Philosophy, not politics, is the key to success
September 8, 2009 by Mark Vance
The time is at hand when we will be heard – and loudly. We have already seen the evidence (Van Jones, the health care plan) that it doesn’t take a majority to throw roadblocks in front of those whose main purpose in life is to overthrow the Constitution, not by violence, but by neglect and deliberate misinterpretation.
But I am troubled by some of what seems to be on the agenda for the march this Saturday. Most references on the website for the march still speak in terms of lower taxation and individual fights on legislation as it appears in the Congress.
These are critical battles, of course and we must stay ever vigilant against the sneaks in the power grid in DC.
But, to my mind, there is an even more important aspect to this struggle. The restoration of the Constitution as originally written and interpreted in 1787 is the ONLY issue that will solve all problems at once. Whether it is taxes, spending, growth of government into areas where it doesn’t belong, the solution to all is strict “originalism.”
Alexis De Toqueville said “For every man hacking away at the root of a problem, there are a hundred hacking away at the branches.”
The branches are the individual issues we fight. The root of every problem is the twisting and ignoring of delegated powers.
We must begin to make arguments that do not speak in terms of adversarial legislative issues (politics) and begin to focus on a restoration of the one issue that overides and underlies every other one, the glorious simplicity of the concepts of the Constitution (philosophy).
Limited power. Separation of powers. State power versus Federal power. These are the issues we must sell to the American public to gain the consensus needed to revive the spirit of the founders and restore the Constitutional Republic.
I hope we will be able to train ourselves to become salesmen for the founders and not just advocates or opponents of lower taxes, this bill or that “reform”.
We must sell the ideas of the founders, not just to the politicians, but to the American people. To quote Samuel Adams, we must become the “irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in men’s minds”.
Your opinions certainly deserve respect, and I agree that return to constitutional government is the ultimate goal, but politics is the necessary way to get there.
Every survey taken in my lifetime has shown that voters want to reduce the size of government. However, when questions are asked about reducing programs that directly benefit THEM, they are opposed. Eliminating selected government programs is important because there aren’t two people in the country who are likely to agree to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran’s Administration, and every other program started since 1861. Reducing the most intrusive programs and those subject to abuse, such as the Federal Reserve Board and Fannie, Freddie, GNMA, etc. would be good starts. Separating retirement programs from welfare programs and taking away control of retirement from politicians are other measures for which you might get a majority in the relatively near future.
Doing those things requires majorities, and in some cases super-majorities. Getting those majorities requires both an appeal to voters to eliminate corruption and malfeasance and an attack on the Fascists’ power base. The specifics of such an attack may not be for their ears, but these things are political steps that are necessary to achieve any part of your final goal.
We can’t change the desire of politicians for power. We can’t change their desire to buy power by promising to take things away from others and give those things to those who will vote for them. We can’t change the desire of voters that the government give them other people’s things, at least in the short term.
The Fascists attacked our center of gravity by attacks on the family and religion, which continue unabated to this day. We have to fight back, and not with appeals to the way things were in 1791 but with concrete actions to gain voter support and decrease support for the enemy. If there is an election in 2010, conservatives must win the House, at least. Even after that, we will not be able to roll back 100 years of Fascism until we take super-majority control of the Senate and control of the White House, but we can begin to plan the political actions that will allow us to do that. Those steps have to be incremental because rapid change will alienate too many people and cost us the majorities that we need to make the changes that are necessary. I doubt that most of us will see the final result, but we can show the way to it, at least some of the way.
Philosophy is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to dismantling the Fascist superstructure that is choking our Republic.
Mike,
It’s a little strange to disagree with a comment with which I am in almost complete agreement.
But, with respect, I think the comment, rather than refuting my little piece, actually proves my premise.
You mention all the various issues that we must fight against, I won’t list them here, but I acknowledged in the piece that we must always be prepared to fight against all the individual issues that anti-Constitutionalists will throw against us, and I agree with everyone you mentioned.
But what you didn’t address was HOW we are to argue against them.
The problem we face lies, not only in political arena in DC, but also in the hearts and minds of the average American. Would you disagree that the average American is woefully uninformed on the Constitution and our early history?
Yet they are the ones we need to bring to our side in order to gain the majority you mentioned.
Only an informed body politic can control the excesses of the political class. Otherwise ,as you said, we wind up arging that my favorite project is good and yours stinks
All the issues you mentioned do not revolve around questions like how much power should the Fed have or how much should be spent on any given issue. They revolve around questions like “Should the Fed even exist” or “Does Washington even have the Constitutional authority to legislate in that area.”
The only simple and clear direction for bringing around the mass of Americans to our POV, has to deal with the issues I mentioned. Limited Government. Separation of powers and State v. federal power.
But what standard do we use to make the arguments, to teach the untaught?
I would argue that the “originalist ” argument is the best and most “sellable”, because, not withstanding that they date to the 18th century, because the principles contained in “originalism” do not derive their power from the time in which they were written, but because they are timeless and reflect the founder’s understanding of the dangers of power over man’s history. None of that has changed in the 21st century.
We cannot change the views of liberals, to try amounts to intellectual self-abuse,
but we canect moderates and those who are willing to think about their freedoms.
But to be successful, we must argue, and we must teach and ask the most powerful questions a man can ask- why? how? where?
BTW, I disagree that power seizes everyone. It hasn’t Ron Paul. Imagine the House and Senate with 535 Ron Pauls.
The republic would be safe and we could enjoy our lives secure in the knowledge that the foundations of our Republic are being constantly tended.
Mark
PS Sean–Agree about the 17th Amentment- a prgressive assault on the 10th