June 26, 2007
We The People.
The three most important words in the English language other than expressions of love or faith. And yet, even those three words make possible in this country free and unfettered expression of religion and faith.
Yet, it would seem that not enough people in this country, and certainly not enough people in the United States Senate or United States House of Representatives understand that these three words are central to our form of governance.
We The People, three words that when the constitution was written meant that a new establishment of government was being initiated in the midst of a world, raised on royalty. From the ancient Persians to the Kingdom of Hawaii, from the Aztec to the Germans, from the French to the Norwegians, from the English to the Ottoman Empire heads of state derived their power from God or from some deity or from Muhammad. Nowhere, was there a peoples who proclaimed for themselves that "We The People" were and would be the source of our own destiny. We established on this earth something never seen before except in some prototypical democracies, a Republic, as Lincoln so aptly stated "Of the people, by the people and for the people."
What a radical idea some two hundred plus years ago: We The People. The People themselves took responsibility for their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, not ordained by God as a "Divine" right to rule passed down from father to son under some form of empire or monarchy, but from a peoples decision through their elected representatives to be in charge of themselves. Or as Ben Franklin is said to have said in response to the query "Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have? A republic or a monarchy?" Wise old Franklin is quoted as saying "A Republic, if you can keep it."
And keep it we have, through invasion by the British during the war of 1812, a terrible civil war pitting neighbor against neighbor, a war against Spain, against imperial Germany and the fascist Axis powers, through the cold war in which a mistake of intent or interpretation could have resulted in thermonuclear mutual destruction. But, today, today is different, today we have forgotten and our elected leaders have forgotten what the real meaning of We the People.
In September of 2005, We the People began to organize around an idea promoted by Glenn Reynolds of the Instapundit fame and N.Z. Bear of The Truth Laid Bear called Porkbusters. The idea, spread by the people, taken up by the people was to call down grief on legislators that thought bringing home the bacon was all that they were elected to do, by hook, by crook or by earmark. One of the more egregious porkers, one Senator Trent Lott. Now, please don't get the idea that Senator Lott is the only scoundrel in congress on a diet of pork, pork and more pork, but he is the ONLY one who said:
I'll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble..."Sadly, this merely underscores that we have recently gone from We the People to those who are, as Newt Gingrich just recently said, "... the inarticulate and unimaginative leaders all across government who now preside instead of lead." (H/T to Glenn Reynolds)
Preside, as in reigning? I thought we had gotten rid of that in 1776. If we indeed did get rid of monarchy in 1776 (although it did take a few years of force of arms to convince the Brits that we meant it) and if as Franklin said "...if we can keep it," how did it end up that one of our more articulate politicians decide that our current leaders "all across government" are "presiding?" And therein lies the rub, for indeed we the people (notice, no longer caps) have pretty much abdicated our responsibility to our leaders rulers.
And this is pretty sad, because we have forgotten our power, we have forgotten the sacrifices of those that came before us and we have forgotten the very core of this republic. We the people hold the power to set to rights our own governance. We the people have the responsibility to let those in Washington know where the power, and the right reside. We The People!
There are myriad ways for us to regain our power, myriad ways in which the power of the people, inviolate, right and strong can be expressed. From the people demanding term limits, to people voting out the rascals in toto, to town hall meetings across this great land where we hear the voices of the true common man; the ditch digger, the teacher, the Marine or the Soldier, the plumber and the dentist. Where our voices become united in decrying what those who think they are the masters, but indeed are, and should be the factotums of our society have done. And we, dear people, have allowed that to happen.
But we can reclaim our birthright. We can, through the power of the ballot box teach lessons that those going to Washington will not soon forget, but we cannot do it if we allow those in Washington to dictate the terms of the debate. America has spoken about the current "amnesty bill" and yet those who should be listening are not, and yet they are not leading either, they are engineering methods and ways for themselves to stay in power. If you think that amnesty is not about future votes and which "party" gets the lions share, you are sadly mistaken. If you think that unparalleled spending on pork (the current numbers of earmarks exceed, 32,000 read that again thirty. two. thousand.) that averages almost 60 earmarks for each Congressman and Senator. And yet we have done nothing to curtail this practice effectively. Oh, to be sure we are trying with organizations such as Porkbusters, Citizens Against Government Waste and the Sunlight Foundation, but the people have yet to raise their voices in unison and shout ENOUGH.
Recently, the Democrat Party ran an effective election campaign promising to bring responsibility to spending in congress. Many of us took that with a grain fifty pound bag of salt, but they won any way, fair and square. They mounted an effective campaign and convinced enough voters to give them complete control of the House and near complete control of the Senate (but only because two independents caucus with and usually vote with the Democrats). But the changes haven't materialized, in fact, it seems nothing so much as Glenn Reynolds put it, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
I'm hoping this post will inspire people to gather together and decide to take back their country and their government, not by armed revolution, not by denigrating people of the opposite political party(s) but by discussing needs and desires, by ironing out political differences so that an excitement builds, and people gather together to defeat the entrenched politicos of any party much as the fabled Minutemen gathered together to shake off the shackles of the King of England, not by armed insurrection, but by the power granted to us in our constitution, so that once again this government becomes a representation of
I fear that Kender's premonition of armed battles in the streets may indeed become a reality soon. I'm not sure there is a peaceful way of 'taking our country back' when they're completely ignoring and rewriting the constitution into a document like the founding documents of the Soviet Union.
Posted by Cao at June 27, 2007 03:53 AM
Americans elected people whom we thought represented our goals and values. I'm not sure that "we the people" abdicated our role. It's just that we were double crossed.
To correct that, now, is difficult given the sacrifices and finances that good people need to run for office as an alternative to those who let us down. But, most of us are working too hard and are too dependent upon our jobs to quit for a couple of years to raise money and be slimed for an office that is most likely a dream.
If history, meaning the history of western civilization, is an indicator of where we are going, then I see no hope. We can only drag it out and postpone the inevitable decay of our nation by people who put their greed above prinicple.
Posted by Woody at June 27, 2007 05:41 AM
Cao, I love Kender, but his "prediction" is loud blustering macho bull. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to give the people the power to dictate what the feds can and cannot do. Unfortunately in the buzz of partisan sniping (and I've done my share) what we have done is forget where the power lies. Vote, and convince others to vote likewise with the power of argument and a joint willingness to work together, not by calling names (and again, I've done my share) etc. but by exercising the power that we truly do have.
Posted by GM Roper at June 27, 2007 05:43 AM
G.M., if the Republicans don't offer a conservative alternative as a Presidential candidate, would you give strong consideration to voting for a third-party candidate, even if you knew that it might allow the more liberal candidate to win? Right now, the Republicans are taking conservative votes for granted, which they think allows them to expand their base by going after more big government voters. What choices do we have if there are no choices?
Posted by Woody at June 27, 2007 06:16 AM
I am completely willing to vote for a liberal or third party candidate with the intent of sending the Republican Party a strong message or establishing a third party. I've voted Libertarian and Democratic before, but never for a winner as it turned out. If I vote for a liberal, at least I know what I'm getting.
Another part of The Constitution being ignored that I'm concerned about is this, "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..." Congress and President Bush seem much more concerned about everybody else than "ourselves and or posterity," unless, of course, you look at them as individuals. Then they seem to be completely concerned about themselves (and possibley their prosperity) being in power, making money, garnering votes and such.
A sad time in American history. I had hoped my children would inherit a better than country than I did. It will take some real work to make it so.
Posted by DADvocate at June 27, 2007 10:26 AM
Good post, GM. I've got some questions, though.
I know Republicans are unhappy because they aren't winning (which is reasonable enough), but I don't really get all the policy frustration. You've gotten a lot of what you wanted the past six years - various tax cuts for the wealthy, a much more conservative court, some modest abortion restrictions, pro-business environmental policy, and an all-consuming war against Islamic fundamentalists and Iraq. That's a lot of stuff on the wish list.
Pork is a problem, but I didn't hear a ton of conservatives complaining while the GOP was running the show (though certainly the porkbusters crew was around). And the immigration issue is a tough one for Republicans but there are always going to be some tough issues. That can't be the sole cause of this disaffection, can it? Also, you didn't get to dismantle Social Security or rewrite the tax code, but those were pretty ambitious items and I can't imagine you'd turn on Republicans for not quite getting those through. I'd thnk we'd all agree that it's a good thing you can't dramatically change a ton of American institutions too quickly and wiithout widespread support. So where's the beef? What did you want to happen that didn't, or what did they do that made you all so mad?
Posted by Mavis Beacon at June 27, 2007 04:52 PM
Mavis,
Your wish list is more of a talking points bulletin of what liberals say conservatives want than of what conservatives really want.
"Tax cuts for the wealthy?" No, tax cuts period. Of course tax cuts effect the rich more than the poor. The poor don't pay taxes.
"Pro-business environmental policy" I'm not for a "pro-business" policy but do support a reasonable one. Indeed, I'm not completely happy with our progress with the environment.
"an all-consuming war against Islamic fundamentalists and Iraq" I don't think this is on the "wish list" of many conservatives. Fighting terrorists, of whom most are Islamic fundamentalists, is a necessity at this time.
My with list is freedom of speech instead of a so called fairness doctrine, the interests of legal citizens and legal residents before illegal residents, preservation of our Constitutional rights without twisted logic being applied, and a federal government that responds to the needs and wishes of the people (legal citizens) of this country first and foremost.
However, I consider myself more of a libertarian than a conservative, so my views may not represent the typical conservative's.
Posted by DADvocate at June 28, 2007 07:26 AM
Is that the best I'm going to get? A complete dodge. We all know what policies passed and that most conservatives supported them. Right? Don't nitpick the language, adress the issues.
I'll repeat my question: What did you so desperately want to happen that didn't, or what did they do that made you all so mad?
Posted by Mavis Beacon at June 28, 2007 10:53 AM
Mavis makes some very good points. Bush and Co. have accomplished some of their agenda. Now he faces an oppositional Congress, but even when Bush had a Congressional majority his Social Security reform was stalled and there was not as much hue and cry then. So Mavis' question is creditable: “…what did they do that made you all so mad?”
What makes conservatives so incensed nowadays (see Hannity, Malkin, Ingraham, Stillwell, and Coulter) is what strikes at the core of American Conservatism: the loss of respect for tradition and morality in the debate about illegal immigration. This debate is causing great anger and disappointment towards Bush, who Conservatives thought was one of their own.
Russell Kirk, the founder of American Conservatism, said that the essence of conservatism is preservation and respect for moral traditions. In the American case it is consistent with the value system of Anglo-Protestantism. These traditions, among others, are adherence to the “rule of law” and respect for authority. They are emblematic of the conservatism approach. The respect for authority can be equated to respect for national borders, and sovereignty. Respect for the “rule of law” can be equated with upholding morality.
American conservatives see the essence of their value system being abandoned by Bush and Co. How can Bush speak of implementing the “rule of law” in Iraq and then compromise it at home?
Provisions in the new immigration bill like requiring illegals to have a job, learn English, and pay fines (i.e. an admission fee) are what all immigrants are required to do anyway. How is this punishment for the crime of entering the country illegally? It violates the essence of the “rule of law” principle.
These new provisions are amnesty. Amnesty is the forgiveness of a crime or the non-enforcement of a particular crime’s penalties. The creation of new penalties, which are not real penalties but only requirements in any immigration process, is not enforcement and therefore amnesty.
Furthermore, at the heart of the illegal immigration issue is the concept of national identity. What it means to be an American. Conservatives see the new immigration bill and Bush’s support of it as compromising that identity because of the problematic nature of current assimilation trends.
Conservatism is of the conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes. Disparities and differences are inherent in humanity. The only true equality is moral equality and this is already enshrined in the US Constitution.
So in conclusion, the anger towards Bush and the Republicans who support him is because of their perceived violations of respect for tradition, morality and national identity.
Cheers,
Lawrence
Posted by Lawrence at June 28, 2007 12:59 PM
I started being upset with Bush when he misplaced his veto pen and kept approving pork. He isn't a conservative Republican but a "Democat Lite." Big, big problem there.
The tax cuts that he pushed have helped the economy, but he gave in and is allowing them to automatically expire without a vote. Tax cuts are good, also, because I can spend my money where it's more needed than government can. In theory, they cut back on what government can spend, but not in this case. Capital gains reductions were crucial.
I don't know where Bush removed strangling regulations and paperwork from businesses. It's worse if anything.
The Supreme Court is better, but I still can't get over him trying to ram Harriet Miers through.
I'm not happey with the Iraq War, but it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't. Remember that the Democrats said that his Bush's dad didn't finish the first Gulf War by removing Hussein, so Bush does and look what he has now.
I'll give him credit for not having another terrorist attack in our country.
He's way off on amnesty and the borders. Enforce the laws, seal the border, and make it possible for Americans to fill available jobs first.
Plus, Bush is such a bad communicator that he can't sell the packages that are needed.
I miss Ronald Reagan.
Posted by Woody at June 28, 2007 01:18 PM
Interesting answers. I get that you see the immigration issue as indicative of something larger. Fair enough. Unpopularity prevents him from getting things done which makes him more unpopular. Seems to be cyclical. Thanks.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at June 29, 2007 01:01 PM
Mavis, you're asking the wrong questions and you (should) know it. Your questions are like the old "When did you quit beating your wife?" question.
But to answer this "What did you so desperately want to happen that didn't...?" - Teddy Kennedy still holds public office. After that I have to drop the "desperately" part.
Posted by DADvocate at June 29, 2007 09:19 PM
