GOP leaders let demagogues set tone, lawmaker says (Bob Inglis

Too many Republican leaders are acquiescing to a poisonous "demagoguery" that threatens the party's long-term credibility, says a veteran GOP House member who was defeated in South Carolina's primary last month.

While not naming names, 12-year incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis suggested in interviews with The Associated Press that tea party favorites such as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts like Glenn Beck are the culprits.

He cited a claim made famous by Palin that the Democratic health care bill would create "death panels" to decide whether elderly or sick people should get care.

I read all of it. Your lead-off statement to our debate was the standard reference to the tree of Liberty needing to be watered by blood. Your emphasis in your comments was the readiness one must have to fight physically on an armed struggle against tyranny. “No group of people anywhere can ever hope to hold on to their liberty for long unless they were willing to die for it. Where did you get the idea that your liberty would come without a price?”

Following upon your primary emphasis on the necessity to prepare for what may be inevitable armed conflict, your statement that you view war as a last resort seems more like boilerplate, rather than a sincere desire.

Perhaps if your emphasis hadn’t been so much on getting me to admit and accept the necessity of “paying the price” and other references to physically attacking what you view as tyranny, I would believe you.

As it stands, I think that you disingenuously included those lines as throwaways, more to be used (as you have done) to prop up your insincere denials. If you were truly interested in working *through* the American system to achieve your goals, that would have been your emphasis from the get-go. Instead, you leapfrog right over using the electoral process or the judicial process, and hearken to revolution and the use of force.

Apparently what I have been debating isn’t so much a straw man of my imagination, as a person who finds the notion of fighting his fellow citizens somewhat romanticized and probably necessary. I start off from the position that the American system *as constructed* has given us ways to deal with tyrants. Resort to guns isn’t necessary, or the Constitution would speak of using them to achieve *political* ends. (The Second Amendment makes no reference to using firearms to settle *internal* political disputes, does it? The conclusion that the purpose of the Amendment is to defend all the others is actually an interpretation of the Constitution unsupported by its own language.)

So spare me your lectures and your lectures and snide comments about my powers of comprehension (an ad hominem line of attack that you have lazily resorted to since your first comment to me.) My questions still remains unanswered.

Do you believe that Constitutional remedies are sufficient for protecting the rights of a politically oppressed group? Or is the Constitution a flawed document, which requires the potential resort to extra-Constitutional violence as the final arbiter?

Thank you for your very learned and historically informed reply!

I doubt that Congressional Democrats will be put to the sword, and their corpses thrown into the Potomac. (As much as some here may wish to see Nancy Pelosi’s hacked-up body thrown down the Capitol Steps, it just ain’t gonna happen.)

It is far more the American way to simply leave a discredited philosophy in the trashbin. A group that has failed ignominiously in its attempts to win the favor of the majority political position simply becomes a rump party, which is then absorbed into some other entity.

That is why this 2010 election is so crucial. Citizen dissatisfaction is at monumentally high levels, as jobs and personal wealth slip away from a huge number of Americans.
If the Conservative movement can seize the electoral reins on Washington, then they have a actual chance of getting their electoral platform enacted.

Darryl Issa will be able to begin impeachment proceedings on Obama. Congress can begin the process of amending the Constitution to abolish the Income Tax, and affirming that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Federal departments can be abolished and dismantled, and social programs can be eliminated. Defense of the nation can be emphasized, from border security, to “energy independence,” to strong military spending.

But if the Tea Party candidates go down to defeat, they may take the current surge of Libertarian Conservatism with them. Depending on how badly they are beaten, the only Republicans left will have to work with the winners in order to get anything done - that is, if they decide they want to participate. (Will the public want solutions of *any* sort at that point? Will they punish the uncooperative? Hard to say.)

This is the Right’s best shot. If it can’t win this year, it itself may face becoming the Federalists of 1812, with the Progressives proclaiming another Era of Good Feeling.

The Constitution, while an excellent attempt at establishing the system of government that preserves both the collective good and individual freedoms, is not perfect.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the Constitution is a plan written on a piece of paper, it’s the people who actually have to execute the plan, and the people are doing a terrible job of it. The abuse of the commerce clause for the last 100 years alone would have our current federal government unrecognizable to the framers. And part of the reason the 2nd Amendment exist is because they wanted to leave a failsafe in the hands of the people if all else fails.

And please don’t try to pyschoanalyze me and tell me what I “really think”, once again you’re debating the straw man in your head rather than what I’ve made clear. Violence is always an option of the last resort, but it remains a viable option nonetheless.

“And part of the reason the 2nd Amendment exist is because they wanted to leave a failsafe in the hands of the people if all else fails.”

And you know this ... how? It certainly isn’t in the document itself. I’m not here to argue the Second Amendment, but just to point out that you are willing to interpret it that way because you are philosophically inclined to accept the use of violence against your countrymen as a way to defend yourself against what *you* define as tyranny.

The Founders knew that the Constitution is an incomplete document, which is why they included provisions to amend it. They also knew thatthe People might determine that social situations might chaange, and that they would demand new Constitutional safeguards that they, the Founders, couldn’t foresee. Why isn’t that system sufficient for you if the Constitution must be changed or strengthened?

You say “the people are doing a terrible job of it,” which to me indicates that you know longer trust your fellow citizens. You don’t trust them to be able to govern themselves wisely. The government is “unrecognizable to the framers” in more ways than one - just look at the role women and African-Americans play in it. THAT also is not what they intended. Should those amendments be tossed out? You give an instance of the People are doing it wrong (your reference to the Commerce Clause, for instance) and you immediately explain how the Second Amendment is there “if all else fails.”

If WHAT else fails? You haven’t told me what you are willing to do to fix things, aside from get your guns if you feel it’s warranted. I will only use my gun against my fellow citizens to defend myself in instances of immediate life-threatening peril - and that doesn’t mean because I am scared that Obamacare might lead to “death panels,” for instance. I mean a criminal, mob or a soldier entering my house, or accosting us outside of the home, to do me, mine or my neighbors bodily harm.

When you say you are willing to use violence against your fellow countrymen to guarantee you liberty, what exactly does that mean you are willing to do? Don’t just fall back on references to sentiments expressed before the Constitution was even ratified. You may feel your liberty threatened and tyranny appearing, when other Americans do not. When do you believe that all else will have failed?

I prefer to err on the side of life. All our citizens have the right to Life as well as Liberty. Our system exists so that Liberty may be preserved without resorting to violence. Can you accept that?

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.