The initiator of this thread stated:
The writer concludes that the “antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left” may have “irreconciable” differences. But “their numbers — and anger — are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That’s my main takeaway from the article and the state of discourse revealed in this thread.
RP’s statement of faith is something I’ve been waiting for. I suspected he thought along these lines, but it’s nice to see it made explicit. Although I don’t agree with Paul that the Constitution is canonical (at least that’s what he seems to imply - - - “divinely inspired”? Sheesh!) much of the rest of what he says makes so much sense that it’s hard to explain the manifestly deceptive vitriol the supporters of the various empty suits have been pouring on him except as the fruit of their “anything goes in war and politics” view of the world. That’s the reigning spirit in Rome-on-the-Potomac and has been for some time. Its steady amplification through the past several elections is reminiscent of the later phases of the period in Roman history in which the republic transitioned to empire (retaining for many decades the trappings of the republic while having long since jettisoned the substance).
I know that history doesn’t repeat itself, but there are certain characteristic rhythms that seem to reappear with great regularity, whether one is studying Western Civ or the annals of China’s dynastic histories. It looks to me like we are fairly late in the US variation of “death of the republic”, which commenced with the triumph of centralized power in 1865, and accelerated from the time of Teddy Roosevelt’s propensity to rule by decree (executive order) and Woodie Wilson’s simultaneously utopian and profoundly cynical WWI intervention. It’s been mostly down-hill ever since. What the article’s author has sensed is how out-of-control, how utterly unprincipled, the various wings of the “empire-centrist” parties have become. This, to the extent that our “rhythm” has a similar beat, is a very dangerous (or at least unstable) state of affairs.
One would be justified in profound reservations about the prospects of this polity persisting beyond the fiscal and logistical crises it faces over the next few decades, if it weren’t for the Augustinian “City of God” perspective on the life cycle of empires. ‘This too shall pass’ into something else, and it is like searching for a needle in a haystack to identify the individuals or movements that will emerge to bring about the next island of stability (or perhaps just the appearance of stability).
For a better account of how the Constitution came to be (at least the references used by the author are worth familiarity, even if one is utterly unpersuaded by his theological filters) try:
http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
or for a brief precis of the contents, see http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north291.html
Some of the other sites that reference this study are a reminder (for those who have been tarring Paul because he attracts a variety of nut cases) that clear thinkers and profound spirits have always attracted hordes of nut cases too, especially in times when nut cases become increasingly prevalent, i.e., when a coherently governed and managed polity is in the process of unraveling and increasing numbers of its strongly committed members are being driven out of their minds by the stresses of political breakdown.
Of course, nut cases also attract nut cases, so the fact that RP attracts nut cases does not prove he’s NOT a nut case... but given the truly bizarre types that have been attracted over the centuries to individuals such as Jesus, Plato, Buddha, etc., it doesn’t prove that he IS a nut case either. This fact will not cause the partisans of the empty suits to hesitate from using every invalid form of inference that can be used to persuade the inattentive or dull, but the rest of us should be able to see them for what they are: desperate centrist shills for a political order whose center is evaporating before our eyes.
Good history lesson. Thanks.
Anyway I've read many of the notes etc of the framers and see the majority as being GOD fearing persons acting in faith. Next into play comes God's plan and God's will for a nation. That can be a rough one to discern in our personal lives how much more so for the ones who's signatures formed our nation? Man can be wrong, man can do wrong, but through God all things are possible.
From the landing a Plymouth Rock through such colonies as Jamestown many thing can and did go wrong because wrong deeds were done. I believe the majority acted in faith and best conscience even Jefferson in his earlier life. No matter who deceived who our nation was born and many of the early leaders were in fact devout Christians. At this point in time I'm much more concerned at what is on the heart and the intentions amongst the living as they are the ones who can harm us now. But I wish I had known about that book years ago for my own curiosity sake so I could say yea or Ney about it.