…”the blood of patriots & tyrants”, I exclaim not now!

By the Lieutenant Colonel

King Arthur: I am your king.

Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.

King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?

[Angelic music plays...]

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.  That is why I am your king.

Dennis the Peasant: Listen.  Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up!  Will you shut up?!

Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!

Dennis: Oh!  Come and see the violence inherent in the system!  Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!

-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Like many liberty-minded Constitutional Conservatives, I feel tremendous anguish and frustration as I witness the rapidly growing oppressive power of the administrative state toward us “Bloody Peasants”.  The more I study the Founders writings, the “Great Debate” between the Federalists and Anti-Federalist, and ratification of the United States Constitution [1] and the subsequent “Fundamental Transformations” brought about by persistent “Progressive” subversion primarily in past 100 years, I'm unfortunately finding myself in agreement with this assessment on the state of our Constitutional Republic by Joseph Baldacchino…

Government in the United States bears virtually no resemblance to the constitutional republic that the Framers gave us—if, as Benjamin Franklin cautioned, we could “keep it.”  …

“Our whig forebears rejected as “null and void” all acts of the British government that exceeded the limits of the constitution of custom, which was their political and cultural inheritance, their “property.”  To restore the “free government” for which they defied the most formidable military power of their time, today’s Americans would have to be willing to show similar courage and dedication.  To restore government to its proper position “under the Law,” we would have to be prepared like them to risk our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.  But to state that requirement is to recognize how unlikely is the restoration of American constitutionalism within a foreseeable future.”  [2]

It is true that many of the ominous concerns expressed by the Anti-Federalists have come to pass despite the careful crafting and amendments (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution backed by James Madison and other Federalists to reassure them.  The small and limited Federal Government as “Founded” has overcome the constitutionally enumerated constraints and grown to a bureaucratic behemoth.  "We the People" through overwhelming individual comforts and conveniences, mounting ignorance, indifference, and selection of a “professional political class” have subverted or abandoned the "Republic" envisioned by the Constitution’s Framers.  [3] We are now "progressing" toward a "flash and burn" Democracy reminiscent of ancient Greece or Rome.  The seeds of our undoing lie within.  But is it too late, or can a renaissance of individual liberty take hold?  Maybe, but even Ronald Reagan, ever the American optimist, expressed doubt that once created a bureaucratic behemoth government is nearly impossible to restrain let alone reverse.  [4]

So what can we do to reclaim our individual liberty and our Constitutional Republic envisioned by the Framers?  I believe we still have many nonviolent options available, but evidently some do not.

I have heard peoples’ frustration and ire on conservative airwaves, but more frequently, read their comments in weblogs and articles with a “Call to Arms” inspired by Thomas Jefferson’s words…

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.  It is it's natural manure.”  [5]

While I understand and empathize with their passionate frustration, our situation is far different from that of the American Revolution.  America was an exceptionally unique historical crossroads of extraordinary conditions and brilliant self-educated men of complimentary personalities.  The circumstances and timing for an armed rebellion to “institute” liberty was justified, and yet exceeding complex and very in doubt as to the outcome.  It would have been tragically similar to the bloody horror that followed the French Revolution if not for the “lives, fortunes, sacred honor” and WISDOM of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Mason, Adams (both of them), Hamilton and others that charted the turbulent waters… where among our current political class or even our entire populace is an equal assembly of such persons?  Our education system that produced the current “professional political class” will be addressed in a future article by the Colonel.   

But the concerns for the loss of individual liberty today are as legitimate as the Founders were, so it does beg the very grim and disturbing question.  At what point does government’s action transforming the Republic, first toward a direct democracy (loathed by the Constitution’s Framers as mob rule and responsible for the horrors of the French Revolution), and eventually something else well beyond the intentions of the Framers, all with the elected representative consent of a majority of the governed, lead a minority population to charge tyranny and rebel?  What is the “litmus test” for necessity--for justifying armed rebellion against civil authority knowing that it is the government's obligation to preserve itself and the safety, happiness/property and prosperity of the greater part of its citizens?  Apparently the folks tossing out the Jefferson quote think we have passed the point of justification--AGAIN, I STRONGLY DISAGREE!

As already stated, I fully understand the frustration and the fervent spirit to resist tyranny in the manner of Samuel Adams.  [6] But when I read or hear these boisterous outcries I always wonder, what are they really suggesting people do… just start shooting folks who are “accused” of threatening liberty; do they want a “John Brown” like act of rebellion to incite a conflict; [7] have they really thought through the horrible realities of insurgency and civil war?

A time may come when one has to decide whether to violently resist tyranny to prevent servitude or for self-preservation.  BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW; ALL OTHER MEANS ARE NOT EXHAUSTED!  Should we be resisting and fighting the past and present encroachments on the Constitution and liberty… most definitely!  Human nature being what it is--the fight for individual liberty and the “animating contest of freedom” never ends.  No doubt, we are at a tipping point.  But, free speech and the ballot box are still there.  The fact that I can freely express my views and effect change says to me a bloodless renaissance is still possible.  Plus, we conservatives insist on the “rule of law” as a founding principle of the Republic, it is deceitful progressives and statist that love incendiary oratory and lawless mob action.

The combined strategy of education, political activism and even some non-violent civil disobedience can be effective tools for us.  Remember the power of the written and spoken words by the Founders; we need to educate ourselves and others to use that power to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Tea Party movement is the right idea, get involved…support your local and national organizations such as FreedomWorks, The Heritage Foundation, etc…  [8] Get behind political candidates that you believe truly support and defend our Constitution.  There are many ways to get involved NOW and begin to turn the tide…but, even though liberals believe the Second Amendment is just for hunters, it will not hurt to “keep your powder dry.”

Notes:

[1] I highly recommend the Teaching Company’s course taught by Professor Thomas L. Pangle, Ph.D.  Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution, University of Chicago, The University of Texas at Austin.  Available at http://www.thegreatcourses.com

[2] Joseph Baldacchino, (2005).  The Unraveling of American Constitutionalism: From Customary Law to Permanent Innovation, The Center for Constitutional Studies, National Humanities Institute http://www.nhinet.org/ccs-res.htm

[3] A condition embodied in quotes of these two great intellectuals… "Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both.  The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”  --Frederick Douglass, August 3, 1857 in a speech on “West India Emancipation” at Canandaigua, New York

"If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be....  If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”  --Thomas Jefferson

[4] “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.  Government programs, once launched, never disappear.  Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”  Ronald Reagan, U.S. Republican politician, President. “A Time for Choosing,” television address, 27 Oct. 1964 (published in Speaking My Mind, 1989).

[5] From a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1787 while he was in France to his friend William Smith.  This phrase is often quoted as an affirmation of the right of the people to rebel against the tyranny of government.  The intended meaning of this quote in full context of the letter and historic setting is still debated.

[6] “If we love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”  Samuel Adams from a speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia, August 1, 1776

[7] Revolutionary abolitionist who in the 1850s advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to abolish slavery in the United States and made his name in the unsuccessful raid at Harpers Ferry in 1859 for which he was hung.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

[8] I highly recommend and personally support.  http://www.freedomworks.org/ and   http://www.heritage.org/

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)

The Blunder of Nation Building Idealism

By the Lieutenant Colonel

President G. W. Bush’s version of progressive idealism implemented under the banner “Compassionate Conservatism” resulted in a Middle East foreign policy blunder.  He along with many in his administration believed Sadam Husain’s authoritarian regime repressed a population majority longing for “Democracy”.  The United States would nobly be liberators bringing democracy to the people while simultaneously eradicating the regime’s WMD threat to the region.  They naively believed that the concepts of liberty, tolerance, inalienable rights, responsible representative government, and basic human decency were universally sought if only given the chance to flourish.  Soon after the fall of Bagdad, the complexity of imparting (from the outside-in) largely foreign concepts of societal governance (Nation Building) quickly appeared.  Reaction in the U.S. spanned from, “uh-oh, get out quick and let them fend for themselves”, to “we broke it, and are morally obligated to fix it”.  After nearly nine years with extortionate costs in blood and treasure, it is still unknown whether a stable and lasting, free and democratic nation will endure.  There are few signs Iraq will be different in any way other than Sadam eventually replaced by another strongman in a pseudo election based on religious sects of Shia and Sunni (No Christians need apply).  Unfortunately, President Obama and his administration, infected with an even more zealous form of progressive idealism, are only multiplying the blunders with foreign policy schemes and/or military intervention in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, and where next???.

Admittedly, early on I was among those who once proclaimed cautious optimism about President Bush’s intentions as shown by this passage from a post I made to a 2004 on-line article critical of the Iraq War…  “We must be patient with the good folks I'm sure are present in Iraq.  Our independence was achieved by patriots who knew what liberty was, and understood what they were fighting for.  The scenario for the Iraqi people is much different; most have no experience with the concepts of liberty and representative democracy.  With time and education, their desire for liberty will flourish.”

I must concede the folly of my wishful thinking. It is a huge culture-centric miscalculation to think that ideas and values that evolved throughout millennia in the Western ideological environment of Judeo-Christian theology, Greek rationalism, and the European enlightenment… that roused Colonial America’s “Great Debate” and founding of a historically unique Constitutional Republic are somehow universal.  While some societies noticed the prosperity and individual freedoms of the United States, admired and subsequently adopted our Constitution’s doctrines in various forms, other society’s ideals and values were deeply rooted in their own cultural traditions.  The reality is that some society’s culture is completely contradictory to our most fundamental American principles of self-determination and entrepreneurship.  These principles are completely foreign to them, and in their view even threaten their cultures established “social order”.  Such is the Middle East where most see Islam as the “One” ultimate truth and Sharia the only law of the land.  No doubt there are a small number of people throughout the Middle East who somewhat understand and desire “Western” ideas of individual liberty and the governance needed to protect it, but they are truly an exception.

When observing the human misery and poverty inherent in other societies, we “feel” morally responsible to help these misfortunate people end tyranny and we want to “bestow” (i.e., give) them an opportunity for individual liberty that we know enabled our Democratic Republic to grow so prosperous.  However, the message from the Middle East has been overwhelmingly consistent and constant…when monarchs or dictators are overthrown and “popularist” democratic elections held, the masses turn to charismatic leaders and political movements; they substitute one form of tyranny for a seeming “benevolent” Islamic autocracy--they are immortally trapped by their religion that by definition demands to also be their government.  When the religion IS the government, the government by definition can’t be wrong because that would mean God was wrong…but God is not running the government, men are.  You can see the problem they face.  In “Palestine”, Hamas swept to power.  In Lebanon, Hezbollah brought down the moderate Lebanese government.  In Iran in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected.  In the Iraqi elections of 2010, the big winner was the anti-American Islamist Muqtada al-Sadr.  [1] When Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak allowed some electoral districts to be contested, the Muslim Brotherhood won most of them.  And now that he is ousted, Islamist overwhelmingly win the elections.  Afghanistan, a tribal society mess the Russians couldn’t subdue in ten years, but we’re the nice guys on the moral high-ground bringing democracy to all and will fare better…Now, yet once again, we can see how that is working out.

These people have little or no knowledge of and have no interest in finding out about Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, or Burke.  They don’t have their own Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison or Washington, because these ideas and these men would be seen as an affront to Islam.  [1] They know only their ancient culture and what they are told is from the Koran (which of course no one can question without fear of having their head cut off).  There is a natural tendency for our society having progressed so far over the last couple of hundred years, to “feel” morally responsible to “fix it.” (And unfortunately our culture has come to believe that all problems can be solved in a one hour TV show, minus the 18 minutes of commercials?)  We are certainly naive to expect a different outcome in Iraq, Afghanistan or really any other country around the world than the one we see on our nightly news broadcast.

Post Script--“The Colonel” made an excellent comment regarding this article that I really wish I would have thought of, me being an avid Star Trek fan...

“Remember the Star Trek Prime Directive?  Even though the Enterprise had superior social and science development they were forbidden from interfering in the affairs of less developed cultures...see, even Hollywood of old recognized the dangers of such interventions.”--The Colonel

[1]  Note:  Inspired by or cited from various comments on “Welcome to the Islamist Middle East and It’s Not Going to Be Moderate”, Barry Rubin, PJMedia.com, entries October 2011.  http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/10/25/welcome-to-the-islamist-middle-east-and-its-not-going-to-be-moderate/