Posted on 06/23/2011 7:20:00 PM PDT by shibumi
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin
Recently I was reading some opinion pieces on a popular conservative internet forum. (If you couldn't guess, it was FreeRepublic.com.) One writer had the temerity to suggest to this mostly God-fearing crowd that despite her atheism, Ayn Rand had some sound observations on economic reality. The writer found both support and objection to his thesis with the objections mostly taking the form of the belief that when someone is wrong in one essential thing, they are necessarily wrong in everything. Evidently belief in God is a prerequisite for penetrating economic insight.
(An object lesson that the lack of faith is not necessarily an impediment to realizing truth can be found outside the realm of economics. One of the most unlikely champions of the pro-life movement, Nat Hentoff, is an avowed atheist and for all practical purposes a socialist libertarian. There are, however, few stronger defenders of the unborn.)
In the desperate political climate of today, when so many see apocalyptic implications in every bit of breaking news, the natural reaction is to seek a savior that has charisma on a Biblical level. When a figure appears who charms the crowd or utters a bit of refreshingly honest insight the hopes of the disillusioned are naturally drawn into making that person into a demi-god(dess).
In the last national election, political handlers, fully conscious of this desire, imaged their candidates in halos, created sound bites of sweeping panacea and choreographed swooning all designed to draw attention from the particulars of the candidates. (In at least one case, the candidate’s background was actually buried under a mountain of legal device, while his pop culture image was cemented in the public mind with celebrity sloganeering.)
If reason and the rule of law are to return to the Federal Government, then those who revere the Founding Principles of this nation and its Constitution must face the reality that their leaders are mere mortals, the best of whom are tragically flawed.
Much debate is to be had over just what principles are essential in a candidate. Is this issue or that to be the arbiter of the vote? Are there deal makers and deal breakers? What will be the result of the nomination of a candidate who is palatable on everything but one dearly held belief? Are we all, after all, single issue voters, rendered helpless against the juggernaut of a Leftist Media backed by an international money machine? Where is that dividing line between writing in a hero of mythic proportions and sitting home to sulk?
The Founders lived in a simpler time. They did not have the instant transfer of information, the slick image crafters and campaign managers of today, but one thing they understood remains constant - people and their human nature. The form their Federal system took was no accident. It was crafted with that human nature and its faults fully in mind. Critics (up to and including the current resident of the White House) have suggested that the form expressed in the US Constitution is dated, out of touch and needs to be replaced (or as is the current practice, simply ignored.) As a bellwether, Time Magazine has just unveiled a cover featuring the United States Constitution being shredded with the caption “Does It Still Matter?”
In fact, it may be the only thing that does matter. With it the Founders provided us with the one infallible litmus test by which every candidate for office at any level can be judged - their reverence for and willingness to adhere to the provisions of the United States Constitution. Whenever any candidate attacks any of its principles or forms, including the enumerated Bill of Rights, whether this attack is a direct assault or a purposeful evasion, they place themselves outside the circle of those fit for office.
Found nowhere within this document are the unanswerable bureaus and the bloated looters who run them. Found nowhere are the intrusions into the home and the attacks on the family, indeed on life itself that are part and parcel of the “progressive” movement. Found nowhere is the gerrymandered transformation of the electorate into the ruling mob (complete with mindless chants and violent rhetoric.)
As we look at the field of potential candidates, especially for the highest office in the land, substantial agreement on a bulk of the issues will have to suffice. But there is the one essential test, the principle from which no deviation can be tolerated. Any candidate who seeks office as Representative, Senator or Executive must hold sacrosanct the Constitution that defines their office. Those who are charged with protection and defense must never pretend to the hubris of mastery. As we enter this national election cycle, mythic heroes are not on the menu. Real people with feet of clay are. Look for those whose personal ambition and charisma take a back seat to the time tested truth and wisdom embodied in our Founding Document.
Ping for your comments and opinions, which are welcomed and valued as always.
It's sad how the government has trampled on the Constitution since the time of the Founders. The government has usurped WAY more power than they were meant to have. Anyone who thinks that our current government is somehow a legitimate heir of the one started by the Founders is either a liberal or not right in the head (same thing).
Nicely done!
I can ride a horse far and fast in the dark.
Just sayin’.
Thank you! (From Da Region.)
I can ride my bike at moderate speeds on nicely paved well-lit streets.
I’m just a stone’s throw from Da Region.
Ride on, Paul Reserved.
:-P
Two thoughts - this is an excerpt from an as yet unpublished article on why libertarians should be - nay, must be pro life.
“I can certainly see why many of those, like myself, who oppose the imposition of oppressive regulations seem to accept abortion as an inalienable right. After all, abortion is the only industry liberals don’t relish regulating into oblivion.
However, governments were instituted to administer justice in defense of our persons and property. If men were just or if we could all defend ourselves, there would be no need of government. If humanity was one big happy family there laws would be redundant. Reality objects.
Which brings us to abortion. The fetus is either alive, or not alive. If there is a baby maturing in the womb, then legalizing abortion violates the most basic principle of government: protecting those incapable of defending themselves.
And the unborn baby is clearly alive.”
And here are my thoughts on why adhering to the Constitution is essential. Otherwise, we put our fate in the arbitrary whim of fallen man.
I have often responded to pro-aborts with the following two questions:
First, is it alive or dead? If it’s not alive, then why do you need to kill it?
Second, is it human or not. If not, then you’ve got to define what it is. (Goat? Ibex? Octopus? Woolly Mammoth? .....and you can forget about “evolutionary recapitulation”.....)
That second item in the Bill of Rights scares the crap out of them.
They know damn well what it’s there for - and it aint duck hunting.
Boom, boom, out go the lights.
That is the second song lyric I taught the baby. The first was nananana, nananana, hey, hey, hey, goodbye!
She calls bam Mr. Yuck. One of her first words was “Rush”. She knows who Sarah Palin is. And I am rearing a very politically incorrect child here.
Got waterguns so I can teach her to shoot at targets. She WILL be ready.
Insightful, Brilliant, Tremendous, Zen-like. (Hey, it's the best I could do!)
Thank you so much for your outstanding essay, dear shibumi!
Thanks!
(Ducking under the ozone)
Thanks for the invite to the prom Shibumi .... but I have nothing to wear ...and I can't wear the same thing as last year so I'll have to decline. Besides the general store is all outta duct tape.
I stand corrected.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.