Posted on 09/19/2009 8:39:52 PM PDT by ElenaM
Free People Need No Leader
Throughout the summer’s town halls and protests, a passing question has been raised again and again by the media and their consorts: who is this movement’s “leader?” The assumption behind the question reveals something interesting about the questioners’ perspective. To ask this question, the questioner must believe that average people require a “leader” to tell them what they do and don’t want, what they must or mustn’t do and where they must or mustn’t do it. While it’s certainly true that we who resist federal intrusion into our every action must have representatives, free people neither want nor need “leaders.”
Consider for a moment the word “leader” used in a political context. In political conversations, the word “leader” is used to describe dictators, thugs, self-anointed bosses and other unsavory characters. Kim Jong Ill is the “leader” of North Korea. Chavez is the “leader” of Venezuela, and Ahmadinejad is the “leader” of Iran. Gordon Brown is the “prime minister” of Britain, Obama is the “president” of the US, and Sarkozy is the “president” of France. Note the difference. While not in itself indicative of the conversationalist’s ideology, the word chosen to describe the political power is vital in the context of the discussion.
Which brings us to the emerging group of Americans who want no part of the Administration’s designs on American society. As reflected in the multitude of handmade signs during the 9/12 DC protest, the participants had various reasons for attending. Some were frustrated with the federal government’s drunken spending spree. Others resent the unprecedented federal intrusion into industry and banking. Still others demand that the government stay out of citizens’ health care. Some protested the Federal Reserve, some the IRS, and some protested the nebulous, ominous sense that freedom as this country has always known is in danger of annihilation.
They came together voluntarily on their own time and their own dime. Some heard of the protest through commentators. Some heard through local political organizations. Some heard through Facebook, or Twitter, or blogs. No single charismatic individual told them where to be and when. No single organization cajoled or coerced participation. Each protester took the initiative based upon individual convictions. The envy among professional organizers is palpable.
Conventional wisdom insists that this convergence of seemingly disjointed “causes” will wither without a “leader,” someone to mould the protesters’ varied expressions into a “sellable product” for retail during the next election season. The conventional wisdom misunderstands the average citizen’s position. There’s no conflict between the citizen protesting spending and the citizen protesting government control of health care. These citizens do not resent or discount one another’s preferred example of governmental takeover. While each focuses on a different symptom, all agree on the disease and required treatment.
The rise of a “leader” would be the death of the organic coalescence that made itself known on 9/12. Political leaders impose a definition of means and goals upon their followers and use marketing to attract support. In contrast, no imposition is required for citizens who descended upon town halls and the nation’s capitol. We know our goal: freedom. We know our means: the Constitution. All we need are representatives.
The difference between a leader and a representative is the difference of source. The leader seeks to bring others to his vision. The representative annunciates the common vision to others. Obama, and to an extent Bush, were leaders. Reagan was a representative. Obama in particular made extensive use of marketing to draw others to a vague notion of “change” as defined by each hearer. Bush’s use of marketing was barely noticeable compared to Obama, but still present as he too used a vague notion of “compassion” to draw supporters.
Reagan, in contrast, presented the vision of the average citizen on a national stage. He required no marketing, no focus grouped phrase or flashy image. He simply spoke the conviction of the multitudes and was elected to apply those convictions in the cesspool that is Washington.
Our movement requires a representative who holds the same conviction that drew so many ordinary people out of their daily routines and into face-to-face confrontations with leaders. Freedom is our common cause, and the Constitution of the United States our common guide. Now is the time for people to emerge to represent our convictions in the great battle ahead.
Good vanity. Bump.
Sorry, didn’t intend vanity. I’d like some input. Do you agree? Disagree?
Good post, something that has been hard to get a few people here to grasp.
Debate, even heated, is always going to occur when policy is the topic. I think this goes far beyond policy straight to philosophy. If DC gets its way, we will have nothing to debate because we will be given marching orders from DC with no input.
And I certainly hope no one thinks I’m Bush-bashing. I’m only writing what I’ve long thought about him, even as I voted twice for him.
Very well done ElenaM.
Joanie read this and give us your thoughts please.
t.
Freedom is our common cause, and the Constitution of the United States our common guide.
I agree, hence the ‘bump’. Vanity is not necessarily a bad term. Most of the news links on this site could be classified as vanities. It’s refreshing to hear it honestly sometimes. :)
Ohhhhhhhhhh, okay. Whew! The typical definition of vanity was not at all my goal.
I suppose it’s easy to tell I’m a newbie. I’ve long lurked but just recently decided to post. Please forgive my slips on the learning curve.
I like that. Thanks!
Vanity sounds too... vain. More like a self authored editorial. And a good one.
I did not add any of those keywords BTW.
Thank you. I try very hard to be clear in my text and the notion that I came across as Bush-bashing concerns me. I must have blown that part of the piece.
Some idiot knee jerk reaction I guess. Well done.
Sorry, but that idea is beyond the understanding of the media. They need someone specific to denigrate - millions of Americans rebelling just will not do... heh.
Today we need some 'brakers'- to put the brakes on spending (our money).
Good essay. Liberals require a leader, because they have sacrificed their personal sovereignty to the collective. So it is natural for such people to constantly seek leaders to understand any group activity, because they literally cannot comprehend how a group can even exist as a group without a leader. To them a “group” of free people is terrifying, because it points directly to their own denied slavery. So they simply deny it can exist.
very well put. we need no leader because, its “we the people”. thats what is so hard for many to understand as jesus said “love your neighbor as yourself” (i’m still working on that though).....
Thank you.
Have you considered the assumptions made by the likes of ACORN? They do not care less about the person as a person. They care about the person inasmuch as that warm body can further their cause.
Most modern liberalism suffers from this flaw.
Free people DO need leaders, and every one of us is ready and able to assume that position if needed. We are free thinking but we are not a rabble.
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.