In strategizing a proposed pro-constitution March on Washington, I think it would be important to embrace the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan, always remembering that Ronaldus Maximus was no Pollyanna. He recognized evil for what it was and he called a spade a spade. But underpinning and informing everything he did was an optimism about the power of free men to better their condition.
Sure, people are po'd today, but the tonal approach to any March on Washington ought to be not anti-Obama, not anti-anything, but, in the spirit of Reagan, pro-America, pro-Constitution, and pro-people.
One thing the march can do is turn the tables on the leftist mantra of "power to the people." The fact is no political structure in the history of the world has unleashed the power of the people nearly as effectively as has the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom - and humility - understood that each man knows what's best for him and his family. And more to the point, each man, for better or for worse, has a natural right to make the choices that determine the course of his life. The fruits of the Founders' vision are all around us: the most equitable distribution of wealth the world has ever seen. By contrast, the ash heap of history is riddled with the remains of societies where all the power was gathered in the state.
Capitalism is intrinsically altruisitc: you do something for me, I do something for you. I treat you right, treat you as a human being, provide you good value for what I offer you, and you return as a customer. I mistreat you, get too greedy and don't offer you good value, and I fail. Capitalism, in other words, fosters all the virtues. It is an exercise in giving, in fair play, in respecting the dignity of each person. Socialism, by contrast, fosters cynicism: it is a taking exercise, one that fosters a sense of entitlement, resentment, shoddiness [think of the phrase "good enough for government work"], and disrespect for the individual. (Nancy Pelosi expressed this last point quite explicitly: subsidizing contraception is a stimulus program because if we can reduce the number of people - those pesky, troublesome people - there'll be more plunder for the rest of us to divvy up.)
Capitalism, as empowered by the US Constitution, fosters hope, optimism, faith, and a relentless search for truth (to succeed in the marketplace, you need to know what's true, not what you wish were true). Socialism fosters despair (seeing all human transactions as zero-sum games), fear (what do we do if someone takes away our entitlements - see the hopeless and fearful response to Katrina by the residents of New Orleans, many of whom were wards of the state), cynicism (ve pretend to vork; dey pretend to pay us), and fantastical thinking (see any number of great leaps forweard, five-year plans, or the "stimulus" package, which is, after all, nothing more than Obama's first five year plan.
The March on Washington needs to make these points in an upbeat, optimistic way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I understand; but although no bullets are flying, we are in a war for our very survival. Sunny optimism is great; but people are taking time out of their lives, and money out of their pockets in a horrible economy, to go to the national capital, now controlled by someone hostile and inimical to everything they hold dear, to DEMAND the restoration of their Constitution and the rights it is supposed to guarantee. Thus, by its very nature, the gathering is anti-Obama: It is in opposition to the man absent whom these people would never have had to take the trouble to so assemble in the first place. We can't be afraid to express who and what we favor, and who and what we oppose. It's not a Fourth-of-July celebration. We don't want the Obama media to be able to say, "Aw, isn't that quaint: a demonstration of ancient American history." Furthermore, the willingness of some to go public with our displeasure will encourage others to realize that they are not alone. We are not going to the palace to beg the king for some of our rights back.
You may be right, Brian, but I see it differently. Don't get me wrong. I don't argue that anger at the current turn of events is not warranted. On the contrary. But on the other hand, I am quite confident that anger is not a good political strategy. It can ceretainly serve as a motivator, but it can't be a platform. Anger will not win converts, which is what we need; anger scares people. It makes them uneasy. Anger, even righteous anger, only convinces those who already believe in the same things you do. From the outside, an angry crowd looks an awful lot like a mob.
Would the civil rigthts movement have succeeded if the March on Washington had been led by Stokely Carmichael instead of MLK? I don't think so.
Anyhow, our ace in the hole is that we have the better arguments. Our ideas are better. We have lacked the right voices, but already, you can see new leaders emerging. They'll have a platform in that march on Washington to make the case that the principles set forth in the constitution are not, in fact, ancient history but are still the freshest ideas in the world. The constitution represents real hope and change, because it allows for an ever-renewing process.
What is required is "an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Most of the "leaders" have failed, sold out, or headed for the hills. "People power" has brought down authoritarian strongmen. An "irate minority" defeated a king with a great empire.
King and the civil rights movement appealed to the majority's decency and cherished Constitutional principles. Our adversaries have no decency, and their principles are those of Marx. (We've seen how well that has worked out.)
Furthermore, King, et al knew that they would suffer violence and even death. Their peacefulness was a successful part of their strategy. But we are not in that position, and that should not be our strategy. I'm not interested in having violence or death visited on me. We should not assume a supine position.
The platform is not anger; the platform is liberty and constitutional government. Anger is an emotion, an emotion characteristic of people who have reason to be displeased. Why do people demonstrate in Washington in the first place? They do it to send a message to the government, something we have a constitutional right to do. The message is that we are very displeased--irate, if you will--with the trashing of our constitution and the establishment of a socialist system. I don't know how you make that mood look like a bunch of sunny optimists. And don't forget, even the Gipper angrily declaimed, at a crucial moment, "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Breen!"
Apologies in advance for what I see now is a long response.
Brian, you’re probably right that anger will be a big motivator in getting people out to Washington. And you’ve pretty much convinced me that that’s how it must be. I’ve read enough of your thinking over the past several months to take your perspective very seriously.
But remember: We’re not just there to convince each other and we’re certainly not there to appeal to the decency of the Obama true believers. We're trying to connect to that 30 percent of voters who aren't ideological, that 30 percent who would never participate in a march on Washington but who determine the outcome of every election in this country. (An aside: I think the electorate is reliably 35 percent hard left no matter what, 35 percent hard right no matter what [I'm in that group], and 30 percent who don't pay that much attention most of the time.)
The question, for me, then, becomes, how do you best connect to that 30 percent? I don’t exactly know the answer, but if a march on Washington is to have any electoral effect, it has to get that 30 percent to stop, take notice, and think, think deeply about where a socialist agenda will take them and their children. That’s where I say we have the better case; furthermore, I am not as dispirited about our potential messengers as you are. I think we have among our ranks a few who are up to the challenge of advancing our case in a way that willconnect.
This subject reminds me of a discussion I read about a few years ago. It was raging in atheist circles. The gist of it was that the only reason people remain Christian or Jewish is that the Bible offers a better origin story than does Darwinism. The guy making this assertion thus laid down a challenge to his fellow “brights:” “Come up with a Darwinian-based story as compelling as the one in Genesis and we’ll win the battle of ideas once and for all.”
Of course, his challenge was and is bound to fail because Genesis has the advantage of having truth on its side.
Likewise with us; Obama’s a heck of a yarn spinner but we have the truth with us and that will become increasingly apparent over time. The march on Washington can help in getting the truth in front of more people.
we all probably hoped, wished, and expected that the Republican presidential candidate would serve the function of making the conservative case effectively. Alas, we don’t live in a perfect world and in the void that was the McCain campaign, the silver-tongued Obama slipped in essentially unchallenged – and he still got only 54 percent of the vote.
I love the idea of several hundred thousand right-wingers gathered around the reflecting pool singing Power to the People and We Shall Overcome. Although I agree with Bill that we need to keep it positive, the reality is that Mr. Obama is the face of the current anti-Constitution movement. Therefore, I would like to see someone with gravitas stand up in front of the Lincoln Memorial as say, "Mr. Obama, give us back our Constitution" with the same firmness and resolve as Reagan in Berlin. Of course, all the other speakers are going to have to make the case in an intelligible way that Obama has indeed taken our Constitution from us. I think there is a lot to work with right now and there will probably be a lot more by May (Porkulus, Fairness Doctrine, nationalization of private businesses, etc.).
Perhaps I'm getting ahead of things; but you've got one-third on the left, one third on the right, and one-third in the middle. The election showed that a good number of the middle are drones who receive a lot more in benefits than they pay in taxes. And that situation is only going to get worse. Many of these people are impervious to reason. Why should they give up their meal ticket for the burden of responsibility? Are they going to be turned around by a bunch of party-pooper "square" conservatives waving flags in Washington?
The train has left the station, and it is building up a huge head of steam. It is "Atlas Shrugged." The train will not be stopped without such sustained pressure that the drones decide, "These people are a pain in the rear; we can't beat them. We're too lazy and stupid." This will take a lot of effort. Perhaps, as in "Atlas Shrugged," the productive members of society will have to become so unproductive that the socialist welfare state is starved of the resources it needs to control the masses. If the Soviet Union could be defeated, so can these bums; but it is going to take revolutionary effort, effort that has been put off much too long, while the good times rolled.
Brian, I agree that we have a lot of self-centered drones with no skills at all in critical thinking. But I don't think we're as far along as the Soviet Union. After all, they went from being subvervient to the Czar to being subvervient to Lenin. We have a mass of people who have known freedom and like it. I do think the most powerful weapon is on our side, and that is truth being set forth in reasonable terms. I think some of the drones can be awakened with sound agrument. How many? I don't know, but perhaps it would be enough to change things at the ballot box. We may be sliding toward oblivion, but we're not there yet. What those of us with a brain do during the next year may determine the ultimate outcome, at least for the foreseeable future. What I'm saying is that NOW is the time to set the brush fires. Next year may be too late.
Post a Comment