In America, beginning in the late 1800's, under the name of "liberals," now known as "progressives," that movement began its now decades-long effort to remove the principles and ideas underlying our Constitution's protections from the nation's textbooks and public discourse.
On another thread today, the question was aked, "What do we need to do differently?" Good question!
Constitutional illiteracy--that is the primary reason we are continuing on the road to tyranny under deficit, debt, and government control! The secondary reason is the GOP's failure to use its billion-dollar campaign to focus like a laser on educating voters!
During the primary season, one of my FR posts stated the following in response to a Jonah Goldberg comment about Romney:
Sorry, Jonah, but this is not as simple as "not speaking the language (of conservatism) naturally." When a person is steeped in the ideas of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Washington, it just "naturally" slips through in the ideas they convey. Remember Reagan?Do Republicans seriously want to conserve America's constitutional principles? Or, are they just objecting to Democrats? Do they have a passion for liberty? Is this just about changing the Party in power, or is it about preserving freedom?
If their concern is for convincing enough voters to reject the idea of "a government big enough to give you everyting you want" and turn to advocacy for "a government small enough to allow you freedom to keep most of what you earn," then they'd better get busy seeing that someone is nominated who has been "marinated" (to use a word coined by Ingraham last night on "The Factor") in the Founders' ideas (isn't that what conservatives purport to "conserve"?).
So far (February 2012), Mitt Romney, though a good man, demonstrates no such "immersion." He has been "successful" in benefiting from those ideas, and he recites familiar words and phrases from patriotic speeches and songs, but that is different from understanding and being able to call up and articulate the philosophy which made such success possible.
Ronald Reagan's life and letters reveal that he had "immersed" himself in those ideas for years before he agreed to run for President, and that is why he could set "issues" in light of constitutional "principle." and explain his advocacy or rejection of solutions in by that light.
The other three candidates in the Primary--Paul, Santorum, Gingrich--couch their answers to questions in a manner which indicates personal pursuit and understanding of the Constitution's protections, each in his own way.
Of the two so-called "frontrunners," however, the lifetime history scholar, teacher, legislator, and participant in what was called "the Reagan revolution," appears to be the one most likely to be able to successfully articulate and distinguish those ideas to voters, if given the chance to compete with the "counterfeit ideas" of tyranny cloaked in righteous benevolence by Obama.
Is "politics as usual" to win the day, or might we not bring Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and others who embrace founding principles together to help to create a "passion" for liberty among citizens sufficient to defeat the counterfeit ideas which are leading the Republic to ruin?
The following is excerpted from "Our Ageless Constitution," p. 181:
"It was John Adams who said: "The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people." Clearly, the Founders' passion was liberty, and in order to secure that liberty, they sought out and incorporated into the United States Constitution those ideas and principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
"The French historian, Guizot, once asked James Russell Lowell, "How long will the American republic endure?" Lowell replied: "As long as the IDEAS of the men who founded it continue dominant."
"Herein lies the answer to the question, "Will the Experiment Succeed?"
"It can and will succeed IF the motivating "principle or passion in the minds of the people" is LIBERTY, and if that passion causes them to exert the determination and will to complete the needed restoration of the IDEAS upon which the great American experiment was based." ---(End of excerpted material)
My call to the GOP and all lovers of liberty is the same as then! To rediscover and recover liberty from the hands of those who are turning America into just another failing nation dominated by a government-over-people ideology, a determined and massive education effort should begin November 7, 2012, focused on the teaching of the fundamental principles essential to the survival of individual liberty for a people.
Face it Ed. The American electorate is stupid, brainwashed, complacent and uninformed.
America voted for the American Idol.
Obama sings better than Romney. That apparently was the deciding factor.
It certainly wasn’t decided on issues.
1000%....we don’t even need a candidate- we need the pu$$y’s in charge of the GOP to start doing this tomorrow...fact is if someone calls you a dumba$$ every day and you do nothing to counteract it or push back against it, people will eventually come to believe you are a dumba$$- that’s where the entire GOP is today because of their cowardice to fight against the rats...
Well written and reasoned, thanks for refreshing our memories.
What seems incomprehensible to me is, why can so few (Newt, Rush, and Mark Levin being notable exceptions) articulate the tragedy of liberalism, and it’s historic failure to improve the human condition?
It’s not hard, in fact we’ve had some pretty good conservative spokespersons do it, but in books, or radio talk shows or TV guess appearances - not on the campaign trail. Not since Reagan to my recollection. Why?
I believe Romney is a good and honorable man, and he cast a big vision for ideas that could make this country great again - but they were not rooted in the soil of conservatism. Rather, they were carefully crafted marketing messages aimed at bridging gaps and appealing to segments of voters. That didn’t work. And if we want to take the niche marketing approach, the winning approach is simple: offer more free stuff.
You’re right, whether you call it the “roar” or the elephant in the room or whatever metaphor one likes. The conservative message is not getting across, because our candidates are not presenting it.
Writing this reply was my most constructive vent after the dismal election, so thanks for that!
I’m sick to death of listening to this.
We have had those candidates handed to us on a silver platter twice now, but WE rejected them.
in 2008, it was Fred Thompson and this last time it was Newt Gingrich.
Both of those men, especially Fred, qualify as classic statesmen who are students of the founding of the USA.
But for some reason we accuse Obama of being a “rockstar” president with no substance and yet we dismiss our own men of substance as boring.
I think back in 2008 we had a chance of winning in ideals, but based on what just happened yesterday I don’t think it would have mattered if we did have someone who could articulate the message perfectly. The machine and the takers have the system locked up now.
Too late for all that. See my next editorial for details.
Yes, I wish the campaign had been more ideological, but we can’t discount one huge factor: the country has turned center-left, and the c-left people are quite immune to logical arguments. You could argue until you’re blue in the face about liberalism and leftism and the whole rotten socialist world. These people can’t be persuaded, because they don’t respond to facts, logic, and reason. We’ve passed the tipping point. Time to think about a permanent split.