America today is polarized into two major camps. The polarization I am
talking about has nothing to due with President Obama’s desire to divide our people on issues of wealth disparity or racial discord. Instead, we are divided on the issue of whether the form of our federal government should be one of small size and limited powers over the people or whether it should be very powerful with near absolute control over the people.
Those in the first camp wish to live free with minimum interference from
government. They believe in the vision of our Founders; that we have certain inalienable rights and the Federal government’s primary reason for being is to protect our inalienable rights. They believein the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as the guides as to how our Federal government is to operate.
The second camp is made up of statist who believe in a strong central
government that will solve all of societies woes. They believe, for example, that the commence clause and the general welfare clause of the constitution give the central government this power. How they rationalize this position with the enumerated powers clause, I do not know. They believe it is perfectly okay, in the name of social justice, for the courts to write law. In short, they believe that the constitution has out lived its usefulness. What worries me most about
this group is that the vast majority seem to be unaware (or maybe they don’t care) that here is a small group within their midst I and others refer to as The Powers That Be (TPTB). TPTB are made up of powerful elitist bankers, politicians and corporatist. The TPTB would like to lead the United States into a new One World Order (OWO) with one central world bank, with one world currency and one central world governing body and an oligarchy of corporatist, in other words, a one world fascist government.
Our government today is very skewed in favor of those in the second camp. This has happened even though for much of our history the statist were a small percentage of our population and of the electorate. We could talk about how socialist elements infiltrated our institutions and were able to gradually change our form of government without most of us recognizing what had happened until recently but that has been discussed here and thousands of other conservative opinion sites before. What I want to touch on is the role played by human nature.
Thanks to the Classic Liberal blog, I happened to read an article by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com. Although Brandon’s article has to do with how to defeat the bankers rather than what we are talking about today, the first part
of his article is quite relevant.
In Franz Kafka’s most popular work “The Trial”, his characters relate a short parable which has fascinated and confused curious readers for generations. That parable is entitled “Before The Law”, and its message has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and agonized over by the labyrinthine contrariness of academia, producing numerous conflicting views:
To understand the dilemma portrayed in Kafka’s “Before The Law”, we
are presented with this video:
Here is Brandon’s take on the controversy:
I see “The Trial” and “Before The Law” not as treatise on the futility of man’s search for justice, but as a warning on the foolishness of man’s dependency on systems not rooted in conscience. That is to say, we have a tendency to linger about idly while others make our decisions for us. We expect the system we live in to provide answers, to provide nurturance, to provide fairness, and to provide change where necessary. This expectation is a dangerous one.
Most social and political systems today are designed around collectivist methodologies. Their primary tool is centralization of power, and the removal of choice from the public consciousness. We are made to believe that the establishment is necessary for our survival, and that to abandon it would mean certain destruction. We are taught that the individual is subservient and inconsequential in the face of the state. This is simply not so. Like the traveler in “Before The Law”, we have been defeated by our own expectations of how the law (or justice) works. We sit and wait for permission, when we should be charging through the gates and taking what is rightfully ours.
The author’s last two sentences in the above quote has to do with his theme of how to defeat the banks. For our purposes, those last two sentences might have read _ “Like the traveler in Before The Law, we have been defeated by our own expectations on government works. We sit and wait for government to do something we should be telling the government to stop what they have been doing.” At any rate, I think that Brandon’s analysis of the dilemma presented by Kafka is true.
So, yes we can point our fingers at the sneaky socialist who infiltrated our institutions and slowly but surely changed our constitutional republic in to something very close to the democratic socialist states that we see in Europe.
But we must also point the finger at ourselves as a people who, in the majority for the last many decades, have looked to government to solve our social issues rather than hold to the concepts put forth by our Founders when they wrote our constitution and gave us a republic.
America today is indeed a divided people. We are very much at war over what form of government our nation will take into the future. A war that will not be won with guns but with ideas and ideals. Do not be confused by the polls, my
friends. That 70% believe the country is on the wrong track does not tell the whole story. The presidents relative popularity over that of Congress tells me that many people are still looking for government solutions to our problems. If I had to guess what the split is in America today, I would say that our side, the side that believes in the vision of our Founders is 40 to 45% of the electorate and that those aligned with statism are an equal number. The battle is for
those in the middle who, for whatever reason do not see themselves in either camp.
Our side believes the Constitution says what it means and means what is says. The statist side believes that the commerce clause and the general welfare cause give them the constitutional authority to do what they want. Please
watch this Bill Whittle video that I borrowed (stole) from Adrienne at Adrienne’s
Cornor for some solid arguments against the position of the statist.
The battle then is over the hearts and minds and ultimately the votes of this unaligned middle group of the electorate. We must seek out those in this middle group and make our pitch with passion. We have history on our side;
statism has always failed wherever it has been tried. We offer freedom and a chance to build a better future. The statist can only offer indentured servitude and, if the TPTB have their way, we will even lose our sovereignty. The last thought I want to leave you with today is that this battle must fought on every level of government; from the local school board elections to the presidential elections.
Well,that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?