So what if we have incompatible and irreconcilable worldviews on our existence… can’t we still get along?

By the Lieutenant Colonel

I am troubled by those that are adamant about separating undesirable “beliefs” from the individuals that espouse them in the wishful endeavor to avoid physical confrontation at all cost.  I decided to write on this subject after reading this closing statement from a “conservative” blog article:

“They grasped the seriousness of their disagreement and found ways to hate the other side’s ideas without hating the individuals on the other side.  We can do the same with the political, religious, and secular Left in 2010.”  [1]

The “we can agree to disagree” and still be friends view is reasonable and admirable when the disagreement is over some benign “like or dislike” such as; I think that painting is beautiful, you think it is ugly.  Or, I’m a Steelers fan and you’re a Ravens fan.  Rational humans may have spirited discourse on their preferences, but will not come to blows over such things.  (Please note I said rational)

But when a disagreement is over irreconcilable and incompatible philosophies with a “my way or your way” outcome pertaining to one’s physical and mental state of existence in this world, a fight to determine which outcome prevails is inevitable unless there is a willingness by one party to acquiesce and submit.  Such disagreements sometimes smolder for a period as opponents struggle to coexistence, but they inevitably explode into conflict as opponents either employ self-defense or assert dominance to obtain resolution.  Such conflicts span human history. 

The preeminent irreconcilable struggle of human coexistence is between the social order boundaries of anarchy and tyranny.  Between these extremes are those that believe in individual liberty (God given inalienable rights) and personal property under a system of equal opportunity and justice under law and those that believe in statist collectivism and community property under a system of equal outcome and social justice.  One seeks maximum self determination and limited governance, the other, a utopian collective governed by a benevolent authoritarian system.  These views are diametrically opposed.  Whenever liberty triumphs statist collectivist coercions, the result is preservation of individual freedom, but whenever the statist collective triumphs, it is at the expense of liberty--and those that don’t want to acquiesce are forced into submission, incarcerated, or eliminated.

So, when it comes to my view on individuals or groups whose beliefs impose conditions that force me down “the road to serfdom” (With best intents for our wellbeing of course [2]), I can’t help but hold disdain for them.  They are a threat to my liberty, and therefore an enemy… how can I feign friendship or even just passively ignore them when they vigorously encroach upon me?  Then what is one to do, dispatch them…“the blood of tyrants”, well no!  (More on this in a follow-on article)  That is, if the defense of liberty is vigilant and uncompromising [3] while the fight can be bloodless as wisely stated by Winston Churchill…

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.  There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Notes:

[1] R.J. Moeller (8 April 2010).  The Drama of Our Time, A Voice in the Wilderness-In Defense of “Mere Conservatism”, http://rjmoeller.com/category/uncategorized/page/2/

[2] Hayek, Friedrich August (1994).  The Road to Serfdom, University of Chicago Press

British writer C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[3] How can you compromise liberty?  You can’t… a point well explained by Buck Stienke in this post on Patriotpost.com, 6 Dec 2011.  “Colin Powell is wrong (about compromise with progressives in Congress) for a simple reason.  Tea Party unwillingness to compromise with a fundamentally un-American policy (Socialism) is no vice.  Compare it to a rapist's desire to have unlimited sex with your wife or child.  At what point would a "compromise" with the rapist's demand satisfy you?  A weekend?  A night?  How about only 30 minutes?  As I suspected, your unwillingness to compromise is no surprise.  Principles must be defended, even if the defense is not "civil".

[4] Winston Churchill (1948).  The Gathering Storm, p. 348, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH)

Bipartisanship, Compromise… Can’t We All Just Get Along? Ughhhh!

By the Lieutenant Colonel

On Sunday evening March 4^th 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.