Nuts on Right, on Left and Just Plain Nuts

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”.

“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.”

The Federalist NO. 10 - Thursday, November 22, 1787 [James Madison]

Every American should have a grasp of our founding fathers vision for our republic and a great place to start is the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers written during the birth of our nation. Federalist Number 10 deals with “factions”, which means people with different ideas about how things should be. Sound familiar, like it might apply to today? You bet and today’s news just highlights it.

A right wing nut, Brett Reese, is airing an editorial four times daily - up from two - on his station KELS-FM 104.7. He is unapologetic that portions of the editorial that call King a "plastic god," a "sexual degenerate," and "an America hating communist". The Mountain States Anti-Defamation League has asked Reese to stop broadcasting the editorial. The Greeley school board passed a resolution last week supporting the holiday and calling the editorial "inflammatory and detrimental to our district and community." The vote came after Reese walked out of the meeting.

A left wing nut, James Eric Fuller, was arrested after shouting “You’re dead!” at Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries, said Pima County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jason Ogan. Fuller was shot in the knee and back Jan. 8 when a gunman opened fire at Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords event that day. Fuller linked the shooting to conservative leaders associated with the tea party, including Sarah Palin, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle. “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Fuller said.

The act of Jared Loughner is fairly simple to discern if you just look at the facts; he is just plain nuts. The news media is having a hay-day with his story though. In our republic it is expected that we will have varying ideas but as Madison alludes to, the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community. He argues large republic against a small republic for the choice of “fit characters” to represent the public’s voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader.1 The effects of the Tea Party movement is exactly what Madison refers to. Given time and with a majority of the people understanding the principals our country is founded upon, it can heal and work for the common good the government is meant to preserve. “We the People” need to be the characters our founding fathers developed this country for so ALL the nuts will stay in the can where they belong. What it all boils down to is our republic works only when the people understand the ethics, philosophical integrity and religious foundation the founding fathers based it on. I finish with this quote I used before but it fits here best.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams – 1798

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#The_question_of_faction

Control Hate Speech

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 23 December 1791

First, we need to pray for congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her family and all those who suffered at the hands of a madman. But there are many who would rather politicize it and again claim hate speech and point finger to stir people up. They declare it is the fault of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Interesting these same people don’t suggest that on June 2008 when our current President said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” is similar talk. I’m intelligent enough to know Mr. Obama never intended this to be meant as hate speech and encourage violence. Both sides say things like this and if you are going to condemn one you have to do the same with the other.

OK, so using one of the examples pointed at, let’s see what he said about hate speech and the actions of Jared Loughner. Look at the challenge Glenn Beck (here) put forth to everyone, including those blaming him and other conservatives for the tragedy. Ignoring what others say, if you can (??) and looking ONLY at what Glenn’s statement says against violence (you will need to read it for yourself!) tell me the statement is wrong. Can you? You might think it is a simple lucid moment in an otherwise deranged individual but is it wrong? How would you feel about it if I said a liberal wrote this (I’m sure many could)? Would someone who writes this be one who would purposely direct others to commit violent acts? I do not always agree with Glenn, but he has never intentionally provoked hate like some people and organization have. The very hate speech they condemn they use to make their point. Even Richard Cohen of the Washington Post (a liberal) believes the right wing has little to no bearing on the actions perpetrated by Jared Loughner.

Hate speech can not be controlled through legislation. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers argued that point in many ways and at numerous times. What could we possibly use as a measure to determine what hate speech is? We know it when we hear and it is different for every individual. The only thing that will deter and limit this kind of behavior is for everyone to understand their personal obligation to strive for integrity found only in God’s commands for us to live by. It has to be taught, needs to be learned and then practiced by each person who wishes to mature.

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

Thomas Jefferson

More Tea Anyone?

 [Samuel Adams] argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights. 

Samuel Adams¹ - Wikipedia

As 2010 closed and I sit here conjecturing (there’s a unique verb for you) on 2011, it intrigues me that the American people have developed a taste for tea over other favorite “drinks” of the recent past. I know you realize I speak of something other than the refreshments we part-take of on a daily basis, but let us just continue with the analogy for the fun of it.

Last year I wrote about my fascination and reflections of all the flavors of tea. I found myself too busy to finish quarter four with details and insights about those who hate tea and want to outlaw it and those so fanatical about it they understand nothing else. But I will try to pick up where I left off and see how the current tea fascination may play out this year.

A popular flavor of the herb has made it into our US House for the next few years and seems to be making an overall commotion from the aroma before anyone has even tasted it! I think I’ll wait for a sip before any judgment of the quality. But I do like tea and hope others discover the value it has. Unlike other drinks, like strong alcohol for instance, tea has major medicinal qualities, can be used in large quantities without major complications or ill effects and without worry of developing a destructive addition.

So, as we begin this year keep track with me how the Tea Party promotes or provokes political changes and how well governance absorbs and reacts to the taste “we the people” demand they serve us; because they haven’t had to deal with the cakes, cracker and crumpets we like ... yet.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." 

George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

¹ John K. Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 129

Liberal or Progressive?

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Patrick Henry

Note: To fully appreciate this post you need to see the first comment to my post "Populism Through Patriotism or Progressivism?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You have given me some insight and some real meat to chew on. I love your analogy with the cats: great point and word picture to use. The first thing I need to do is give some definitions so you may better understand my points. The first two definitions I gathered from Wikipedia.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports minimal and gradual change in society. Historian Gregory Schneider finds a continuity in conservatism across the 20th century in terms of five powerful tendencies. The first is defense of tradition, dating from the Founding Fathers. Second is a commitment to preserve the rule of law, with an emphasis on the Constitution. Thirdly, conservatives uphold the Judeo-Christian traditions in the culture wars, opposing secularism. Fourthly, they uphold the principles of freedom, especially the right to bear arms and to conduct business without government regulation. Finally they support a free-market economic system based on capitalism, as opposed to a socialist economy directed by the national government. - Wikipedia

Liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century. (Emphasis added, explained later) - Wikipedia

OK, by these definitions it is obvious we could easily agree on many points when it comes to keeping our American republic grounded and directed as it was originally intended. The definition on Conservatism nails where I am coming from. Without labeling you categorically with something to unintentionally pigeonhole you, I think it is fair to assume you agree more with liberalism and ideas of a Liberal. And with the points I emphasis in the definition above and a couple of others not listed (but we have discussed before, like natural or inalienable rights) there are areas we can have healthy disagreement upon as elements that fortify our government.

So where is our disconnect? We need to define progressivism. You seem to use the term interchangeably with liberalism.

“You offer me a choice between either patriotism or progressivism as though they were diametrically opposed.”

Yes, I did because my understanding / definition of progressivism is just that. Not liberalism, but progressivism. We have a neat definition of conservatism and liberalism but there is no single good one for progressivism. Wikipedia says a progressive is, “b : one believing in political change and especially social improvement by governmental action.” It is not as definitive as the other two quoted earlier, partly because it has been high-jacked to replace or augment liberal ideas and is a moving, changing target, still being defined and redefined by the media and both ends of the political spectrum. “Lefties” are not progressives and you may only be distorting your image of liberal ideals if you align yourself with them too closely. Here is another definition from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English.

3. (U. S. History) Of or pertaining to the Progressive party. [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

4. Favoring improvement, change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; -- used of people. Contrasted with conservative.

Note: The term progressive is sometimes used to describe the views of a politician, where liberal might have been used at one time, in communities where the term liberal has come to connote extreme views. (Emphasis added) - The Collaborative International Dictionary of English

Those who claim to be progressives are best defined by their actions aligning with their rhetoric. Progressives have and are distorting liberal philosophies because their goals do not necessarily align with those defined as liberal above. I mentioned George B. Shaw because he is one pointed to as a “father” of progressive thought. There are more obvious choices, like those who later took the title; Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt. Notice there is no distinction between Republican or Democrat. Interesting you didn’t mention or object to a contemporary of these, John Dewy, whom I also quoted.

I’ll let one of these be an example of progressive thought and his career accomplishments show a pattern.

“Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence …The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us.” - Woodrow Wilson

“All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.” - Woodrow Wilson

“In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.” (Emphasis added) - Woodrow Wilson

So, to further help I will use your analogy and some distinctions to help understand how I see the difference between a liberal and conservative. Let us just say that cats represent liberals and dogs represent conservatives (only for this example. I would never presume otherwise). We can all live with either, but do have a preference for one or the other. Whether you prefer a cat or a dog, either makes a good pet for the family and depending on the family one fits better than the other. But not all cats or canine are good for the family. It would be a disastrous idea to keep a hungry African Lion or a Dire Wolf as a family pet because chances are great either would destroy the family. If you haven’t already guessed, the African Lion is a liberal progressive and the Dire Wolf is a conservative fascist.

Woodrow Wilson could be called a liberal progressive. Some might try to label me a conservative fascist. I will react very belligerently to that statement. It is untrue because I in no way align myself with any kind of fascist ideas. Conservative, yes; fascist, not in the least. There may be conservative fascist (Hitler) but I’m not one of them. Woodrow Wilson easily lived up to the ideas of a liberal progressive but not all liberals would agree with many of his policies. But true progressives loves his ideas and wish to continue the path. That is what progressivism is all about; if possible quick, radical change. Quick might not be possible, but radical is desired.

This last president, what was his campaign slogan? Oh yea, change. Not enough questioned what kind of change when voting, but now they are asking. What change do we need? Wilson and Obama have much in common. You might believe, “Most lefties would hold up Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Thomas Paine as our founders and role models. We revere the Constitution and hold the Bill of Rights as you do the Ten Commandments”, and I have no issues with it. But progressives have no such proclivity. They want to and need to destroy the republic to accomplish their goals. Some might disagree with this definition of a progressive and lean only to “progress” or “liberal secularism”, but if that is true then you might better stick with liberalism and distant yourself from progressivism.

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Populism Through Patriotism or Progressivism?

"Your love of liberty -- your respect for the laws -- your habits of industry -- and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness."

George Washington

My post, “Progressives Want to Control Information” got this response, which I found needed more space than I had for a simple answer. Here was the comment and my answer follows.

Gaia said...

"Self proclaimed elitists?" Would you cite sources, please, because I've never come across a progressive so proclaimed. On the contrary, we want comprehensive health care for everyone; we want a good education for everyone; we want everyone to vote; we want everyone to pay a fair and reasonable amount of taxes; we want a fair judicial system for everyone. That's not elitist: that's an all-embracing populism."

It is such a simple and reasonable question, but it opens multiple avenues of responses. So I will pluck and pare down the volumes that popped into my head. First, you are intuitive in questioning my phrase “self proclaim elitists” and for good reasons. Anyone who would boldly claim such a title as elitist would come off as very egotistical and contrary to “serving the people”. I was using the term loosely, which I should have defined, to mean someone who acts upon and lives out beliefs of elitism. Self proclaimed in the sense that we act upon our philosophical beliefs. More on that in a moment but because I said it, I’ll give a couple of examples of this elitist attitude.

George Bernard Shaw has many interesting comments. Here is one. “I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, ‘Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?’"

John Dewy – “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

God forbid we have no great answer for a “justify your existence” board or should we learn to think for ourselves. By the way, these two are considered fathers (of many) of the current progressive movement.

There are many others but it is really not the point here. What is actually interesting is that you ignored the fact that I tied elitism to the progressive movement and you seem to equate it to populism. Modern progressive populism is almost like saying frozen fire. It is a great creative word picture but not realistically possible. This is obviously my opinion based on my understanding of Progressives, which I’ll elaborate on later below. I understand your use of populism because it is a good argument against elitism and the philosophy seems to fit your true values.

Populism – “A type of political-social thought that juxtaposes "the people" against "the elites", and urges social and political system changes. It can also be defined as a rhetorical style employed by members of various political or social movements. It is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes" - Wikipedia

We probably can agree to the idea of populism. I say right now that I don’t necessarily embrace the full concepts and the far reaching ideas related to the whole populism, but for the purpose of this apologetic I will address the simple definition above “intended to represent the ordinary people’s needs and wishes”. Where we greatly diverge is from our theoretical root for the idea. It is no secret that I get mine from our nations’ founding rooted in Judeo-Christian theology: that all men are created equal and that they have certain inalienable rights. All are also obliged to obey the natural law, under which we have not only rights but duties. We are obliged "to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves" (Jefferson). This is my idea of an American patriot, borrowed from the Heritage Foundation.

How does a Progressive support populism? First, the predominant view and my understanding of a progressive view is one increasingly radicalized by its transformation into contemporary liberalism. Here are a few points comparing a “progressive” view from a patriots’. (I respectfully use much of the following from the Heritage Foundation)

As mentioned above, “all men are created equal and they have certain inalienable rights” is a patriot’s view. The Progressives rejected these claims as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not "something that individuals have as a ready-made possession." It is "something to be achieved." In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. This is a very important and contrary viewpoint.

Government's main duty for the Founders is to secure that freedom: at home through the making and enforcement of criminal and civil law, abroad through a strong national defense. The protection of life and liberty is achieved through vigorous prosecutions of crime against person and property or through civil suits for recovery of damages, these cases being decided by a jury of one's peers.

The Progressives regarded the Founders' scheme as defective because it took too benign a view of nature. As Dewey remarked, they thought that the individual was ready-made by nature. The Founders' supposed failure to recognize the crucial role of society led the Progressives to disparage the Founders' insistence on limited government. For the Progressives, freedom is redefined as the fulfillment of human capacities, which becomes the primary task of the state.

The American Founders tried to promote the moral conditions of an independent, hard-working citizenry by laws and educational institutions that would encourage such virtues as honesty, moderation, justice, patriotism, courage, frugality, and industry. Government support of religion was generally practiced with a view to these ends. One can see the Founders' view of the connection between religion and morality in such early laws as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which said that government should promote education because "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind."

In Progressivism, the domestic policy of government had two main concerns. First, government must protect the poor and other victims of capitalism through redistribution of resources, anti-trust laws, government control over the details of commerce and production: i.e., dictating at what prices things must be sold, methods of manufacture, government participation in the banking system, and so on. Second, government must become involved in the "spiritual" development of its citizens -- not, of course, through promotion of religion, but through protecting the environment ("conservation"), education (understood as education to personal creativity), and spiritual uplift through subsidy and promotion of the arts and culture.

As can be seen, the paving of a road to populism ethics could be reached by diametrically opposed political platforms: of an American patriot or a modern Progressive. A few final questions come to mind. Which political platform embraces the heart or intent of populism best? Which one has the best proven track record of intentionally protecting the people from elitism? Where should my faith be to bring about such desired principles: man or a higher power? My answer is obvious by the argument outlined. A true American patriot (to quote Gaia) “want(s) comprehensive health care for everyone; we want a good education for everyone; we want everyone to vote; we want everyone to pay a fair and reasonable amount of taxes; we want a fair judicial system for everyone.” Which is the best road to get there?

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

Samuel Adams

Ground Zero Mosque Brings the "P"s Out

“Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Elias Boudinot – President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783 and Director of the United States Mint from 1795 until 1805

The ground zero mosque controversy sure deals with “judge the tree by its fruits”. I had a good friend on a social network post a link to a petition by the ACLU, which I disagreed with for reasons other than its stand on freedom of religion. Here was my comment on it.

“As read, no patriotic American would disagree with the obvious tenets of this petition. There is no argument about freedom of religion. No contention of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s or others agreement to this fact. But what is missing is the ethical argument. Yes, they can build the mosque and have the right to do so. Example: The family of my child’s killer has a right to build next door to me, but should they? A majority would question the wisdom of it and protest. They would question the “intolerance” of that family. Why wouldn’t that family understand and not only agree but want to build somewhere not so offensive? The answer to that would be telling. This petition states some truth, but from a perverted perspective of that truth.”

A friend of this friend posted something simple, and I paraphrase, about not trusting the “patriotic American” phrase because it dealt with “hidden agendas”. I don’t know if they even read the rest of post but if they did that phase seemed to close their mind. I replied by copying pretty much what they wrote and inserted “ACLU” in place of patriot to make the point that we all have some kind of agenda and it only differs from the platform we stand upon. My point was missed and they questioned it blankly and then a short time later remarked with a belittling comment. I left it at that. I afraid others on the network did not, but that’s another story.

Oh, what do I mean about the p’s? Well, as I thought about this I couldn’t help but imagine there are many people who stand on issues with differing perspectives. I wore a label on my sleeve when I chose to use the word patriotic. I did this intentionally as to let people know I was coming from, what is generally considered, a conservative point of view. I would much rather be considered a patriot who knows why I believe something rather then a parrot who can talk it but without perception. We all talk from a platform and it is best to fully understand it, rather than just stand on it. Normally what happens with the latter is one ends up just being P-Oed and has difficulty acting politely. I am sure you have witnessed the same thing in the media the last few weeks around the controversy of the mosque. All I suggest is, be open, listen patiently to others’ ideas but know where you stand and be able to give an account with dignity.

Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787

Progressives Want to Control Information

“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation (clarification), than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.” (Parenthesis added)

James Madison

Nothing irks me more than when self proclaimed elitists (most progressives) claim and work under the impression that they have the only right answers to govern the people. Here is just one recent example of that pious but ignorant philosophical stance.

 

“With many state legislatures poised to take up some kind of reform-related legislation next year, a group of liberal state lawmakers is preparing Fall events to defend the law in their state houses against “the very conservative politicians and interest groups that are really confusing the American public,” the group's chairman, Iowa State Sen. Jack Hatch, tells PULSE.”

POLITICO Pulse, Aug 19th, 2010

Jack Hatch and all his liberal friends believe the common people are too ignorant to discern appropriate understanding of all views and feel we can only be “confused” by having more than one perspective to choose from. What scares Jack and friends is exactly the issues James Madison addressed above. If the people like the truth and it conflicts with ideology needed to change or annihilate the republic our nation is founded upon, then we shouldn’t be “confusing the American public”.

This doesn’t mean the majority always has it right and our republic has systems within it to help understand and slow process until truth is discerned and people can right any misguided directions that lead us from our great American republic. A great case in point is the majority now feels the direction our present government is headed is not the direction we wish to go. Basically, “we the people” have had time to see and feel the decisions of our current administration and know it is the wrong way. The majority made a mistake November 2008, which led to the Tea Party movement and similar “interest groups”. Jack Hatch, his cronies and the current administration don’t like it when the people “are confused”, which is really people thinking, educated and having choices. The real “confused” ones are them that don’t understand or like the working, living republic we currently have. Now it is up to us to keep it by voting for those who agree with the truth of the American Republic. Nothing will confuse a progressive more.