happen. Too much is at stake.
The nation and the world is watching what is happening in the Middle East with protests against un-democratic and unelected dictators, and likewise it is watching the attempt by the Unions and the Democrats to overturn the legitimate and democratic will of the people in Wisconsin and other States. It would be a tragedy to cheer on the oppressed peoples of the Mideast, while at the same time spurning our own functional electoral processe.
The Un-democratic Democrats must not be allowed to win this battle, or this war.
Consider the rhetoric - Americans are traditionally attuned to respond favorably to the use of the word "rights', so it is no surprise that the Unions massing their troops in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois should be loudly decrying any attempt to take away their "right" of collective bargaining.
Interestingly, the things we traditionally associate with rights are those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -and those listed in the Bill of Rights. However, increasingly the word right has been assigned to such notions as a right to a job, or a right to housing, or a right to health care, or a right to collectively bargain.
In the instance of collective bargaining as it applies to public employees unions, it has been historically understood in the US that such unions were not allowed the power to hold the government hostage. The reason is fairly simple and was well-articulated by none other than FDR who said "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." This is more fully explained in the excellent article "FDR's Warning: Public Employee's Unions a no-no."
We must careful of the words we use when debating this subject. Public sector unions have no inalienable right to collective bargaining, In fact, allowing them that privilege is a danger to the Republic, as recent events have borne out. Also, since a civil and intelligent discussion must proceed through the use of accurate - not misleading - terminology, then it is dangerous to leave the erroneous rhetoric unchallenged. .
The Democrats and Unions cannot logically or morally claim that their cause is just. They are not disadvantaged workers, downtrodden by politicians or even the taxpayers; rather, they are the recipients of an ever-increasing cornucopia of benefits that has already outstripped the ability of governments at all levels to pay for them.
The public demonstrations are contrived to hold onto a political advantage that the Democratic Party has held for generations virtually unchallenged, but is now being exposed for the danger it presents to the very life of the country. So, in creating chaos and confusion, they are hoping to retain by force and obfuscation what they cannot win through democratic and open debate.
This point is strikingly clear in the case of the Wisconsin legislature in mid February 2011: The Democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate, now in the minority since the November elections of 2010 swept them out of the majority, have recognized that they don't have the votes to prevent the Republican reform-minded majority from unwinding the collective bargaining privilege that public unions have enjoyed for decades, which they have used to pillage and plunder the treasuries of local and State government with impunity. Faced with the prospect of imminent defeat, they walked out -en-masse - and are hiding out in another State, hoping that the Governor or the legislature will cave in and relent on the issue of collective bargaining. They are hoping to win through their absence what they cannot win through their presence.
It is interesting to hear the bleating of union operatives trying to portray themselves as reasonable and responsible - only desiring to "have a dialog" with the Republicans on the wage cuts and benefit costs - when the only position they took - up until the walkout - was a complete stone wall on any changes to the Union's privileges. Fortunately, the governor is hanging tough, as are the Republican legislators.
One thing, of many, is starkly obvious in this contest: it is plainly a partisan fight. It is clearly not about fairness or what is right for the citizens of the State, for if that were primarily the debate, one would see a smattering of support and differences of opinion regardless of Party. But no. The Democrats are starkly the Party of the extravagant Union position, and are willing to use extraordinary and most un-Democratic tactics to try to win. The Republicans are the adults, playing by the rules. The citizens of the state awarded them the majority to implement their policies, and the Democrats are plainly not going to allow the citizens' voices to be heard if they can help it. They want to win, even if they overturn the election. That is what this walkout is all about.
This idea of absenting oneself from an elected seat is dramatic, but to my mind, also fraught with danger. It must be taken as an axiom that when one is elected to "serve" as a legislator, the primary duty is to represent those who elected him, that is, they must "serve." And the only way they can do that is by being part of the body of legislators, taking their place and operating according to the State Constitution and legislative rules. Majorities have legitmate power that derives from the will of the people as expressed in their elected representatives. Majorities are formed through debate and compromise, so it is utterly destructive to our constituted form of government to attempt to redefine the rules by refusing to serve in the very seat that one was elected to occupy. In effect, it is equivalent to hiding the ball and bat if the game is not going the way you like. That ought to get you thrown out of the game.
That tactic is inherently unfair and undemocratic. The implicit agreement underlying our system of government is that we will settle our differences in the legislature, and whichever position wins the majority of the votes after debate, wins. We have forsworn violence and demonstrations threatening violence for reasoned debate.
The seated legislature is certainly not denying any Democrat a voice. On the contrary, the Democrats are refusing to be present and participate unless the Marjority concedes their their position before the Democrats agree to return. That is turning the whole system on its head.: the minority demands its way or will try to stop the majority from proceeding. Yet, that is obviously not how things are to work, and we should not stand for such tactics.
By their behavior, the Democrats clearly are not in favor of representative democracy when they don't think things are going their way. That was not the way the Republicans acted when Pelosi and Reid rammed their legislation through at the federal level. The Republicans stayed engaged and played by the rules even though they were bulldozed out of the way in the most crass manner, and were loudly critical. The Democrats acted like they did not care. They had "won" as Obama so infamously said in one bi-partisan meeting. Lacking the majority now, the Wisconsin Democrats have demonstrated that they have no stomach for democratic principles when they don't produce the results they want.
That is an utterly rebellious attitude toward the solemn responsibilities they have been elected to fulfill.
To remove oneself from the legislature by one's own choice is tantamount to a resignation, and perhaps that is exactly how the present Governor, Court or Legislature ought to regard their absence. The idea that a minority can check the majority by their absence is abhorrent to democratic institutions, and ought to be met with a firm response. They ought to be given a certain amount of time to present themselves for a quorum call, and if after a sufficient time has elapsed, they should be declared to have resigned from their seat - unseated by their own failure to take their seat - and the number of legislators needed to form a quorum reduced by the number of willfully absent members. An election can be called to fill the vacant seats.
That action by the present legislature can hardly be considered unfair. All that one needs to do to take his seat is to present him or her-self at a quorum call. Those who wilfully refuse ought to be dismissed.
I would argue that it is incumbent on the Governor and the legislature to vigorously address this situation and certainly not allow the renegade Democrats to win anything by this tactic. A failure on the part of the duly-constituted majority would be the destruction of the system itself. That must not be allowed to happen. Too much is at stake.
The nation and the world is watching what is happening in the Middle East with protests against un-democratic and unelected dictators, and likewise it is watching the attempt by the Unions and the Democrats to overturn the legitimate and democratic will of the people in Wisconsin and other States. It would be a tragedy to cheer on the oppressed peoples of the Mideast, while at the same time spurning our own functional electoral processe.
The Un-democratic Democrats must not be allowed to win this battle, or this war.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Giving Credit where Credit is Due
My wife just got out of the hospital, having received several stents, opening up some blocked coronary arteries. While there, we were privileged to view the actual process of injecting the dye into the heart and the obvious blocked areas of several blood vessels. The technology is quite astonishing, and the existence of such techniques got me to thinking.
The modern scientific establishment is downright dismissive of Biblical Christianity. The scientist-priests' scornful attitudes drip with sarcasm and contempt when they compare the modern technology and its wonderful results with the simplicity of faith. It is as if the modern world - especially with reference to the technical achievements of modern civilization - are the product of Atheism marching forward unopposed.
Now I know that the Atheist view is totally incorrect, unfounded and not historically true. Atheism cannot produce anything positive, and if it claims anything as its own, it is a claim based on intellectual theft. The modern scientific establishment would not exist at all unless it were not built on thought and investigation based on a Biblical Judeo-Christian worldview.
The father of the scientific method, Sir Isaac Newton, said "The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God."
The practical system of investigation of the world around us and the use of careful observation and experiment, expecting logical results to proceed from logical inquiry, is one of his greatest foundations of the modern scientific world. And what drove Newton was his view of the Universe as an expression of God. He understood that the World of God and the Word of God are both established on the foundation of the Character of God Himself.
The "scientific" establishment of today is historically grounded on a Christian-Biblical worldview. But where God is not honored, blindness and futility set in. No one explores to find anything if everything is just "brute factuality." Without the assumption of an orderly universe, created by a purposeful, orderly God, then there is little point in spending money or effort to "discover" something that everyone knows cannot be there. It is far easier looking for something that is part of a pattern you know already exists. The whole process of discovery rests on an assumption that by following a logical sequence of steps, you know you are going to arrive at a logical conclusion.
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe that the universe is orderly or logical , or purposeful – even in our own lives or existence, no matter what we imagine; we are just the product of randomness – hence, no order. So why expect to find any order when you already know that there is no sense or order to be found? To believe in order is to believe in a giver of order. That is heresy to an Atheist.
Wrong views of God result in blight and blindness in an individual or a culture or an entire civilization.
Atheistic cultures steal the positive results of a culture built on a Christian worldview (tools, hospitals, technology, etc.) and claim it as their own creation, but as I have point out, they cannot possibly be the impetus for it. They really don't have the insight for it: they don't “think right” about the world and thus are blind - willfully blind – to the logical outworking of thought based on a Theo-centric worldview.
The modern scientific culture would never have come about as an outgrowth of Atheistic thought.
Political correctness is the fruit of Atheism – the deliberate rejection of the real world for the hoped-for world without God. Truly He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. There is no wisdom, nor counsel nor understanding against the Lord. In the end, He blinds those who refuse to see.
So we are able to give credit where credit is due - to the Lord God, who is the pillar and ground of the truth, and to His Grace, which granted to men who obey Him insight into His world, so they may "subdue it" and make it bountiful, within the confines of the Fall.
The modern scientific establishment is downright dismissive of Biblical Christianity. The scientist-priests' scornful attitudes drip with sarcasm and contempt when they compare the modern technology and its wonderful results with the simplicity of faith. It is as if the modern world - especially with reference to the technical achievements of modern civilization - are the product of Atheism marching forward unopposed.
Now I know that the Atheist view is totally incorrect, unfounded and not historically true. Atheism cannot produce anything positive, and if it claims anything as its own, it is a claim based on intellectual theft. The modern scientific establishment would not exist at all unless it were not built on thought and investigation based on a Biblical Judeo-Christian worldview.
The father of the scientific method, Sir Isaac Newton, said "The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God."
The practical system of investigation of the world around us and the use of careful observation and experiment, expecting logical results to proceed from logical inquiry, is one of his greatest foundations of the modern scientific world. And what drove Newton was his view of the Universe as an expression of God. He understood that the World of God and the Word of God are both established on the foundation of the Character of God Himself.
The "scientific" establishment of today is historically grounded on a Christian-Biblical worldview. But where God is not honored, blindness and futility set in. No one explores to find anything if everything is just "brute factuality." Without the assumption of an orderly universe, created by a purposeful, orderly God, then there is little point in spending money or effort to "discover" something that everyone knows cannot be there. It is far easier looking for something that is part of a pattern you know already exists. The whole process of discovery rests on an assumption that by following a logical sequence of steps, you know you are going to arrive at a logical conclusion.
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe that the universe is orderly or logical , or purposeful – even in our own lives or existence, no matter what we imagine; we are just the product of randomness – hence, no order. So why expect to find any order when you already know that there is no sense or order to be found? To believe in order is to believe in a giver of order. That is heresy to an Atheist.
Wrong views of God result in blight and blindness in an individual or a culture or an entire civilization.
Atheistic cultures steal the positive results of a culture built on a Christian worldview (tools, hospitals, technology, etc.) and claim it as their own creation, but as I have point out, they cannot possibly be the impetus for it. They really don't have the insight for it: they don't “think right” about the world and thus are blind - willfully blind – to the logical outworking of thought based on a Theo-centric worldview.
The modern scientific culture would never have come about as an outgrowth of Atheistic thought.
Political correctness is the fruit of Atheism – the deliberate rejection of the real world for the hoped-for world without God. Truly He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. There is no wisdom, nor counsel nor understanding against the Lord. In the end, He blinds those who refuse to see.
So we are able to give credit where credit is due - to the Lord God, who is the pillar and ground of the truth, and to His Grace, which granted to men who obey Him insight into His world, so they may "subdue it" and make it bountiful, within the confines of the Fall.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The Frigate of Americanism
Thomas Jefferson, before becoming President, was usually in the party of those who favored a freeman-farmer type of government, where independence and minimal government reigned supreme. Jefferson was our third president, after Washington and John Adams. Adams was a Federalist, favoring a strong central government as opposed to Jefferson's ideal.
This Jeffersonian Propensity - a very worthy ideal - found a most excellent summation in this quote:
“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801.
This tension is to be observed in the very early American government between the Jefferson types who favored very limited government, and the Federalist types who favored a strong central government., showing up in the debate over the building and manning of the US Navy for the defense of our trade. “Six Frigates”, by Ian Toll, traces the back and forth of US Policy that consecutively enabled and then starved the infant navy built to defend American national interests. Jefferson (typically) sponsored the idea of building gunboats in each port that would be manned by volunteers. It was a cheap and simple solution tailored to the early American ideal. It was also a complete flop when tested in actual defense of the harbors and towns. Later, President Jefferson sent the same frigates he had formerly opposed to the Mediterranean to deal with Islamic terrorists and marauders. They were eminently successful.
His “volunteer” force concept was proven to be wrong in the area of defending American interests in the dangerous arena of Maritime policy and national defense, yet in many other areas, his notions of freemen taking care of their own business has become the hallmark of what we used to mean when we said “Americanism.”
The first quarter of the nineteenth century, as witnessed by Alexis Tocqueville in his landmark book "Democracy in America" was marked by American volunteerism in the daily lives of the citizens. It could be fairly said that Jefferson and those who thought like him, expressed something essential about our people and how they viewed government and freedom. Government was not even on the horizon in most people's lives, rather it was Christianity and local community. Quite a contrast with today's in your face political correctness and swarms of inspectors and taxes and regulations harassing and eating out the substance of the ordinary person.
Some degree of government is necessary, and it is the duty and calling of every generation of freemen to attempt to keep the balance. In the last two or three generations I fear we have been so busy living “the good life” that we have sorely neglected that balance. We are perilously close to a point of no return in so many areas of the preservation of our Liberties.
We need a major course correction, or our “frigate” of Americanism will end up on the rocks.
This Jeffersonian Propensity - a very worthy ideal - found a most excellent summation in this quote:
“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801.
This tension is to be observed in the very early American government between the Jefferson types who favored very limited government, and the Federalist types who favored a strong central government., showing up in the debate over the building and manning of the US Navy for the defense of our trade. “Six Frigates”, by Ian Toll, traces the back and forth of US Policy that consecutively enabled and then starved the infant navy built to defend American national interests. Jefferson (typically) sponsored the idea of building gunboats in each port that would be manned by volunteers. It was a cheap and simple solution tailored to the early American ideal. It was also a complete flop when tested in actual defense of the harbors and towns. Later, President Jefferson sent the same frigates he had formerly opposed to the Mediterranean to deal with Islamic terrorists and marauders. They were eminently successful.
His “volunteer” force concept was proven to be wrong in the area of defending American interests in the dangerous arena of Maritime policy and national defense, yet in many other areas, his notions of freemen taking care of their own business has become the hallmark of what we used to mean when we said “Americanism.”
The first quarter of the nineteenth century, as witnessed by Alexis Tocqueville in his landmark book "Democracy in America" was marked by American volunteerism in the daily lives of the citizens. It could be fairly said that Jefferson and those who thought like him, expressed something essential about our people and how they viewed government and freedom. Government was not even on the horizon in most people's lives, rather it was Christianity and local community. Quite a contrast with today's in your face political correctness and swarms of inspectors and taxes and regulations harassing and eating out the substance of the ordinary person.
Some degree of government is necessary, and it is the duty and calling of every generation of freemen to attempt to keep the balance. In the last two or three generations I fear we have been so busy living “the good life” that we have sorely neglected that balance. We are perilously close to a point of no return in so many areas of the preservation of our Liberties.
We need a major course correction, or our “frigate” of Americanism will end up on the rocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)