Don’t Get Weak (Thomas Sowell)

NRO ^ | May 1, 2007 | Thomas Sowell

[stockpirate]

You may not have heard of or read one of our founding documents, “The Bill of Rights”. I would suggest that you actually read the nearest copy ASAP.

[Dan Evans]

No matter how much living in a Nanny State like France may suck, that shame is nowhere comparable to overthrowing the government because you don’t get your way on, let us say, stemcell research or tax cuts.

The founders started a war against the mother country because they didn't get their way on things that are much more trivial than most of the things that conservatives complain about today.

That turned out okay.

I think we need to force the issue. Either restore the Constitution or we raise things to the next level.

[billybudd]

That's the thing though - once you make that decision to use force to accomplish your political objectives, there's no going back. If *you* do it, so will the socialists and communists and hippies. Say goodbye to civil society - we'll have something like Somalia instead.

Also, I don't think the military is either independent or competent enough to do what Sowell thinks it can do. It entirely relies on the civilian government. Is is also politically and otherwise fragmented. There is no strong leader that would put together such an audacious coup.

[Dan Evans]

We watched it work with Gray Davis and then we just stopped using that wrench.

But it didn't work. We got Arnold who is just as bad.

If the electorate is inclined to install leftists in government then there isn't anything we can do. That's why succession may be the only option. Individual states that are already conservative can remove themselves from the tyranny of the Federal Government and insulate themselves from becoming more liberal by enforcing their own borders.

[kjo]

Agreed. That Thomas Sowell would suggest such a thing is distrubing.

[MizSterious]

That was a great question. One I’d like to ask the poll-quoters some time.

[pabianice]

A military coup would be the end of the Constitution, and thus of the country.

[Dan Evans]

That's the thing though - once you make that decision to use force to accomplish your political objectives, there's no going back. If *you* do it, so will the socialists and communists and hippies. Say goodbye to civil society - we'll have something like Somalia instead.

This country was founded by an armed revolution.

Also, I don't think the military is either independent or competent enough to do what Sowell thinks it can do.

I think the military votes about 80% Republican these days. Who better to restore the Republic?

[Perchant]

But it didn't work. We got Arnold who is just as bad.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that if we recall a bad politician we are obligated to replace him with a Kennedy family member?

If we have a recall drive and remove, say for example, Harry Reid, the Republicans aren't obligated to nominate a rino to run for that seat. The logic there should be apparent to you.

[Paradox]

I think Mr. Sowell is one of our finest thinkers today.

He ain't perfect, though, and maybe I am reading this out of context, but I think he is off base. In fact, I think perhaps some here are reading more into this than what he intends.

[Dan Evans]

A military coup would be the end of the Constitution, and thus of the country.

The Constitution has been ignored for years now. A coup, however, could restore it, and restore the country.

[tcostell]

Thats very cute trying to minimize the argument, but the fact of the matter is that right now we're in a serious state. Our government refuses to enforce it's borders, the supreme court has effectively declared an end to private property, and even though we're engaged in a foreign war the political opposition is working in lockstep to ensure that the goals of our enemies are all met.

We can and should use every legal and peaceful means we have to try and influence how these decisions are made by removing the worst offenders from office but fairly quickly we're going to run up against someone who doesn't think that we should have the right to remove them from office when according to them, all they are doing is what's necessary because of the "emergency" and is really in our best interests anyway. (Just imagine a president John Corzine, or a president Mike Bloomberg)

When that happens we're either going to have to leave this country en masse or we're going to have to take this one back by force. And we could potentially see either of those necessities inside the next decade or so.

Secession might be the lesser of two evils.

[little jeremiah]

Later read carefully.

[Dan Evans]

If we have a recall drive and remove, say for example, Harry Reid, the Republicans aren't obligated to nominate a rino to run for that seat.

No, but if they run a true conservative in a state filled with liberals he will lose.

So what I am saying is that recall drives aren't going to work. The only alternative may be for conservatives to flee to another state and secede.

[RightWhale]

Mr. Sowell:
Before we can suggest a solution we ought to define the problem. Right now the problem is not well-defined, but several trends are noted that if continued would drive the system outside the operating parameters. Let’s find out what is actually going on and if there is a reasonable and intelligent plan for this. Clearly if there is such a plan it hasn’t been explained to anybody anywhere outside the most secret chambers of our keepers.

[DCPatriot]

"...The people who are scariest to me are the people who don’t even know enough to realize how little they know...."

[Dan Evans]

Right now the problem is not well-defined,

I suggest the problem is that the Federal Government and many state governments have exceeded their authority.

[billybudd]

Yeah, thanks. I didn't know the country was founded on armed revolution. And I guess that *I* need to inform *you* that the politics today is entirely different with entirely different demographics and economics.

What would happen would be closer to the US civil war, except that there would be no end once the federal government recaptures the rebel states (and lost revenue). It would keep going in perpetuity, because it would be ideological, as Sowell suggests. It would be similar to the religious wars in Europe in the 17th century, or the various ethnic/tribal/religious conflicts going on in much of the world today.

Does this sound unrealistic for the US? Sure it does, because a military coup is unrealistic.

Oh yeah, so the military is mostly Republican. But what is a Republican these days? How would the military solve, for example, the illegal immigration issue? The only way these issues would be resolved is a strong leader - a dictator.

[TazforPrez]

Sorry that was my attempt at sarcasm.I guess what I should have said is that we need to reread the 10th amendment.Of course that is considered invalid by most voters today.

Call me what you want but please explain how it’s better for the Federal Government to have more power than the states.This country started its downfall in the mid 1800’s and I see no way of reversing this trend.

This country is a republic of states hence the name United States of America.I feel it was self evident that states should have the right to leave the republic if it felt that it’s interests were not being served by said republic.Obviously Lincoln proved that theory mistaken.
My point is this we may have no choice but secession to take the Federal Government back down to it’s constitutional level.

[RightWhale]

Thanks for your suggestion. However, FedGov has come nowhere near its potential authority, which is the result of the intent of multilevel division of powers built in to the Federal Constitution. Forces are pulling and pushing in every direction, but movement is perceptible. American commerce is going global, and that is deliberate, FedGov being an instrument of that movement.