The challenge is to force the parties now contending for office to take the issue seriously and not to simply attempt to align themselves in a "I'm for, you're against" stance that allows both sides to avoid the problem entirely. That describes the status quo.
I have had long conversations with Publius concerning an Article V convention, some of them even relatively sober - well, he was, at least. While in a legalistic sense the matter may be restricted to the issue at hand I fear that enough other issues will be injected by those for whom the process is better sabotaged that the entire thing will end up decided in the Supreme Court - not the issue at hand but the process. The Constitution is clear in the matter, we think, but anyone who has seen recent politics knows that deliberate misinterpretation is a powerful ploy. Look, for example, at how successful the obfuscators have been in injecting doubt into the Second Amendment's relative clarity. Look at how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are openly and outrageously violated by legislation by persons who are willing to say that black is white as long as they can avoid a judgment in the matter. It is, as Publius says, a dynamic and well-thought-out process (brilliantly so, IMHO) but those of bad conscience will do their utmost to subvert it to their own ends.
And yet we cannot accept the current direction of things and hope to maintain a stable society. Nothing is breaking down as yet but breakdown is inevitable if the system is overtaxed by too many demanders and not enough providers. We've tried a welfare society and it does not work. We've tried absorbing an underclass and elevating it by economics in which all boats rise by the tide, and we find that the underclass so created only wishes others to hold it up. But to say so is considered impolite because it is so easily mischaracterized as racist and unjust.
The challenge is considerable. The worshippers of Diversity insist that respect for the law is only fear of the Other. The press will do anything to spite the rubes. Enlightened opinion is markedly unenlightened. We have one line of communication that is unfiltered by political corruption, and this is it.
Some 73 years ago we voted in a democratic socialist regime that created a system of entitlements. In other words, we voted ourselves government checks. We compounded it by expanding entitlements in the Sixties. The party we voted in made a living of creating new and expanded entitlements and created a whole ethos of entitlement.
But somebody has to pay. The culture of entitlement requires a constantly expanding population to keep up with the transfer payments. As the nation transitioned from an agricultural to an industrial base, and when it transitioned from an industrial to an informational base, the birthrate naturally went down both times. So we opened the Mexican border wide. This permitted the system of transfer payments to be actuarially sound. The Europeans faced the same problem. Not having Mexico on their borders, they imported half the Middle East.
As long as the newcomers were willing to assimilate, or even take their position in the national salad bowl, things worked. But now, both here and in Europe, the immigrants don’t want to assimilate. They want ownership and control. Europe is seeing terrorism from these people, and we’re not too far behind, I fear.
But if we close the borders and purge the illegals, then who will pay for our entitlements? Brutally put, if we put an end to illegal immigration, the New Deal, Great Society and Compassionate Conservatism regimes all collapse. We’re back to the pre-Progressive Era circa 1901. While I think there is a lot to be said for that, how will Americans react when their government checks stop coming?
I've paused in any further posting to digest all of the opinions offered on this thread. Several things seem to be emerging. Let's see what we've got:
To fix the problem with the barn, a number of villagers get together and the crowd noise begins. A vocal minority thinks the whole idea of a barn is a bad one in the first place- another group thinks that barns are too much trouble to fool with, and that the roof will always leak- a third group is angry that barns will never be built exactly the way they used to be-
... and amidst the noise among the bushes outside, a few citizens decide that perhaps the whole idea needs first be explored, and plans firmed up, before the first nails are driven, and especially, before the first old boards are removed.
I've spent most of my adult life managing small business, and it seems that many of the basics apply here.
No one should advocate driving off those who wish to talk outside, who have entertainment more in mind than hard work, and those who have just passed the point in which betrayal and cynicism have wrecked them for trying one more time.
Sometimes, the barn doors need be closed, and the folks who actually agree to examine the options need a chance to propose, dissect, assemble and debate, without the drive-by comments raising the ambient noise level to the point where no one can follow coherent proposals.
I don't think anyone would dream of restricting debate on this or any other thread, since the power and reach of FreeRepublic devolves from just the opposite approach, but it seems to me that a point is reached where a certain number of persons looking at the old creaky barn have to say, "We need some concrete options, argued by those folks, and only those folks, who agree that the options need be explored. Now, the other folks sure have a right to contrary opinions, and many may feel that it is too late, the odds are to stacked against us, etc. Is it unreasonable that those who find the idea wholely without merit should be left to argue outside, while a few hundred of those who agree that something needs to be done retire to one of the horse stalls, and pull out their notebooks?"
I believe that a separate thread should be set up, with just a few posits, listed in the next paragraph. Please let me know what you think, and whether this might be the time and the place to establish, for lack of a better word, the equivalent of a special-interest think tank- an advocacy group- to assemble an argument for change.
1.... The most effective business or political undertakings are those where the objectives are spelled out in a carefully constructed set of arguments, tailored in such a way as to be understandable, compelling and thorough. In the middle of any debate, even the best advocates cannot, in the heat of the argument, construct the most effective arguments on the fly. What is needed is a set of aims/proposals/methods which can be proposed, dissected, and polished, not in front of the national audience, but rather ahead of time by those who then perfect the presentation to anticipate every possible objection and be pre-schooled to deal with them.
If such a working group can prepare a "work area", most persons who are against such an idea will at least respect the rights of those involved and hold their comments, (and hopefully their final opinions), until the complete proposals can be presented by the "Subcommittee" to the "House Floor". Those who are so ill-considerate to insist on "I hate Bush", We're all doomed", and "That Pickrell just makes up stupid stories in other posts [True, of course, as I am by nature a teller of tales with a point]", should be few and far between, and easily dealt with.
This is certainly not to say that differing and contrary opinions need be excluded, but there has to be a basis to begin. It may be possible and even desirable to break things up into several factions, so that the "arena floor" of Freerepublic may examine several complete, competing ideas and solutions, so the floor can be pre-polled to determine where the Republican base might lay on this issue.
Perhaps the fault lines could be laid out thus:
Is it the right time... will any other time offer more advantages than the dangers of waiting for "a sign, a spark to set it off"?
Is it the worth the time... is there enough of a possibility of success that persons will commit to the energy, thought, and just plain time necessary to determine where the preponderance of conservative lies at this time?
Is it inevitable? If so, any work done preliminarily to poll the mainstream of conservative thought surely cannot be wasted, and will simply get the process moving, by first examining our starting pre-judgements, fears and strengths. We need to know where we are before we can dare hope to begin moving the conservative base to where it needs to go. Just as importantly, we need to be able to overcome with logic and persuasion, the arguments presented by our own base first. For without moving the Republican base into the front lines... we have no possible hope to turn around the battle.
Are we the ones to do it? Aren't there lots of other political groups doing it already? Why do we... have to do some hard work? IS there anyone who still believes that the combined forces of the Conservative Advocacy is doing even an adequate job of presenting a strong case for the conservative aims? Are we sold that the current Republican Party... is selling conservatism... or pushing through perhaps some other ideas that are not only not resonating with the American electorate, but are instead being seen as the Failing Conservative Plan, and yet bear only a filmy-thin resemblance to the thoughtlines of the average conservative voter? I would argue that if we want it done- we bloody well begin to do it, and construct a strong argument that makes sense to the voter, and is eloquent enough to resonate. Once started, many may give up their scepticism and join in. Powerful tides begin with little waves.
Given the fault lines which develop, (as they certainly will, and obviously already have), could we task the following, insisting that those who carry the strong ideas be willing to work up a coherent, mature, and compelling presentation that can expand into a Conservative Mandate. If you want into one of the following war-plans groups, the price of admission is a thoughtful, disciplined essay detailing specifically your last, best arguments to win over the country. Fact talks, and rumor walks. Have backup ready for when challenged. There is no room for the de minimus drive-by comments.
Group A, to be comprised of those who believe that the only solution to the current problems of the Republic lie in a Constitutional Convention, and that the best way to proceed with such is X,Y and Z. Rather than being deflated by those who say it cannot, or should not, or won't be done, it needs to vigorously pursue a compelling set of arguments as to the urgency, the necessity, the timeliness, and advantages of.. a Constitutional Convention.
Group B, to be composed of those who believe a Constitutional Convention is not the answer, for whatever reasons, and who feel that a Third Political Party is the only way to right the ship of state. Rather than being deflated by those who say it cannot, or should not, or won't be done, it needs to vigorously pursue a compelling set of arguments as to the urgency, the necessity, the timeliness, and advantages of.. a Third Political Party.
Group C, to be composed of those who believe that neither of the preceeding two options are best, and who think that a Conservative Caucus is overdue. Rather than being a racially polarizing affair like the Democratic Caucus, a Conservative Caucus would welcome all men of good character who want the best for their grandchildren. Rather than being deflated by those who say it cannot, or should not, or won't be done, it needs to vigorously pursue a compelling set of arguments as to the urgency, the necessity, the timeliness, and advantages of.. a Conservative Caucus, and it's accruing voting block.
Group D, to be composed of those who ascribe to none of the above options, and who feel they can make a compelling argument for a fourth option. And finally, and this is necessary, Group E, to be composed of those who may feel that sufficient progress is being made towards demolishing the worst abuses of collectivism and liberalism which have afflicted the Republic.
There will of course be two undeclared groups. The first of which, and I fear perhaps the largest of which, will be those who only stop in for the beer and chips, who enjoy FreeRepublic but who have no interest of actually taking part in building a response. And there is certainly room on the site for them, and the welcome mat should remain laid out. For things can change. Especially if the above groups work up a compelling set of presentations.
Finally, and this will be the smallest, yet most dangerous, of the lot- those who wait to see what ideas are examined, and discarded as undesirable... and yet hurry to the democratic meetings with snippets to be used later to discredit, and smear.
There can be no open forum that is not subject to such persons. They create no ideas of their own, and work as gnomes to carry the night soil to their masters, to be examined for clues as to the diet of the shakers and movers. If we are aware of, and prepare for those creatures and their handlers' moves ahead of time, then very little chilling effect should take place.
Please tell me that a considerable group of the best and the brightest on this forum are committed enough to shape and begin to deliver the message that the present "party leaders" seem to... have had difficulties with. Failing that, please tell me where I err. I don't want to waste time if we are really just a polite debating society, suffering dispepsia at the thought of taking the bull by the horns.
This bull has had a free romp for long enough, but he will have to be brought to the new barn by those with the website skills that are long past us old farts. Leave us to listen quietly and offer comments in whatever on-site trailer you young troops construct to do the job.