By the Lieutenant Colonel
On Sunday evening March 4th I watched former Governor Mike Huckabee’s Forum 3 - Jobs, a Republican Presidential Candidates forum presented on the Fox News Channel. I have to say that while the traditional “at a podium” television debate format does have a place (If the questions are not manipulative and biased), I would prefer to see more candidate “vetting” done using this type of “subject specific forum” style. However, that is not the motivation for this article.
Three Ohio citizens made up one of the two panels that posed questions to the candidates. One of the panelists was Ohio State University Senior Devin Largent, a self-proclaimed “Independent” voter. Throughout the forum he asked thoughtful and relevant questions and he came across to me as a rather bright young man. But, that impression did not last. For the forums wrap-up, Gov. Huckabee asked the panelists their thoughts on how the candidates performed. Devin was the last to respond…I was anticipating a thoughtful and intelligent assessment--instead, Devin’s response left me utterly flabbergasted and shaking my head!
Devin it turns out was very disappointed that none of the candidates’ responses alleviated his foremost concern… the tone and partisanship of our political environment. He said “maybe he is just an idealist” but feels what he sees from the political parties is only unproductive disharmony and bickering. Devin said the candidates should be amicably bipartisan and willing to compromise. Devin believes he’s an idealist, I think he’s troublingly naive. Like many, Devin clearly can’t stomach that disagreement and conflict is a reality of the human condition, and shies away from it with wishful sentiment. A pragmatist understands from the dawn of existence we have battled over competing ideas on how we should live and govern society. Religious connotations aside, there is “good and evil” in human nature and no repetitive singing of John Lennon’s Imagine is going to produce a paradise of human serenity. Moreover, the danger of conciliatory idealism is those who seek collective control and power over people at the expense of individual liberty harness this weakness to advance their own dogma and personal status.
Our Nation’s Founding Fathers understood human nature, examined historical civilizations and government constructs, and astutely crafted an unprecedented form of democratic republican government codified in our Constitution. A vigorous debate ensued that required some compromise to achieve consensus, but the debate wasn’t about more or less liberty, but competing ideas on how best to protect it. The Constitution was intentionally designed to protect maximum individual liberty and “inalienable rights” by trying to thwart the inevitable determinations of some to seize collective control and power. But even this distinguished document was viewed with skepticism with regard to restraining the relentless lust for power as expressed in the writings of the Anti-Federalists. As Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked by Maryland delegate Dr. James McHenry, “Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?” Dr. Franklin revealed his own doubts when he famously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” He clearly understood that even this extraordinarily well-designed democratic republic would be entirely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of future generations of people resolutely dedicated to the ideas of individual liberty espoused by the Founders.
Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago this September the Constitution was sent to the States for ratification and this grand new experiment in republican government was born. But regrettably, as the skeptics warned, the size and power of the Federal Government has undeniably grown over time to the detriment of individual liberty… by intermittent and small incursions in the first hundred years, and through more sweeping episodes of change ever since (i.e. Progressive Era, New Deal, Great Society, Hope & Change). The foundational erosion of the obstacles to Federal power enumerated in the Constitution have always been done with calls for bipartisanship and compromise under the pretense of alleviating some presumed complex issue of “modern times” unforeseen by the Founders. This flawed reasoning is once again in full force.
President Obama and the Democrats, frustrated by their stalled attempts to "fundamentally transform" the American system, are condemning the opposition with shrieks of foul play. Currently, Republicans, and Democrats favorite scapegoat the Tea Party, are organizations frequently accused of being "obstructionist" and "The Party of No," and of refusing to compromise just to spite Obama. Furthermore, baseless accusations of every immoral prejudice and injustice are flung out for misdirection effect the way a magician uses sleight of hand to deceive the audience. Obama, on the other hand, portrays himself as reasonable and conciliatory, merely asking for bipartisanship and compromise. The politically squeamish, “can’t we all just get along” citizens like Devin facilitate this false narrative that veils the erosion of liberty and rush to state collectivism, whether they realizes it or not.
1 comment:
Nice.
-Devin
Post a Comment