“Twitter and Facebook speed up communication, but slow down thought” (1)

I must admit that I came into this election year with the lowest of all expectations for my party and my country.

On a personal level, I vowed to pay less attention to news…at least the finer details and (mind numbing) chatter associated with so many stories blasted out in the daily news cycle. Unfortunately, this meant significantly less time on RedState.  (I seem to have acquired a sensitivity…a near allergic reaction…to repeated multi-hundred comment threads that suck all of the oxygen out of the site.  Sure, there are nuggets buried in each but I now gag at the thought of wading through so much…other stuff…that I usually just move on.)  My intent is to spend more time reading “substance” (as defined by me, of course) and it is that path, along with my more remote view of today’s news, that brings me here today with Orwell on my mind.

(Quick note: I highly recommend the VDH Works and Days column that the opening quote was lifted from.)

Yesterday morning, while reading the book and essay referenced in the title above, I came across the following passage:

“Contrary to popular belief, the past was not more eventful than the present.  If is seems so it is because when you look backward things that happened years apart are telescoped together.
…
But if you were alive during the war [WWI], and if you disentangle your real memories from the later accretions, you find that it was not usually the big events that stirred you at the time.  I don’t believe that the battle of the Marne, for instance, had for the general public the melodramatic quality that it was afterwards given.  I do not even remember hearing the phrase ‘battle of the Marne’ till years later.  It was merely that the Germans were 22 miles from Paris – and certainly that was terrifying enough, after the Belgian atrocity stories – and then for some reason turned back.
…
If I honestly sort out my memories and disregard what I have learned since, I must admit that nothing in the whole war moved me so deeply as the loss of the Titanic had done a few years earlier.  This comparatively petty disaster shocked the whole world, and the shock has not quite died away even yet.” (2)

The first segment has a somewhat unrelated but local (Redstate) appeal to me…and may be a good example for other topics.  As we sit here today, looking back through the flattening filter of 2009 and “Climategate” there is – and will increasingly be – the sentiment among right thinking people that it was always clear that Mr. Gore’s Global Warming was an obvious hoax.  But that misses the largely ignored discussions among the great continuum of deniers to partial acceptors to believers that took place in 2006 in out of the way places like RedState. (And for some of us…deniers that is…as far back as the mid to late 1990s.)

The larger point I take from Mr. Orwell is that the importance of certain events (or issues) is often assigned long after the fact.  What he doesn’t necessarily touch on is that the “assigners” most likely have an agenda.  In his example it may simply be the winners writing the history for their own consumption…and largely harmless.  In other arenas this phenomenon may be the cynical process of selectively focusing a candidate’s distant past for modern consumption.

To be more specific (with no endorsement intended), let’s look at the exposure of a candidate’s marital issues from more than a decade ago…laced with un-provable, targeted, inflammatory language…pushed out into public view just prior to a critical primary election.  It is worth noting that in times contemporary to these alleged events, this same press worked feverishly to muddy the waters around marital infidelity and worse (sexual harassment, what constitutes sex, and direct accusations of rape) to protect a politician of their liking from negative public opinion.  In particular, this past manipulation was very much like the present example; it sought to manipulate WOMEN VOTERS.

Unfortunately, this kind of stuff works and, as I said above, my expectations this year are very low.  My only hope resides in what I call the “Doctor Scenario”.  That is meant to contrast the urgency between normal, healthy times, when one can take the time to fully assess the character of their general practitioner and weigh his number of ex-wives versus the marginal quality of his abilities and the time critical moment in life when one is being wheeled into the emergency room and doesn’t (shouldn’t) really give a rat’s rump how many ex-wives the best surgeon on staff has or what they may say about him.  Which situation are we in today?  As a voting bloc, I don’t expect women to defy human nature and the blatant manipulation of their emotions; I just hope enough of them do to do the right thing.  (Again, no endorsement here but I do lean Newt…or at least a proper, extended primary race…at this moment.)

To be clear, I believe a candidate’s past should be part of the full assessment of his positions and his character.  But that alone is not…cannot…be the full measure of the that person today.  Whether in marriage or business people change.  They are necessarily tied to their entire past but each stand before us today in circumstances unique and critical to our future as a republic.  This decision is too important…is should not be swayed by the shallow, cynical manipulations of a biased media machine that is really working for the other team.

To get even more serious, I return to 1940 and Orwell:

“I don’t quite know in what year I first knew for certain that the present war was coming.  After 1936, of course, the thing was obvious to anyone except an idiot” (3)

I’ve touched on this before (4) but the point should be stated as bluntly as possible:  Our country and our world will be in worse shape in 2016 than it is today…no matter who occupies the White House a year from now.  We are well beyond quick fixes; the questions we are answering this year have to do with the stability and trajectory of that future condition.  It must be said with very little uncertainty that a second Obama term will find us in a continued, accelerated socialist death spiral.  If you cannot see this today…for even all but the most extreme cheerleaders in the media hint at it frequently (at the very least, it shows in their eyes)…then you may very well be Orwell’s idiot.  As for a Republican administration from the current viable crop, I don’t pretend for a minute that I wouldn’t be sitting here in 2016 greatly disappointed with what a President Gingrich or President Romney had done for four years but, at worst, the death spiral would be less steep and there would at least be some upside potential.

My greatest fear, however, it that the massive debt, uncertainty, and lack of leadership here and around the civilized world has already dealt war into the cards and that in 2016 all of us, like Orwell then, will know for certain it is coming.  And then we will look back and realize that the big events…the misuse of TARP, the rape of the Chrysler bond holders (5), the quiet implementation of Obamacare under cover of blackmail/waivers (6), did not sufficiently stir us at the time but we were greatly exercised over the uncorroborated claim from the most biased of sources of a decade old request for an “open marriage”.  Will our view through that filter allow us to see 2012 clearly or will that be re-written by then for our most comfortable consumption?

Once again, my expectations for my party and my country are very low in 2012.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) Why Read Anymore? by Victor Davis Hanson, January 16, 2012 http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/so-why-read-anymore/

(2) Facing Unpleasant Facts – Narrative Essays (by George Orwell), Compiled by George Packer, pg 52.

(3) Facing Unpleasant Facts – Narrative Essays (by George Orwell), Compiled by George Packer, pg 56.

(4) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/04/30/a-curse-reserved/

(5) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/03/27/the-republic-expires-in-silence-%e2%80%9c%e2%80%a6but-the-supreme-court-declined-to-hear-their-case%e2%80%9d/

(6) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/04/16/anti-liberty-america%e2%80%99s-expanding-functional-tyranny/

“This little book has no ‘hidden agenda’. it is offered in the most cheerful and open polemical spirit, as an attack on a crooked president and a corrupt and reactionary administration”

With that as the opening line in the Preface of his 1999 book “No One Left To Lie To (The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton)“, I quickly became a fan of this author…Christopher Hitchens.

I was very sad to see the news of his death pop up on my computer screen this morning.

To be honest, I only read three of his books.  The other two – “Why Orwell Matters” and “Letters to a Young Contrarian” – made it to my bookshelf just last year.  And, even more honesty, I’m not real sure how often I really agreed with him.  There are certainly a few very Big Concepts that he and I would have never come to any kind of agreement on but that really wasn’t the point.  He was a true thinker and, whether in print or in person (on my TV), Mr. Hitchens always made me think.  His points…his arguments…were blunt and always delivered with more than sufficient force.  On many levels…around work, among friends, or even on your favorite insufficiently conservative blog site…we all need fewer talkers and more thinkers in our lives.  His contributions to serious discussions around the world will be missed.

Just because I can, here are a few random bits of wisdom…just a taste… from the underlined passages in my copy:

“I cringe every time I hear denunciations of ‘the politics of division’—as if politics was not division by definition.  Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety.  Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom. ”

…

“Bear in mind, however, that Utopia itself was a tyranny and that much of the talk about the analgesic and conflict-free ideal is likewise more menacing than it may appear.”

…

“It is only those who hope to transform humans who end up by burning them, like the waste product of a failed experiment.” (Letters to a Young Contrarian, pages 31-32)

and…

“I suggest you learn to recognize and avoid the symptoms of the zealot and the person who knows that he is right.  For the dissenter, the skeptical mentality is at least as important as any armor of principle” (Letters to a Young Contrarian, page 33)

There is much more where that came from.  I recommend you take some time away from here over the Holidays and read something…maybe even some Hitchens.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

For anyone interested, this is the sixth installment of a little self-educational, comparative study of Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Clarence Thomas in their own words perhaps inappropriately posted under the Book Notes banner.  Please refer back to my Preface diary for a little more background (1). While obviously amateurish in nature, we’ll see where this one time experiment takes me/us and hopefully the effort will spark someone with talent to take up andyd’s torch.

Just as the first section of Mr. Douglass’s story gives powerful insight into parts of slavery not often discussed…a topic I hope to return to in some detail in the final installment of this exercise…Mr. Thomas ends with his passage through the conformation process for the Supreme Court.  Much of this section is devoted to that episode.

First, some firsthand insight from Mr. Douglass and proof he knew Joe Biden long ago:

“It is easy to whip a man when his hands are tied.  It requires little courage…” (2)

At least, thanks to the previous Bork experience, Mr. Thomas knew his hands were to be tied going in and the cowardly machine he was about to face (emphasis added):

“…there was nothing to be gained from engaging in extended debate with the members of the Judiciary Committee.  A confirmation hearing…is something to be endured, not an opportunity to engage in thoughtful public discussion.” (3)

Once again, Mr. Douglass provided a preview a century earlier…and where you see the word “popular” think “cynical liberal”:

“…I was under a considerable cloud not altogether free from angry lightning.  False friends of both colors were loading me with reproaches.  No man, perhaps, had ever more offended popular prejudice than I had then lately done.  I had married…a wife a few shades lighter than myself.” (4)

And once again, Mr. Thomas knew the coward’s playbook…the coming smear campaign to provide cover for targeted voters to not support him:

“…by making discreet, strategically placed mentions of the fact that my wife was white” (5)

Oh, and he also knew who the cowards were.  When asked if anyone would be bothered by his interracial marriage he replied:

“Only bigots and liberals!” (6)

On that note, a quick aside for my take on the Cain takedown that seems to have reached an unfortunate end game as of yesterday.  The truth is that the long, drawn out circus was not the intention of the perpetrators of this political assassination but the product of a MSM that used it for their own sensationalistic purposes…a Frankenstein’s monster wholly owned by our ruling class.  In a way, the whole thing reminds me of a friend of a friend who once took his talents to open tryouts for an NFL team and the better he did the more blatant the efforts by the insider class…those drafted into the system…became to end his year (if you know what I mean.)

Anyway, putting the whole circus aside, the Cain takedown was intended to be a much quicker and quieter affair…it was actually executed to near perfection in the first couple of days…the discreet, strategically placed leaks and then the face of a white woman “accuser” plastered on front pages all over the country…now the targeted subsets of voters had the cover needed to withdraw their support.  This was supposed to be a three day story…a quick cut to his Achilles to let him limp to the side of the road and out of the race.  As Mr. Thomas puts it:

“I’d warned her that some of my opponents would try to kill me.  Now we both knew what their weapon of choice was to be: the age-old…instrument of accusing a black man of sexual misconduct.” (7)

The rest has all been fluff…partially brought on by Mr. Cain’s refusal to go quietly…and nothing more than a MSM game.  As a similarly proud and defiant character, Mr. Thomas already had his back:

“This is a circus.  It is a national disgrace.  And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that, unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured [by cable TV schmucks] rather than hung from a tree.” (8)

For the record, I believe Mr. Thomas.  I believe Anita Hill is a liar…but I also believe she was a sinful pawn in this matter.  The real evil resided in the Senators on the Judiciary Committee (and the liberal establishment en masse) and probably even more so, by reading a bit between the lines, in the nameless, faceless committee staff that orchestrated the entire charade.  Per Thomas (bold emphasis added):

“Hypersensitive civil-rights leaders who saw racism around every corner fell silent when by liberal enemies sneered that I was unqualified to sit on the Court; editors and reporters who claimed to be objective substituted a pretense of balance for true fairness, presenting outrageous, wholly unsupported allegations side by side with sputtering denials.  The implausible was now being treated more favorably than the obvious.”

“As for the Senate, it had abandoned all semblance of decorum to consider a set of trumped-up charges better suited to the tabloids than the Congressional Record.  I know of at least one senator sitting in judgment of me against whom accusations of sexual improprieties had been leveled that made Anita’s charges look mild. … I was sickened by their hypocrisy as I was mystified by the sequence of events that had set this hideous farce in motion.” (9)

Hypocrisy…hideous farce…for some reason the names Pelosi and Reid come to mind.  As for back then, those Senators and their staff are truly despicable people.  And, in case you haven’t noticed, Joe Biden is a schmuck.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/07/15/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-primary-american-character/
(2) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 400.
(3) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 232-233.
(4) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 391-392.
(5) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 232.
(6) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 210.
(7) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 243.
(8) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 271.
(9) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 257-258.

Previous Installments:

Volume 1.1: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/08/20/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-1-%e2%80%93-evolving-expectations/

Volume 1.2: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/09/30/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-2-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9ci-had-better-things-to-do-than-be-angry-%e2%80%9d/

Volume 1.3: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/11/11/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-3-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cslavery-was-a-state-of-war%e2%80%9d/

Volume 1.4: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/11/18/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-4-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9ca-tonic-like-no-other%e2%80%9d/

Volume 1.5: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/11/19/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-5-%e2%80%93-douglass-decimates-obamacare/

Buried way down in the eighth paragraph of the Micheal Rubin piece titled “Iran’s Nuclear Project – The IAEA’s report on the Iranian nuclear bomb was predictable and inevitable” (1) is the passage reference in the only-slightly-overstated title above:

“…Van Diepen, whom Secretary of State Clinton has taken under her wing…”

Those who know me best may initially think that I am referring primarily to the four word cabinet official description but they would be wrong. It is as backhanded as I can possibly make it but she is arguably the most respectable among any cabinet member who has served this President.  However, as I’ve discussed before (2), her in that position is still a joke of epic proportions:

“My focus is on two occasions when this woman was presented with positions of either great responsibility and/or great importance in deciding the path history would take in both legal and political realms and the decisions she made.  The first revolves around her highest profile experience to utilize her ‘brilliant’ legal mind.  Her Watergate experience had potential to be celebrated on high by lefties everywhere but, instead, it earned her the recommendation of being not suitable for ‘any future position of public or private trust’ (3) and is mostly forgotten to history.   A few more details from her boss to complete the picture:

‘Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.’ (4)

The second occasion is her testimony under oath during the Travelgate investigation…you know, the testimony in which her statements, under oath, were patently false (5).  Again, she’s a liar and both situations demonstrated her complete contempt for the American systems of law and government.”

But, I digress.

No, this time my focus is on the (unfortunately) anonymous sounding two words “Van Diepen” and the implication that the good Madam Secretary is passing the not-suitable-for-any-future-position-of-public-trust torch to a hand chosen successor who is demonstrably worthy of the badge.  If the words “Van Diepen”…as in Vann H. Van Diepen…are not familiar to you, unfortunately you are not alone.  Along with a Mr. Thomas Fingar and Mr. Kenneth Brill, Mr. Van Diepen bears responsibility for the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.

For those not familiar with this fraudulent document from the tyrannical senior bureaucratic chambers of our own government, I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the first chapter of Bill Gertz’s book “The Failure Factory – How Elected Officials, Liberal Democrats, and Big Government Republicans are Undermining America’s Security and Leading us to War” (6).  Here, however, I’ll stick with Mr. Rubin’s words (emphasis added):

“Much of the 2007 NIE was fiction. The biggest difference between the 2003 NIE and its 2007 counterpart was the conclusion that Iran had stopped its weapons program. The 2007 NIE, however, went beyond normal intelligence analysis and actively sought to guide policy. Against a backdrop of speculation that Bush might use military force against Iran, the 2007 NIE concluded that Iran’s supposed decision to cease nuclear-weapons work was a result of diplomacy. Therefore, the estimate concluded, Iran was susceptible to diplomatic persuasion. If this was the consensus opinion of the intelligence community, it was a deeply flawed and tenuous conclusion. After all, 2003 also coincided with Iran’s shock at the speed with which American troops occupied Iraq and ended Saddam’s quarter-century rule. American troops had done in three weeks what Iranian troops had failed to do in an eight-year war. By falsely endorsing diplomacy’s effectiveness, committing America to an ineffective strategy for years to come, the 2007 NIE represented an intelligence failure whose repercussions may be even more devastating than the CIA’s failure to accurately access Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs ahead of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The 2007 NIE’s conclusions led the Bush administration to reinvigorate diplomacy. This enabled Tehran to run down the clock to the verge of nuclear capability.”

Read the whole thing.

Mr. Gertz refers to this episode as “bureaucratic betrayal” but that is just too soft for me.  These men didn’t betray  just a person…their boss…the President…they “betrayed” the lawful workings of the United States government as chosen by We the People.  They assumed responsibility far above their pay grade…they betrayed their country…and there is a much stronger word for that.

And did I mention that the Secretary of State seems to see (and want to groom) a bright future in one of these schmucks.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/282466/iran-s-nuclear-project-michael-rubin
(2) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2008/12/21/slouching-towards-change%e2%80%a6and-the-american-politburo-being-assembled-to-make-sure-we-get-there/
(3) http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillarys-watergate-scandals-part-1
(4) http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillarys-own-watergate-scandal-part-three
(5) http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york061303.asp (Link from the original dairy…no longer available…why?)
(6) http://www.amazon.com/Failure-Factory-Bureaucrats-Republicans-Undermining/dp/B002T450LO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321807885&sr=1-1

For anyone interested, this is the fifth installment of a little self-educational, comparative study of Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Clarence Thomas in their own words perhaps inappropriately posted under the Book Notes banner.  Please refer back to my Preface diary for a little more background (1). While obviously amateurish in nature, we’ll see where this one time experiment takes me/us and hopefully the effort will spark someone with talent to take up andyd’s torch.

I cannot stop myself from another Douglass-only aside…please stick with me here.

With the recent news that our current Supreme Court will make some sort of (surely unsatisfying) decision on the legislative farce frequently referred to as Obamacare, I found it more than a bit interesting that six score and one year ago, Mr. Frederick Douglass made the perfect case in just over 200 words, if not necessarily for declaring it unconstitutional, for exposing its illegitimacy beyond the pale. Here, ironically, he is arguing against the court’s actions in declaring the Civil Rights Law of 1875 unconstitutional:

“Now, when a bill has been discussed for weeks and month and even years, in the press and on the platform, in Congress and out of Congress; when it has been calmly debated by the clearest heads and the most skillful and learned lawyers in the land; when every argument against it has been over and over again carefully considered and fairly answered; when its constitutionality has been especially discussed, pro and con; when it has passed the United States House of Representatives and has been solemnly enacted by the United States Senate (perhaps the most imposing legislative body in the world); when such a bill has been submitted to the cabinet of the nation, composed of the ablest men in the land; when it has passed under the scrutinizing eye of the Attorney-General of the United States; when the Executive of the Nation has given to it his name and formal approval; when it has taken its place upon the statute-book and has remained there for nearly a decade, and the country has largely assented to it, you will agree with me that the reasons for declaring such a law unconstitutional and void should be strong, irresistible, and absolutely conclusive.”

“Inasmuch as the law in question is a law in favor of liberty and justice, it ought to have had the benefit of any doubt which could arise as to its strict constitutionality.” (2)

Line-by-line, right up to the President’s signature, the passage of The Affordable Care Act of 2010 fails every “and” logical operator condition in this Block IF statement.  Starting here:

“…when a bill has been discussed for weeks and month and even years, in the press and on the platform, in Congress and out of Congress;”

Notice the subject is not “idea”, “concept”, or “desired earmarks or cynical promises for irrelevant Executive Orders”, he specifically says “a bill” as in legislative language, a document, a tangible, complete document.  It should be clear to all that nothing of the sort even existed as the President gave is “name and approval” to this massive anti-liberty bastard.

“…when it has been calmly debated by the clearest heads and the most skillful and learned lawyers in the land; when every argument against it has been over and over again carefully considered and fairly answered;”

Remember the weekend, late night sessions with no real bill to debate…we were told it must be passed for us to then see what was in it.  Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Collins, Nelson, Landrieu, Stupak, the CBO…this bastard has many “skillfull and learned” mothers.

“…when its constitutionality has been especially discussed, pro and con;”

Three words: “Are you kidding?” (3)  (Yes, go to that link below.)  The words “Speaker Pelosi” should forever be remembered as the vomit that choked every remaining ounce of credibility from the Party of Jefferson.

“…when it has passed the United States House of Representatives and has been solemnly enacted by the United States Senate (perhaps the most imposing legislative body in the world);”

I assume a man of character like Mr. Douglass had an understanding of the word “passed” that would be left wanting in Ms. Pelosi’s House as would the parenthetical above in Mr. Reid’s chamber.

“…when such a bill has been submitted to the cabinet of the nation, composed of the ablest men in the land; when it has passed under the scrutinizing eye of the Attorney-General of the United States;”

I am comfortable that history will soon record that “ablest” and “scrutinizing eye” will not be acceptable words for this administration and Mr. Holder, respectively.

Finally,

“…when it has taken its place upon the statute-book and has remained there for nearly a decade, and the country has largely assented to it, you will agree with me that the reasons for declaring such a law unconstitutional and void should be strong, irresistible, and absolutely conclusive.”

Near immediate rejection by many states, the 2010 elections, and politically motivated waivers flowing from the crack house of the bastard’s father…I agree, “the reasons for declaring such a law unconstitutional and void [are indeed] strong, irresistible, and absolutely conclusive.”

Finally, the timeless wisdom of Mr. Douglass that is flatly rejected by ninety-odd-percent of the heirs to his life’s work:

“I knew that however bad the Republican party was, the Democratic party was much worse.” (4)

I imagine that this current ninety-odd-percent would cheer the court’s 1883 logic – “although the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, it does not give the state the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals” (5) – just as much as they surely will the intellectual contortions that will soon result in a constitutional affirmation of severability and the individual mandate.

Not.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/07/15/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-primary-american-character/
(2) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 398.
(3) Powerline Archive: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028508.php
(4) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 407.
(5) Civil Rights Act of 1875, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875

Previous Installments:

Volume 1.1: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/08/20/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-1-%e2%80%93-evolving-expectations/

Volume 1.2: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/09/30/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-2-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9ci-had-better-things-to-do-than-be-angry-%e2%80%9d/

Volume 1.3: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/11/11/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-3-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cslavery-was-a-state-of-war%e2%80%9d/

Volume 1.4: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/11/18/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-4-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9ca-tonic-like-no-other%e2%80%9d/

For anyone interested, this is the fourth installment of a little self-educational, comparative study of Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Clarence Thomas in their own words perhaps inappropriately posted under the Book Notes banner.  Please refer back to my Preface diary for a little more background (1). While obviously amateurish in nature, we’ll see where this one time experiment takes me/us and hopefully the effort will spark someone with talent to take up andyd’s torch.

Please indulge me in a short Douglass-only aside in this little exercise.

Being a Grant man…as in Ulysses S. Grant… I just cannot stop myself from offering this little bit of history on selecting a Republican nominee and suggesting some applicability to our current process.  Here is Mr. Douglass speaking of the election of 1880 (emphasis added):

“Mr. Garfield, though a good man, was not my man for the presidency.  For that place I wanted a man of sterner stuff.  I was for General Grant, and for him with all the embarrassment and burden of a ‘third term’ attached to his candidacy.  I held that even defeat with Grant was better than success with a temporizer.” (2)

Get that…this former slave, facing a likely changing national tide back towards less liberty, takes a stand against the safe “good man” and would rather lose with principle than win with a moderate even if this meant going in with an imperfect candidate.  I cannot say absolutely that such a stand would be prudent at our current American moment but offer it here for your consideration.

He also provides some interesting commentary on the character and characteristics of that “good man” contrasted against his man (emphasis added):

“In the Senate Mr. Garfield was in his place.  He was able in debate, amiable in disposition, and lovable in character, and when surrounded by the right influences would be sure to go right, but he did not, to my mind, have in his moral make-up sufficient ‘backbone’ to fit him for the chief magistracy of the nation at such a time as was then upon the country.  In this place a clear head, quick decision and firm purpose are required.  The conditions demanded stalwart qualities and he was not a stalwart.” (3)

It seems there are seasons in history for political spine…and in America, of course, they come every four years…but the media induced electoral ignorance of 2006 and 2008 have forced great import upon 2012 and the “sterner stuff” needed to lead on from there.

Mr. Douglass goes on to comment about his Republican party four years later nominating a losing candidate; who it seems sealed his own fate with a history of moderate positions (emphasis added):

“Up to that hour the Republican party was courageous, confident, and strong, and able to elect any candidate it might deem it wise to put in nomination for the Presidency, but from that hour it was smitten with moral decay; its courage quailed, its confidence vanished, and it has since hardly lived at all, but has been suspended, and has, comparatively, only lingered between life and death.  The lesson taught by its example and its warning is that political parties, like individual men, are only strong while they are consistent and honest, and that treachery and deception are only the sand on which political fools vainly endeavor to build.” (4)

There is much deeper stuff in there but for now I can only focus on the “treachery and deception” phrasing as our current despicable, collusively-bipartisan budgetary charade…this time in the form of an Orwellian Super Committee…sets up (or is it “has been set up”) to do great violence to my liberty and my future for the third time this year.

I’ll end with leadership…winning leadership…as General Grant wins over his troops (his base) upon exiting The Wilderness:

“Saturday, May 7, 1864, dawned cloudy and overcast.  A slow drizzle moved in and an uneasy quiet settled over the battlefield. … Unlike his Confederate counterpart, the average Union soldier thought his side had been whipped. … Almost to a man the troops assumed the next order they received would be to withdraw and recross the Rapidan, probably to undergo yet another reorganization under yet another commander who would eventually lead them into another battle that would end in another retreat.  That was the all-too-familiar pattern of the Army of the Potomac when it faced Robert E. Lee in Virginia.”

“That afternoon when the artillery limbered up and moved out, the troops believed their suspicions had been confirmed.  …  To their astonishment the columns headed south.  They were not marching back across the Rapidan but toward Richmond and the tiny hamlet of Spotsylvania Court House, an important road intersection twelve miles southeast of the Wilderness, in open country and directly athwart Lee’s line of communication.”

“For the troops of the Army of the Potomac, the realization they were moving south was a tonic like no other.  Packs became lighter, the pace quickened, and the buzz of excitement spread down the marching columns.” (5)

“All-too-familiar pattern”…?  The safe “good man”…?  Dole, McCain…NEXT?  No, like the good Mr. Douglass, I’m a Grant man.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/07/15/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-primary-american-character/
(2) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 384.
(3) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 384.
(4) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 394.
(5) Grant by Jean Edward Smith, Pages 337-338

Previous Installments:

Volume 1.1: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/08/20/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-1-%e2%80%93-evolving-expectations/

Volume 1.2: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/09/30/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-2-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9ci-had-better-things-to-do-than-be-angry-%e2%80%9d/

Volume 1.3: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/11/11/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-3-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cslavery-was-a-state-of-war%e2%80%9d/

For anyone interested, this is the third installment of a little self-educational, comparative study of Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Clarence Thomas in their own words perhaps inappropriately posted under the Book Notes banner.  Please refer back to my Preface diary for a little more background (1). While obviously amateurish in nature, we’ll see where this one time experiment takes me/us and hopefully the effort will spark someone with talent to take up andyd’s torch.

Pressing on…339 pages of Douglass, 85 pages of Washington, and 215 pages of Thomas.

With the strange word “chappaqua” ringing in my ears; I cannot resist this slap at the character of some among our current ruling class from Mr. Douglass upon his being urged to move to the South after the war in order to run for elective office:

“The thought of going to live among a people in order to gain their votes and acquire official honors was repugnant to my self respect, and I had not lived long enough in the political atmosphere of Washington to have this sentiment sufficiently blunted to make me indifferent to its suggestion.” (2)

On a more serious note, it is hard not to appreciate a serious, intellectual understanding of the founding of this Republic as opposed to the more recent politically correct revisionism of those times and people:

“…the Constitution of the United States not only contained no guarantees in favor of slavery, but, on the contrary, was in its letter and spirit an antislavery instrument, demanding the abolition of slavery as a condition of its own existence as the supreme law of the land.” (3)

Followed up with this with respect to the necessity of this “instrument” or ruling document applying to all:

“…the fathers of the Republic neither intended the extension nor the perpetuity of slavery and that liberty is national and slavery is sectional.” (4)

As I’ve commented elsewhere, it is worth reading his take on the lead up to war and the “shameful” behavior of President Buchanan but I will wrap up this section with his impression upon meeting President Lincoln:

“Long lines of care were already deeply written on Mr. Lincoln’s brow, and his strong face, full of earnestness, lighted up as soon as my name was mentioned.  As I approached and was introduced to him he arose and extended his hand, and bade me a welcome.  I at once felt myself in the presence of an honest man – one whom I could love, honor, and trust without reserve or doubt.” (5)

I suspect this species of pure, undeniable character has been extinct inside the beltway for quite some time.  (By the way, the title quote above comes from a recounting of a conversation the author was having with John Brown, page 196.)

As for Mr. Washington, here I’ll let him school our Occupy Wall Street friends a bit:

“My experience…has taught me to have no patience with those people who are always condemning the rich because they are rich, and because they do not give more to objects of charity.  In the first place, those who are guilty of such sweeping criticisms do not know how many people would be made poor, an how much suffering would result, if wealthy people were to part all at once with any large proportion of their wealth in a way to disorganize and cripple great business enterprises.” (6)

With just a little more anti-leftism advise:

“I have usually proceeded on the principle that persons who possess sense enough to earn money have sense enough to know how to give it away.” (7)

Finally, somehow he manages to offer this direct hit on our current diminutive executive:

“…great men cultivate love, and that only little men cherish a spirit of hatred.” (8)

A little man indeed.

Not to be left out, the good Mr. Thomas socks it to our political class:

“…I no longer believed in utopian solutions, or the cynical politicians who used them to sucker voters, claiming to care about the poor while actually exploiting them.” (9)

…knowing full well what happens when the inevitable occurs:

“Years later these same dogmatists would walk away from the wreckage of their failed policies, like children tossing aside a broken toy.  But the victims they left behind were real people—my people” (10)

…and the true nature of those involved:

“I’d already noticed that it was liberals, not conservatives, who were more likely to condescend to blacks.” (11)

On that note, I’ll wrap up this edition with a story related by Mr. Douglass that…for me at least…near perfectly illustrates some of these themes and what today’s elected Left truly thinks of their most solid voting block:

“In one of my antislavery campaigns in New York five and thirty years ago I had an appointment at Victor, a town in Ontario County.  I was compelled to stop at the hotel.  It was the custom at that time to seat the guests at a long table running the length of the dining-room.  When I entered I was shown a little table off in the corner.  I knew what it meant, but took my dinner all the same.  When I went to the desk to pay my bill I said, ‘Now, landlord, be good enough to tell me just why you gave me my dinner at the little table in the corner by myself.’  He was equal to the occasion, and quickly replied, ‘Because, you see, I wished to give you something better than the others.’  The cool reply staggered me, and I gathered up my change, muttering only that I did not want to be treated better than other people, and bade him good morning.” (12)

What was that word that Mr. Thomas used? Oh yea, “SUCKERS”.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/07/15/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-primary-american-character/
(2) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 290.
(3) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 186.
(4) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 218.
(5) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 251.
(6)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 71.
(7)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 72.
(8)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 65.
(9) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 115.
(10) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 105.
(11) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 108.
(12) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 331.

Previous Installments:

Volume 1.1: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/08/20/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-1-%e2%80%93-evolving-expectations/

Volume 1.2: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/09/30/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-2-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9ci-had-better-things-to-do-than-be-angry-%e2%80%9d/

For anyone interested, this is the second installment of a little self-educational, comparative study of Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Clarence Thomas in their own words perhaps inappropriately posted under the Book Notes banner. Please refer back to my Preface diary for a little more background (1). While obviously amateurish in nature, we’ll see where this one time experiment takes me/us and hopefully the effort will spark someone with talent to take up andyd’s torch. 

I have now dug in a little deeper…184 pages of Douglass, 41 pages of Washington, and 89 pages of Thomas…and, as I noted at the end of the last installment, all three are very good books. I must add up front to my previous praise of Douglass: The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass is simply outstanding in style and, more importantly, in content. The first section (136 pages…“Author’s Birth” through “Escape from Slavery”) should be required reading for every high school senior in America.

Mr. Douglass keeps striking timeless…and timely…chords with me:

“Liberty, as the inestimable birthright of every man, converted every object into an asserter of this right” (2)

I would add that the threat to liberty tends to reawaken the asserter…sometimes, thankfully, on a massive scale.

I suspect a good argument could be made as to the bias of my highlighting pen but as I skim back through the underlined passages it strikes me how consistently Mr. Douglass referenced liberty and not freedom as the opposite of slavery. A few examples:

“…the turning point in my ‘life as a slave’. It rekindled in my breast the smouldering embers of liberty.” (3)

“To enslave men successfully and safely it is necessary to keep their minds occupied with thoughts and aspirations short of the liberty of which they are deprived. A certain degree of attainable good must be kept before them. (4)

“…but where slavery was powerful, and liberty weak, the latter was driven to concealment or destruction.” (5)

I do not doubt his terminology is deliberate…and correct…and an important usage of precise language that we should drive into today’s debates as much as possible.

Also, the bits about “keep their minds occupied” on trivial things and, if I may take some editorial liberty, “[meaningless] degree of attainable good” cannot help but remind me of budget battles and “victories” over the last six months. (In case this must be said, I do not in any way suggest any equivalence between the pre-Civil War practice of slavery and today’s struggle with Modern Liberalism and our ruling class. I just find it interesting that the anti-liberty forces of all ages use a common playbook.)

Wisdom and practicality are what keep jumping out of the much shorter book by Mr. Washington. A few examples:

“I have great faith in the power and influence of facts. It is seldom that anything is permanently gained by the holding back of a fact. (6)

“I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed. (7)

“The older I grow, the more I am convinced that there is no education which one can get from books and costly apparatus that is equal to that which can be gotten from contact with great men and women. Instead of studying books so constantly, how I wish that our schools and colleges might learn to study men and things!” (8)

One wouldn’t have to look too hard through recent headlines to recognize the spectacular failures of some of the highest reaching pure academics and “inherited-the-family-Senate-seat” politicians…none of which, I imagine, would have impressed Mr. Washington in the slightest.

While I’m at it, I cannot resist a couple of jabs at modern culture from a century ago:

“…mere book education was not all that the young people…needed. … I taught the pupils to comb their hair, and to keep their hands and faces clean, as well at their clothing. I gave special attention to teaching them the proper use of the tooth-brush and the bath. In all my teaching, I have watched carefully the influence of the tooth-brush, and I am convinced that there are few single agencies of civilization that are more far-reaching.” (9)

“I have had no patience with any school for my race in the South which did not teach its students the dignity of labour.” (10)

Today, the belt may be Mr. Washington’s tooth-brush and the entire Progressive movement the metastasization of the school he referenced.

On a more serious note, Mr. Douglass provided a more thorough treatment of the diabolically destructive effects of slavery on familial relationships early in his book that deserves dedicated attention later but here Mr. Washington touches on the later fall-out for “hundreds of thousands of black people in every part of our country”:

“The very fact that the white boy is conscious that, if he fails in life, he will disgrace the whole family record, extending back through many generations, is of tremendous value in helping him to resist temptations. The fact that the individual has behind and surrounding him proud family history and connection serves as a stimulus to help him to overcome obstacles when striving for success” (11)

As many have pointed out over the past several decades, our Modern Liberal tendencies aren’t really helping on this front.

Finally, at the end of the last edition we left Mr. Thomas as “an angry black man” but it only took about sixteen pages before the character of the man forced the recognition quoted in the title above (12). Well, that and the astute observations of the world around him:

“The more I read, the less inclined I was to conform to the cultural standards that blacks imposed on themselves and on one another. Merely because I was black, it seemed, I was…expected to be a radical, not a conservative. I no longer cared to play that game” (13)

“The black people I knew came from different places and backgrounds—social, economic, even ethnic—yet the color of our skin was somehow supposed to make us identical in spite of our differences. I didn’t buy it.” (14)

Oh, and let’s not forget this masterpiece:

“Preferential policies intended to help blacks adjust to life after segregation were very much on my mind in those days, and now I began to think them through in a more systematic way. Talented blacks stuck on the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder clearly deserved such help, but the ones who most often took advantage of it were considerably higher up on the ladder. Most of the middle-class blacks with whom I discussed these policies argued that all blacks were equally disadvantaged by virtue of their race alone. I thought this was nonsense. Not only were some blacks more economically successful than others, but many light-skinned blacks believed themselves to be superior to their darker brethren, an attitude that struck me as not much different from white racism. Even now blacks don’t like to talk about that kind of prejudice, but it had been a very real part of my life in Savannah, which was for all intents and purposes segregated not merely by race but also by class and color. I thought that preferential policies should be reserved for the poorer blacks whose plight was used to justify them, not the comfortable middle-class blacks who were better prepared to take advantage of them—and I also thought the same policies should be applied to similarly disadvantaged whites.”

“On the other hand, I didn’t think it was a good idea to make poor blacks, or anyone else, more dependent on government. That would amount to a new kind of enslavement, one which ultimately relied on the generosity—and the ever-changing self-interest—of politicians and activists. It seemed to me that the dependency if fostered might ultimately prove as diabolical as segregation, permanently condemning poor people to the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder by cannibalizing the values without which they had no long-term hope of improving their lot.” (15)

“No…hope”. It is this perception of permanence of lost values, lost family, lost dignity, and lost liberty that all three men recognized as ultimately so destructive. Mr. Douglass returns again and again to this theme:

“It was not my enslavement at the present time which most affected me—the being a slave for life was the saddest thought.” (16)

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/07/15/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-primary-american-character/
(2) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 55.
(3) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 97.
(4) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 100.
(5) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 110.
(6)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 12.
(7)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 15.
(8)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 21.
(9)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 28.
(10)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 27.
(11)  Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington. Page 14.
(12) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 64.
(13) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Pages 61-62.
(14) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Page 62.
(15) My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Pages 56-57
(16) The Life and times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass.  Page 59.

Previous Installments:

Volume 1.1: http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2011/08/20/remedial-book-notes-volume-1-1-%e2%80%93-evolving-expectations/

Inflammatory diary titles aside, let me just state up front that I don’t have a favorite among the current GOP candidates and I would like to think that I am now way too mature to throw down crazy “…will never cast my vote for Candidate X…” ultimatums (1).  As you will see, I have never been a fan of my governor (Mr. Perry) but I am doing my best to keep an open mind with respect to Presidential Candidate Perry. (I saw him as a local Barnes and Noble event with Mr. Gingrich last summer…actually shook hands with the extremely large headed former Speaker…and the Governor came off as kind of small. But, I digress).  For that matter, I don’t have strong opinions about non-candidates either…other than noting that “token pseudo-conservative” David Brooks thinks one of them is a “joke” (2) so she is one step closer to getting my vote if she wants it.  But, I digress.

I have waded into this now silly vaccine mandate discussion a couple of time already and the meat of a couple of those comments should go a long way to what I want to say here.  (I say silly because the waters are now so muddied and everyone is just “talking” at each other instead of to each other…nothing is being accomplished on eight side.)  Anyway, first, from June (3):

I cannot decide which disgusts me more in this REDSTATE discussion…

…the “God Forbid the man wanted to immunize people”/”If this saves lives it’s worth it” line of thought or the “there was an opt-out clause” defense. 

Had the Governor offered free immunizations to all who chose to accept his generosity at the expense of the taxpayers of Texas, I might (only maybe) then invoke the Almighty with a hearty “God bless him”.  But the governmental imposition of an anti-liberty baseline condition with a potential reclamation of your rights via the generosity of the state bureaucracy is about as far from my version of conservatism as I can imagine…not to mention a near perfect scaled representation of the Obamacare waiver business model.

(Here I resist to digress into a rant about elitism among our ruling class not being limited only to beltway snobs and the grotesque nature of, to quote Hayek, “socialists of all parties”.)

For what it’s worth, from my perspective here in North Texas, Mr. Perry is at his best (and quite good in general) during election years…during those off years he isn’t worth a warm bucket of [#!$$].

…and from the same thread:

But the overreach is very real and very wrong

I guess we all have our own pain thresholds for such things but, with all due respect, this one should be clear.  Based on the discussion above we are to suppose that it is justifiable to separate all citizens from a right because a subsection of the public (1) may refuse to blindly accept a government giveaway that that government insists will improve their lives and/or (2) refuse to educate themselves (as parents in this case) to the potential benefit of a particular vaccination. Yes, it is slightly more complicated than that but…ultimately; I would say yes, they would be making a deliberate destructive choice.  (Responsibilities come with citizenship.)

I hate to imagine an America (or a state) where all citizens must incrementally give up ever increasing numbers of rights to protect every subgroup that willingly engages in risky behavior an[d] remains ignorant of the consequences and potential solutions available to them.

While you are entitled to your opinion…which may very well be more educated and valid than mine…I suggest we are at a point in our history when every encroachment on any right by government should be made against the stiffest of headwinds instead of just accepting them as close enough to some existing and already “accepted” program.  The mission creep that follows that mentality…particularly within well established governmental bureaucracies…can be very destructive.  Look no further than the EPA…(again, don’t get me started.)

Again, thank you and all who commented above for a spirited and civil dialog even though I came late to this discussion.

Aside from my input, that did tend to be a rather good discussion and is worth reading though again.  Ultimately, Mr. Erickson hit on the point much more succinctly earlier today (4): this is an issue of liberty.  (A conspiratorial cynic may note the somewhat out-of-place rash of postings on this topic back in that June timeframe…almost as if they were planted there so that maybe in mid-September or so some could pull out the “we’ve been over all of this before”/”its old news” brush off if needed. But, yet again, I digress.)

Then, from mid-August (5):

The Act that Disqualifies Perry…

…this is NOT.  It was a mistake and, may I humbly suggest, for people in this neighborhood it should fall somewhere between a big “nothingburger” and a “watch item” with respect to a viable candidate depending on one’s own personal level of conservatism and intellectual contortionist abilities.  The entire issue certainly does not deserve the “ink” dumped into 145 and 60-plus comments.  …

I still stand by my position voiced last month and don’t wish to rehash it here except to say that the “…but there was an opt out clause…” defense falls on the wrong side my conservatism threshold NO MATTER WHAT EXPLANATION YOU COME UP WITH but, then again, there is obviously no “conservatism test” for posting or commenting here.  As a “watch item” I will continue to look for any additional activity that may point toward a disqualifying trend but I’m certainly not immature enough to throw out the “never cast my vote for Perry” ultimatum.

To be clear, the average voter could and probably should regard this issue as not a big deal at all.  However, in a community that prides itself on promoting conservatism there sure seems to be a lot of rationalization to justify a predetermined position for a candidate. 

As for liberty and the proper conservative inclinations: If Mr. Perry was so concerned about the health of these girls then offering free vaccinations to his fellow citizens (at the expense of his fellow citizens) was the proper action to pursue instead of mandating it on his subjects.  And if, as I have seen mentioned periodically in this discussion, the mandate created insurance benefits that warranted momentary non-conservativeness that is acceptable to RedState then I fear for our future.  Once such violence to my liberty is made acceptable on the Right…everyone’s freedoms are on the block and, as the story goes, “we are just haggling over the price”.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) A 2008 Ntrepid reference – Go search the archives yourself.

(2) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2009/11/20/hey-beltway-elitist-snobs-shove-that-smugness-up-your-david-brooks/

(3) http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/06/17/rick-perrys-scandalous-skeletons-come-out-of-the-closet/#comment-113569

(4) http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/09/13/hpv-and-why-it-matters/

(5) http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/08/17/more-on-perry-and-gardasil/#comment-9367

My takeaway from Victor Davis Hanson’s latest Works and Days (1) offering can be summarized in these few similarly themed phrases throughout:

“…the world will shortly become an even scarier place… In short, we will be back soon to about 1937. The old rules are disappearing… soon, we will learn what we learned last time in 1941…The world by 2016 will be a very dangerous place…”

And, while I readily admit to more selfish concerns (as you will see below), I take absolutely no comfort in his more urgent timelines with respect to “shortly”, “soon”, and “2016”.  The grand charade that has dominated recent news cycles has done little to soften the sentiments I had as we were similarly…and oh so cynically…set-up back in April.  I humbly resubmit that diary in its entirety here:

A Curse Reserved

Note: The theme of this little commentary has been bouncing around in my head for quite some time without ever really coming together.  Some will say is still hasn’t…but as I worked through the Introduction and Prologue of “America Alone”(Steyn) early yesterday morning I realized that, while framed within a different and probably more appropriate context, he was hitting on things I wish I could say.  And so I will…

In short, the various man-made financial crises afflicting various centers of the civilized world are quickly dragging us all toward some very dark places and now is the time for the United States to act like the world’s adult…that begins by putting our own house in order.  We are the only liberty-based superpower capable of doing this so we must…I repeat must…take the lead.  Furthermore, while in that pursuit, Americans must understand the real risks and consequences involved.

First, to put into words what everyone should by now surely understand:

“…different countries reacting to their own particular domestic circumstances will impact in destabilizing ways on the international scene” (1)

Look no further than the dealings of the western powers between last century’s world wars (I recommend Lords of Finance – The Bankers Who Broke the World by Liaquat Ahamed) to understand the knife edge we are balancing on today.  Resisting the “herding cats” reference, a strong leader is needed.  Furthermore, that lets the cat out of the bag for where this is heading (emphasis added…and where it says “Europe” think a little closer to home):

“No one can give serious thought to Europe’s democratic deficit, unaffordable entitlements, and declining human capital and think it’s the way to go.  It’s the end of history, not in the sense of reaching the top of the ladder but only in history sliding back down the chute to start anew – raw, primitive, and bloody.” (2)

Bloody.  It is the necessity of adding that last word in order to make this sentiment accurate that has been gnawing at me for quite some time.  I won’t pretend here to completely understand the exact depth of societal regression the author was implying but the point is clear…extended world-wide financial instability, uncertainty, and overbearing disorder may eventually lead to recessions, depressions, societal collapses, and even dark ages but, before you get too deep into that list, this type of situation leads rather quickly to wars.  Big wars.  World wars.

My main point here is that, while the new found (elected) seriousness with respect to fixing America’s checkbook by a few inside the American power beltway is refreshing, the consequences involved with inaction or insufficient action continue to be sold as merely heaping horrendous dept and taxes on our children and grandchildren.  This soft peddling of the consequences allows for what erroneously appears to be legitimate debate between the fix-it-now and rabid pragmatist factions within the serious party.  As a dedicated member of the former, I certainly do not hate those in the latter. I do disagree with them and fear that their timid practicality can only result in an inadequate response to the growing catastrophe…under their “leadership” the Armageddon of western culture will be just a little sunnier.

For those in both parties that oppose any meaningful reform…well, no, I don’t hate them either…yet.  (That is such a strong word.)  I do however reserve the right to hate them in the future.  As a father on two young children…in particular a three year old boy on track to be of draft-able age in the blink of an “evolving-world-conflict” eye…I fear much more than the exorbitant tax rates the current crop of Modern Progressive Left and pseudo-Progressive Right are cultivating for them.  Their world is on track to be bloody…very bloody.

(Yes, I am selfish that way.  If my son must go to war in 2028 because some son-of-a-b***h must defend public financing of cowboy poetry in 2011 then…well, that is the way I am going to be.)

Maybe things are already unfixable…maybe they have been for quite some time.  Maybe things like this happen as unavoidable events within complex cycles of societal and cultural relations.  But, to pick one example, to spend valuable time at the critical juncture arguing over a couple tens of billions of dollars in one year’s budget in the face of monumental…and predictable…financial catastrophe smacks of un-seriousness on a massive scale.   This level of misguided ignorance…not to mention petty Presidential politics unworthy of our executive even in the best of time[s]…is unforgivable in national leadership.

No doubt it will be seen as unseemly to curse and berate 95-year-olds long since retired from (and well compensated for) elective public “service” when “The War” necessitated by their incompetence (or worse) comes over the horizon…so I wish to collectively address them now in all of their unserious, undeserving glory:

Damn you, damn you all.
—————————————————————————————————-

(1) “America Alone – The End of the World as We Know It” by Mark Steyn, pg 24.

(2) From the introduction to the 2008 paperback edition of “America Alone – The End of the World as We Know It” by Mark Steyn

Alas, my contempt for most inside the beltway remains intact.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/unchained-world/

PREFACE

Books are the carriers of civilization. Without books, history is silent, literature dumb, science crippled, thought and speculation at a standstill. (1)

While fully acknowledging the perhaps inappropriate usurpation of the Book Notes franchise here at Redstate, my intention over the next several months is to tackle a somewhat ambitious exercise (for me, anyway) and self-educational experience through a comparative evaluation of three distinguished men in American history and their stories in their own words.  The selected subjects are:

The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)
Up From Slavery: An Autobiography by Booker T. Washington (1856-1915)
My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas (1948-    )

Assuredly, the grouping of two or even all three of these notable characters is hardly a novel idea and your humble tour guide will surely not break any new literary or historical ground.  That is really not the point.

Through public primary and secondary education, a technical college degree program, and in reading over one hundred and fifteen overwhelmingly non-fiction books over the last ten years (I didn’t become a real reader until my early 30s), the first two gentlemen have made only secondary character appearances or very brief token features in my learning experiences.  In addition, Book Notes entries seem to have covered Americanism and conservatism (and its roots) as well as a touch of Christianity fairly well through many of the (generally accepted) modern classics.  In taking a more scenic route,  I have little doubt that a thorough review of this short grouping of books will provide valuable perspective and understanding to my knowledge base and I suspect (or at least I hope) it may prove at least somewhat enlightening to those here who choose to tag along and/or participate.  It may even generate enough interest with a real talented and enterprising person or group for a more sustained Book Notes revival.

My intent going in is to read all three at the same time attempting to keep similar ages/periods of each man’s life somewhat in parallel as best I can.  This may change if it becomes too complicated or confusing.  I expect to explore the varied degrees of individualism, conservatism, and Americanism to the extent and form that they are present with each man and his life.  I have evolved into an extensive highlighter (or underliner) so expect many quotes while I attempt to add intelligent commentary as best I can.

Consider yourself invited to grab a copy of one or more of these books and play along.  If all goes according to plan, please tune in next month for the first entry…

An Ntrepid Joint
• • •  — — —  • • •

EXTENDED PREFACE FOR REALLY BORED READERS

You will be the same person in five years as you are today except for the people you meet and the books you read. (2)

I miss andyd’s weekly Book Notes posts.

I cannot say that I am really the book club type.  I do not read fast and family activities generally keep me from making consistent progress so I have become more of a reading loner…reading exactly what I want, whenever I can find the time, and discussing the pertinent topics with willing coworkers and/or captive audiences at lunch during the workweek and yes, even over the dinner table at home. (Say a special prayer for my wife.)   So when andyd offered up the reins to Book Notes, I did consider it for about a nanosecond before coming to my senses.  And to be honest, I hesitate to sully the moniker here…I certainly don’t pretend to offer up the quality posting already linked to that tag.   What follows is a (probably one time) good faith experiment and, as with most everything I post at Redstate, the true value will show up in the comment section.

For several years now I have kept a wish list of books on Amazon.com.  I constantly add books and authors that spark my interest from various sources and have a standing order (yea, right) for my wife to pick anything off the list if she needs to push an order over $25 to get free shipping.  (Yes, I am that cheap.)  Just over a year ago, one of these somewhat random picks left me with a fresh copy of Why Orwell Matters by Christopher Hitchens as we set off on our family (driving) vacation.  As I worked my way through it I realized that I should actually really read Orwell…other than just Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four…and then reread Hitchens’ take.  So between August and December last year I consumed the primary George Orwell (3) in order with only an additional Hitchens contribution (Letters to a Young Contrarian) mixed in around the mid-way point…and it was an incredibly enlightening journey.  Additionally, it was the most thorough and sustained reading venture I have managed in my forty-plus years (with the possible exception of struggling through Stephan Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science and our first-born’s terrible-twos at the same time).

That Orwell/Hitchens “experience…more than 2,600 pages through eleven books (six fiction/fictionalized and five non-fiction) written over a span of about 75 years…covered so many interrelated subjects, themes, and experiences from the perspective of two different minds from two different times.  That kind of intensive back-to-back “study” became addictive…I couldn’t wait to finish one and move on to the next…and proved to be a very rich education for a late blooming, slow reading, amateur blogger like me. (Interestingly, this inadvertently resulted in a sort of advanced course in the “Fifteen Hundred Page Doctrine” that I discussed last year (4).)  It is that experience that now leads to something else a little different, a little deeper, and hopefully a little more rewarding than just another excellent book.

Last week I added the Booker T. Washington book to my Amazon list that already contained the other two listed above and quickly noticed that I could get all three for under $30 and free shipping. (The Thomas book was a specially priced hardcover – BONUS.)  I am now awaiting delivery.

So here I sit with sufficiently inexpensive books on the way and a general theme…why not a Book Notes mini-series?  As I said above, I am obviously not the first…or the smartest…to ever group these three individuals for a comparative study but I may be the first to combine purely personal interest and extreme thrift to get here.  (I did perform an internet search on all three names and scanned a few entries just to gain a sense of how extensive the subject had been covered.  I don’t expect to search anymore until I’ve had a chance to read the books and comment on my own.)

So where is this going?  I admit up front that I know embarrassingly little about Mr. Douglass, next to nothing of Mr. Washington (I remember his repeated appearances in Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris a few years back), and know Mr. Thomas only through following current events to various degrees over the last couple of decades.  Beyond that…and the general sense that these people reached their respective levels of success for a reason…I cannot even be sure the title I selected above for this volume is accurate and appropriate. Of course, reading about them in their own words probably will not tarnish this view too much but maybe some good old Redstate discussion will add the proper perspective.

Your attention as well as any comments, suggestions, advice, and even criticism along the way will be greatly appreciated.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
(1) Barbara W. Tuchman as quoted by Mark DeMoss in Chapter 22 of The Little Red Book of Wisdom.

(2) Charles “Tremendous” Jones as quoted by Mark DeMoss in Chapter 22 of The Little Red Book of Wisdom.

(3) Primary George Orwell according to me: (1) Down and Out in Paris and London, (2) Burmese Days, (3) A Clergyman’s Daughter, (4) Keep the Aspidistra Flying, (5) The Road to Wigan Pier, (6) Homage to Catalonia, (7) Coming Up for Air, (8) Animal Farm, and (9) Nineteen Eighty-Four.

(4) Wisdom Through the “Fifteen Hundred Page” Doctrine, ntrepid at Redstate http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2010/04/04/wisdom-through-the-%e2%80%9cfifteen-hundred-page%e2%80%9d-doctrine/

Note: The theme of this little commentary has been bouncing around in my head for quite some time without ever really coming together.  Some will say is still hasn’t…but as I worked through the Introduction and Prologue of “America Alone”(Steyn) early yesterday morning I realized that, while framed within a different and probably more appropriate context, he was hitting on things I wish I could say.  And so I will…

In short, the various man-made financial crises afflicting various centers of the civilized world are quickly dragging us all toward some very dark places and now is the time for the United States to act like the world’s adult…that begins by putting our own house in order.  We are the only liberty-based superpower capable of doing this so we must…I repeat must…take the lead.  Furthermore, while in that pursuit, Americans must understand the real risks and consequences involved.

First, to put into words what everyone should by now surely understand:

“…different countries reacting to their own particular domestic circumstances will impact in destabilizing ways on the international scene” (1)

Look no further than the dealings of the western powers between last century’s world wars (I recommend Lords of Finance – The Bankers Who Broke the World by Liaquat Ahamed) to understand the knife edge we are balancing on today.  Resisting the “herding cats” reference, a strong leader is needed.  Furthermore, that lets the cat out of the bag for where this is heading (emphasis added…and where it says “Europe” think a little closer to home):

“No one can give serious thought to Europe’s democratic deficit, unaffordable entitlements, and declining human capital and think it’s the way to go.  It’s the end of history, not in the sense of reaching the top of the ladder but only in history sliding back down the chute to start anew – raw, primitive, and bloody. (2)

Bloody.  It is the necessity of adding that last word in order to make this sentiment accurate that has been gnawing at me for quite some time.  I won’t pretend here to completely understand the exact depth of societal regression the author was implying but the point is clear…extended world-wide financial instability, uncertainty, and overbearing disorder may eventually lead to recessions, depressions, societal collapses, and even dark ages but, before you get too deep into that list, this type of situation leads rather quickly to wars.  Big wars.  World wars.

My main point here is that, while the new found (elected) seriousness with respect to fixing America’s checkbook by a few inside the American power beltway is refreshing, the consequences involved with inaction or insufficient action continue to be sold as merely heaping horrendous dept and taxes on our children and grandchildren.  This soft peddling of the consequences allows for what erroneously appears to be legitimate debate between the fix-it-now and rabid pragmatist factions within the serious party.  As a dedicated member of the former, I certainly do not hate those in the latter. I do disagree with them and fear that their timid practicality can only result in an inadequate response to the growing catastrophe…under their “leadership” the Armageddon of western culture will be just a little sunnier.

For those in both parties that oppose any meaningful reform…well, no, I don’t hate them either…yet.  (That is such a strong word.)  I do however reserve the right to hate them in the future.  As a father on two young children…in particular a three year old boy on track to be of draft-able age in the blink of an “evolving-world-conflict” eye…I fear much more than the exorbitant tax rates the current crop of Modern Progressive Left and pseudo-Progressive Right are cultivating for them.  Their world is on track to be bloody…very bloody.

(Yes, I am selfish that way.  If my son must go to war in 2028 because some son-of-a-b***h must defend public financing of cowboy poetry in 2011 then…well, that is the way I am going to be.)

Maybe things are already unfixable…maybe they have been for quite some time.  Maybe things like this happen as unavoidable events within complex cycles of societal and cultural relations.  But, to pick one example, to spend valuable time at the critical juncture arguing over a couple tens of billions of dollars in one year’s budget in the face of monumental…and predictable…financial catastrophe smacks of un-seriousness on a massive scale.   This level of misguided ignorance…not to mention petty Presidential politics unworthy of our executive even in the best of times…is unforgivable in national leadership.

No doubt it will be seen as unseemly to curse and berate 95-year-olds long since retired from (and well compensated for) elective public “service” when “The War” necessitated by their incompetence (or worse) comes over the horizon…so I wish to collectively address them now in all of their unserious, undeserving glory:

Damn you, damn you all.

Ntrepid

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) “America Alone – The End of the World as We Know It” by Mark Steyn, pg 24.

(2) From the introduction to the 2008 paperback edition of “America Alone – The End of the World as We Know It” by Mark Steyn

Note: While I think it is important to start framing big concepts like “liberty” and “tyranny” around ways they manifest themselves in everyday American lives, I also think the word “plunder” as it is used below needs to re-enter the tea party movement lexicon. The connotation and accuracy it brings to the discussion are completely appropriate.  Plus, I thought the comparison below was kinda neat.

A classical liberal theorist may explain something in a very clear and concise way…like this:

“It is in the nature of men to rise against the injustice of which they are the victims.  When, therefore, plunder is organized by law, for the profit of those who perpetrate it, all the plundered classes tend, either by peaceful or revolutionary means, to enter in some way into the manufacturing of laws.  The classes, according to the degree of enlightenment at which they have arrived, may propose to themselves two very different ends, when they thus attempt the attainment of their political rights; either they may wish to put an end to lawful plunder, or they may desire to take part in it.

Woe to the nation where this latter thought prevails amongst the masses…” – F. Bastiat, The Law (1850)

On the other hand, a product of late twentieth century public education and mediocre Redstate blogger known for not being nearly as clear and concise stumbles through a concept like this:

“And for those who presume that the work to reverse this monstrosity will begin as soon as there is a change in power in D.C. I offer a very blunt: Fat Chance, Sucker!  The unfortunate reality is that the road back to more freedom is long and hard and requires being true to liberty’s principles while the toll-road to bettering “my” position in the midst of a runaway government debacle is much more efficient…merely costing, at a minimum, tacit denial of those alleged principles.  Today’s unified Tea Party Movement will quickly begin to show more fragmented interests as various side paths to individual benefits present themselves as alternatives to a long, hard, revolutionary slog.  The perceived unity of a back-against-the-wall defense will not be so solid during a period of multiple offensives base(d) on self interests.

A good example of how quickly things change in these types of circumstances can be seen with the recent banning of smoking in restaurants in a large city near my home.  An organized group of restaurant owners put up a correct and valiant…yet futile…defense based on their rights with respect to their property. They fought on principle and were backed by similar business owners and organizations from the surrounding area.  Of course, after losing their rights to a runaway city council (i.e. uncontrolled legislators) this group of fine restaurateurs continued the good fight on those same firm principles to reverse this decision…NOT.  That would be hard…and the bottom line in business doesn’t wait on battles of honor.  The more expedient path was to start pushing for identical regulation from the state level so that restaurants in surrounding communities didn’t maintain their property rights and enjoy an artificial competitive advantage any longer than was necessary.  Rights are forever…my rights are critical…your rights are very important up until they conflict with my bottom line.

Don’t expect reality and human nature to be any different in carrying through on reversing health care ‘reform’.”(1) – ntrepid, Redstate (2009)

Sometimes collective human nature isn’t pretty.

Ntrepid

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

 (1) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2009/12/22/known-knowns-and-spectacles-of-turbulence-on-the-horizon/

PREMISE:  Living in a society void of binding “Obamacare” legislation is very different from being unburdened of such oppressive legal mandates by paper thin waivers (selectively) granted via Washington, D.C. benevolence.  While obvious on its face, it strikes me that the preceding statement serves as a suitable jumping off point for delving a bit deeper into the meaning of liberty in America and how tyranny affects our everyday lives.  The following is not intended to be comprehensive by any means, please chime in at the end.

-  -  -

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – United States Declaration of Independence

A few weeks back I heard part of a conversation on the Fox News Channel during which a very smart polling expert was explaining how it was important for those on the Right to stress the word “freedom” instead of “liberty” in their rhetoric because Americans seemed to better understand and have a more favorable reaction to that term.  Not being a linguist (cunning or otherwise), I guess I am like most Americans in that I probably couldn’t recite proper definitions to distinguish a meaningful difference between the two and yet I do sense a certain reverence for the wonderful “L” word given its prominence in the most important sentence ever formulated by man (above).  I discussion seems warranted…

First, a few definitions via Wikipedia and Mirriam-Webster, respectively:

“Liberty is a concept in political philosophy that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions.”

“Tyranny – …oppressive power exerted by government…a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force…an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act”

My initial reaction here is to side track into a discussion of “a concept in political philosophy” versus an “unalienable Right” “endowed by (the) Creator” but instead I want to focus on the second term…tyranny.  This concept is so easy for all of us to identify in news stories of the blatant, unvarnished Middle East variety or even the in-your-face Hollywood depictions.  Unfortunately, most are blind…or just numb…to the more insidious (but not brutal) types that hit much closer to home.

I started to call this a “soft tyranny” – a term made more common lately – without fully understanding the meaning but the Wiki-definition references “social conditions of a particular community hinder(ing) any prospect of hope among its members” and that just doesn’t fit my premise here.  The most accurate term I can think of is functional tyranny (or maybe, bureaucratic tyranny…but that isn’t quite accurate either). 

Anyway, on some scale we all experience this.  The most obvious manifestation of this phenomenon in my life is through my career job at a very large corporation.  It is a very good job and I do not live with any overt threats to my continued employment but there is a pervasive undercurrent of fearful compliance with an impossibly (unbelievably?) large web of corporate policies and other regulations.  Over the years things have become very clear…there is absolutely nothing subtle about it…that the information is already on file or exists somewhere waiting to be retrieved that anyone could be terminated for cause (no matter how minor) if the need arose.  We all work at the mercy of the Human Resources department.  (To make it more unsettling, the face of this organization to most of us in the middle to lower ranks is a 22-year-old punk/punk-ette in new formal business attire that is well versed in HR lingo and knows not a lick about our core manufacturing business.)  Needless to say, there are few vocal troublemakers and the periodic anonymous confidential employee feedback surveys are usually very positive experiences for the company. Please don’t mistake this for complaining, I’m just describing a not so unique modern American corporate situation.

Of course, I realize this is a very imperfect example of “tyranny”.  It’s a job and I know I can choose to leave at any point.  However, we can expand the scope for broader examples.  Look no further than your state.  At some point in the last half century I would guess that just about every state in the union has had its share of federal highway funds held hostage at least once to force compliance with some mandate from the federal behemoth.  Hmmm…entire states being separated from their “unalienable rights” (liberty, free will) by an entity that exists and derives its powers from the consent of those now the target of its oppression.  You may suggests this is but a minor infraction…of course, it is all for the common good…but it is the principle and now the precedent that grows like a weed.

That brings me to “Obamacare”.  To narrow the scope of this initial discussion, let’s just focus on the impacts of a waiver granted to a state…let’s call if “Maine”.  In such a case, the population, state government, and representation to the federal government of “Maine” all get to exist within an artificial condition of advantage…free from oppressive fiscal mandates…over others not by binding legislation but by being temporarily shielded from binding legislation through the grace of a politically motivated (agenda driven) executive and the bureaucracy under his control.  This executive will continue to “request” support from the many levels of “Maine” on things related and completely unrelated to the protective waiver.  More directly, U.S. Senators from “Maine” will be asked to cast votes on aspects of “Obamacare” that may require them to support the infliction of extreme measures on others at the risk…stated or otherwise…of losing that benevolent waiver.  Now consider the nature of the principles and backbone required to be a U.S. Senator today and you see where I’m going with this.  (Or just look into the voting record of current office holders from Maine.)

Now think of all the other waivers that have been granted.  All temporary, of course, but all very useful tools for dealing with states and entities addicted to the relief.

Obviously, this did not start with President Obama but his vision of America and this expanded functional tyranny is grotesque.  These new boundaries…these insidious, tyrannical cancers…infused throughout the federal level will be painful and destructive components of the American condition for many years ahead.

The history of this era shall not be forgotten and the roll call of shame will be quite long: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Nelson, Snowe, Stupak, Sebelius, Geithner, CBO, …

Ntrepid

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

In my most recent issue of Imprimis, Mr. Seth Lipsky goes into some detail of how the Kelo case has caused somewhat of a pushback in which states have begun to “strengthen protections against the kind of raid on private property that Mrs. Kelo suffered.”  He goes on:

“Rarely has the loser in a Supreme Court case established so great a legacy as Mrs. Kelo, whose case is one of the most important warnings we have had in my generation of the vigilance that is going to be required in respect of the right to property enshrined in the Fifth Amandment.”

While truly insidious in nature, our ruling class is not stupid.  Seeing that Kelo created at least a minor furor to those who were politically aware way back when and, as hinted above, is probably going to prove a minor headache to the federal behemoth in the future; they know that the continued war on private property best be kept beneath the headlines as much as possible.  With that in mind, please go read “The Auto Bailout and the Rule of Law” by Todd Zywicki at National Affairs (1) and watch for the quote in the dairy title above…it will come about the time your blood really begins to boil.

A quick side note:  At this point I will already dictate that Mr. Zywicky’s piece is the most important article to read in 2011.  In less than 6000 words it sheds quite a light on the beltway and, if this is all news to you, the media that still only parrots the “success story narrative” that has been spoon fed to them from the White House.  Similar dictated by me, for those who missed it, last year’s most important article was “America’s Ruling Class – And the Perils of Revolution” by Angelo M. Codevilla at The American Spectator. (2)  Go read both of them now.  For the record, I probably linked to Zywicki’s article earlier this week via Instapundit.  Prior to that I don’t recall ever reading anything by him or from National Affairs.

Last October, I touched on this topic and the “cynical disregard for laws and lawmaking” (3) with an embedded Amity Schlaes quote (also from Imprimis):

“When the history of a broken American decade (or more) is being written from the 2025 perspective, Obamacare and unimaginably huge deficits may be largely the focus but I suspect Amity Shlaes…nailed the moment the cut to the American jugular occurred with barely a whimper from the then Tea Party-less electorate:

‘Property rights are endangered as well by the ongoing assault on contracts generally.  A perfect example of this was the treatment of Chrysler bonds during the company’s bankruptcy, where senior secured creditors were ignored, notwithstanding the status of their bonds under bankruptcy law.  The current administration made a political decision to subordinate those contracts to union demands.  That sent a dangerous signal for the future that U.S. bonds are not trustworthy.’

It is the implications of this arrogant, extra-legal maneuvering that we will be dealing with for quite some time to come.  At least their Progressive hearts were in the right place.”

Mr. Zywicki expands greatly on the story and ignites my ire towards the third DC branch. (Make that reignites…Kelo.)  But it’s much more than that…the whole story really is disgusting. 

First, the automakers playing games with the system during the crisis…and how much of this was coordinated inside the beltway:

“But though their fates seemed to be sealed, both automakers brazenly refused to make plans for bankruptcy filings. They assumed that the federal government would not allow them to suffer the same fate as most other poorly managed companies in America. So they pleaded for a federal bailout, arguing that Washington’s failure to provide one would result in the companies’ liquidation — in part precisely because the automakers’ failure to prepare for bankruptcy filings would end up producing ‘disorderly’ bankruptcies that, in turn, would make it difficult to keep the companies alive…”

Then, the rather obvious but somehow ignored:

“In truth, however, the use of TARP funds to bail out GM and Chrysler most likely violated the law… The car companies, after all, were not ‘financial institutions.’”

With minimal pushback and/or spine from those charged with oversight responsibilities:

“A group of 26 irate Republican lawmakers sent a sharp letter to the president complaining that ‘Congress never voted for a federal bailout of the automobile industry, and the only way for TARP funds to be diverted to domestic automakers is with explicit congressional approval.’ Supporters of the bailout kept mum about the question of legality.”

Then some of that good ol’ Chicago way:

“In a now-infamous speech in April 2009, President Obama publicly attacked these investors — who were merely standing up for their contract and property rights — as profiteers, criticizing them for their unwillingness to make the same sacrifices as other investors (but not, of course, UAW members, who received a windfall). In response to this public browbeating from the president of the United States, the hedge funds caved and agreed to the terms.”

With a side of probable cronyism:

“Many of Chrysler’s secured-bond holders were large financial institutions — several of which had previously been saved from failure by TARP. Though there is no explicit evidence that support from TARP funds bought these bond holders’ acquiescence in the Chrysler case, their silence in the face of a massive financial haircut is otherwise very difficult to explain.”

Finally, topped off with Progressive Utopia:

“And this approach — defined by broad government power unchecked by legal constraints and possessing sweeping authority to pick winners and losers — has guided the administration’s policies well beyond the auto bailout. The aim of this approach is to rejuvenate the New Deal vision of the regulatory state, in which regulators are seen as disinterested experts with the factual knowledge, practical wisdom, and unwavering integrity to manage the economy. They alone are presumed to be capable of steering the nation toward prosperity.”

Absolutely disgusting…and so very destructive to the fabric of our experiment in republicanism.  This is the spear of crony socialism into the heart of Americanism:

“In the Chrysler case, however, creditors who held the company’s secured bonds were steamrolled into accepting 29 cents on the dollar for their loans. Meanwhile, the underfunded pension plans of the United Auto Workers — unsecured creditors, but possessed of better political connections — received more than 40 cents on the dollar.”

Mr. Zywicky concludes with the necessary end game: “Managed Decline”.  Once more I cry that Dr. Franklin’s rising sun has reached the end of the day. (4)

Ntrepid

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law

(2) http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the

(3) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2010/10/16/profiles-in-arrogance-a-brief-commentary-on-understanding-our-progressive-ruling-class-and-how-they-destroyed-america/

(4) “Whilst the last members were signing it Doctor Franklin looking towards the President’s Chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. ‘I have,’ said he, ‘often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.’” (via http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)

This week a very complex series of events clumsily rolled up into one word – Egypt – smacked President Obama and his whole administration in the face with a heavy dose of reality.  This morning the Washington Post (via Instapundit (1)) soft pedaled the response as a “cautiously shifting world view”. (No, I didn’t read anything past the title at that link.)  That may be the outwardly visible skit being presented and parroted but somehow I feel a much sharper sting of a collapsing world view is sinking in at the highest levels of our government.  (If it isn’t happening, someone better get that ball rolling.)

These stings seem to be happening more often these days.  One very potent one was delivered just yesterday by Victor Davis Hanson in his Works and Days column.  (If you don’t already visit that site twice a week for some reality, perspective, and calibration with respect to current events…you should.)  But before I serve up his most recent masterpiece, here is a quick review of some past Hanson zingers for a warm up.

First, the unfortunate case of a standard bearer for a particular world view finding his name used as a convenient and appropriate descriptor for ruling class participants in corrupt crony socialism:

“This is a continent of Tom Daschles, who win by being exempt from the burden of government that they subject on others, and win again by having the contacts to sort out government contracts to crony-businesses.” (2)

Next, a very concise jab at typical Hollywood hypocrisy:

“…all parasitic on the very culture they mock.” (3)

Finally, a direct shot at the One himself and his ruling class elitism and rather arrogant and simplistic “not Bush” approach to leadership (think Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, etc.):

“Wanting something to end, and being the right sort to want something to end, surely were to be synonymous with something ending.” (4)

These all still make me giggle…but if I had a more progressive disposition (and if it weren’t (nearly) impossible to maintain at least a modicum of intellectual honesty/consistency at the same time) the underlying truisms that lead to such commentary just may initiate a sudden unraveling of much of my world view.  That fact is that, while we all may not express them with doctoral level phraseologies, a newly awakened citizenry from coast to coast now spots these very themes very easily…even in cleverly presented MSM “news” stories.  Even worse, the total awareness of seeing through the BS also serves to reinforce the growing contempt so many already have for these traditional media sources.  The movement is alive.

That should do it for warm up material…on to the thrashing that motivated me to post something today.  Here is yesterday’s very blunt, very direct assault on the core of modern American liberalism and the anti-Americanism that always stands hand-in-hand with it.  Brace yourself:

Finally, multiculturalism is a form of political and historical ignorance. The multiculturalist is an ahistorical fool, who confuses the cultural periphery with the core. Thus the United States is enriched by “multicultural” music, food, fashion, art, and literature from a Mexico or Kenya or Egypt. Fine, wonderful, all the better. But one, in the spirit of “diversity,” does not wish to embrace the Mexican judiciary, the Kenyan econo mic system, or the Arab attitude to women. Multiculturalism is a fraud of sorts, as the activist who wears the serape to campus never quite agitates for adopting the protocols of the Mexican police or the Mexico City elite’s approach to Indian peoples. We do not see signs blaring out: “We want Nigerian speech codes,” “Treat women as they do in Saudi Arabia,” “Look to the Iranians for gay rights,” “Arabs had the right idea about slavery,” etc. When I do radio talk show interviews, usually the harshest U.S. critics are transplanted Middle Easterners who in their furor at American foreign policy never quite explain why they left and do not go back to places that they now idolize — as if the economic, political, and cultural protocols they enjoy here would appear in Gaza or Yemen like dandelions after a rain if it were not for U.S. imperialism. (5)

Ouch.

Ntrepid

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/114384/

(2) http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/on-becomi ng-europe/

(3) http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/confessions-of-a-cultural-drop-out/

(4) http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/now-what/

(5) http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-middle-east-and-the-multicultural-nightmare/?singlepage=true

Although our ruling class and its subsidiary in the presumptuously self-positioned intellectual-media class seem unable to understand or deliberately unwilling to acknowledge the essence of the current radically decentralized (1) but very large contrarian movement, an overarching sense…actually an urgent plea… for “reasonableness” is fundamental to the movement’s soul for anyone willing to look past the thin and embarrassingly disingenuous popular media portrayal.  History…even the very near term writing of it…will be much more honest and accurate.  (How could it not be?)

To be sure, our despicable Fourth Estate would have preferred to ignore…or mock into irrelevancy…this movement a year and a half ago and surely would have if not for the immense number of these small voices.  This persistence through numbers and “radically decentralized” nature have so far been a sufficient life force for a still infant movement.  While still critical, it is doubtful this will be enough to ensure longevity beyond Election Day.

Realizing that no matter how good or bad the results, on the morning of November 3^rd absolutely nothing will have been accomplished…as in realized results…to directly make our current situation any better on the fiscal or freedom fronts.  Real momentum is required as events move into 2011 and with this I turn to one of my favorite quotes to nurture my own optimism:

“Revolutions, it is commonly observed, often break out not when circumstances are next to intolerable but when conditions begin rapidly to improve.” – Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah

The perception that “conditions [are] begin[ing] to rapidly improve” needs to spread quickly during the next legislative session.  As many have already made clear, this means both legislative victories and failures that put the enemies of freedom, responsibility, and reason on record over and over again all the way to 2012.  I fear our current ruling class (of both parties) doesn’t truly appreciate the soul of this movement or the power of its millions of persistent voices.   They need to be constantly reminded…or and (eventually) removed. 

As they say: Endeavor to Persevere.

EPILOGUE

I cannot help but add a few gold nuggets from the Hitchens book and chapter noted below that I choose via my “[edits]” to read great import into with regards to 2010 America.  The first is from a discussion of “conscience”:

“Its existence guarantees nothing in itself, and the catalytic…moment only occurs when [individuals prepare] to cease being the passive [Lower Orders] and to become instead [armies of reasonable voices].”

See my previous diary for the “Lower Orders” reference via Orwell. (2)

The next comes from a paragraph on “human nature”:

“…it was wrong to endorse the lazy proposition that ‘You can’t change human nature’. … Ought not the corollary to hold – that if it can be altered one way it surely can be altered the other? … It is those who hope to transform humans [and societies] who end up by burning [or starving] them, like the waste product of a failed experiment.”

Although written in 2001, it’s hard not to appreciate the usage and close proximity of the words “hope” and “transform”.  (Fundamentally, I presume.)  While I don’t attempt to equate today with the magnitude of historical failed experiments, I do insist on recognizing a consistent evil nature.  The “With an Iron Fist, We Will Lead Humanity to Happiness” gulag sign was certainly hung with an implied “or else”. 

Also, in the paragraph leading into this, he issued “Bear in mind, however, that Utopia itself was a tyranny…”. Priceless!  Wasn’t that in the small print on the Seal of the President-Elect?

Lastly, I’ll reach back to the closing paragraph of the previous chapter:

“Only one other sacred text mentions “happiness” without embarrassment. But even in 1776, this concept was thought to be mentionable only as the consequence of a bitter struggle, just then being embarked upon.  The beautiful word “pursuit”, however we construe it, would be vacuous in any other context.”

So far this has been a “Party”.  You know what is ahead.

Ntrepid

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

Note: Diary title taken from passage on Freud’s memorial in Vienna as quoted by Christopher Hitchens in “Letters to a Young Contrarian”.  It was my reading of his Chapter IV early this morning that sparked my mind to ramble on this topic here.

(1) Borrowed this descriptor from a Sunday morning talking head a few weeks back.

(2) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2010/10/16/profiles-in-arrogance-a-brief-commentary-on-understanding-our-progressive-ruling-class-and-how-they-destroyed-america/

“…Of course I know you’re a Socialist [Progressive]. So am I.  I mean we’re all Socialists [Progressives] nowadays.  But I don’t see why you have to give all your money away and make friends with the lower classes.  You can be a Socialist [Progressive] and have a good time, that’s what I say.” – Hermione (1)

My edits aside, that is how Orwell presented the fictitious personality of the “warm hearted, unthinking Socialist [Progressive]…who only wants to abolish poverty and does not always grasp what this implies” (2).  In this second reference, he spelled out our current situation a bit clearer…and hints at the sinister nature of the beast…even while making his case for Socialism:

“The truth is that to many people, calling themselves Socialists [Progressives], revolution [Hope and Change] does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose of them, the Lower Orders.” (2)

A clever ruling class…imposing…reforms…on others…with no grasp on (or even regard for) the implications – Orwell seems to have known 2010 America quite well. 

For more than two years now (yes, some of the disgrace extends back to the last administration) the “Lower Orders” have been very publically insulted on a regular basis with the excessive spending of our monies, frequent flagrant disregard for anything close to a legitimate legislative process, and cynical disregard for laws and lawmaking. (What was TARP money supposed to used for?  What was supposed to be done with repaid TARP money?  You have to pass the bill so we can know what is in it?)

Electoral upheavals, as they may very well come in the next couple of cycles, will help but I fear they will prove mostly just cathartic exercises – our federal bureaucracies, the structural changes already in place, and the corruptive nature of the beltway will see to that.  The bigger problem…and impediment to real recovery on the economic and freedom front…will continue to be the now broken myth of the natural sanctity of our laws.

When the history of a broken American decade (or more) is being written from the 2025 perspective, Obamacare and unimaginably huge deficits may be largely the focus but I suspect Amity Shlaes (in my most current issue of Imprimis) nailed the moment the cut to the American jugular occurred with barely a whimper from the then Tea Party-less electorate:

“Property rights are endangered as well by the ongoing assault on contracts generally.  A perfect example of this was the treatment of Chrysler bonds during the company’s bankruptcy, where senior secured creditors were ignored, notwithstanding the status of their bonds under bankruptcy law.  The current administration made a political decision to subordinate those contracts to union demands.  That sent a dangerous signal for the future that U.S. bonds are not trustworthy.”

It is the implications of this arrogant, extra-legal maneuvering that we will be dealing with for quite some time to come.  At least their Progressive hearts were in the right place. (…?)

Ntrepid

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) Keep the Aspidistra Flying (Orwell) http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_26?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=keep+the+aspidistra+flying&sprefix=keep+the+aspidistra+flying

(2) The Road to Wigan Pier (Orwell) http://www.amazon.com/Road-Wigan-Pier-George-Orwell/dp/1409211509/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286024719&sr=1-1

I finished this month’s issue of Imprimis (The Tea Parties and the Future of Liberty by Stephen F. Hayes) and my first cup of coffee as the sun came up over my kitchen table this morning.   His last paragraph has lingered in mind all day:

Most Americans don’t agree with the president’s priorities.  And many of these Americans are now active in the Tea Party movement, a movement that has succeeded in starting a serious national conversation about a return to limited government. (Emphasis added)

The entire piece is worth reading and a conversation is a good start but I hope the above is an understatement of epic proportions.  This movement better be a good bit bigger than a discussion about ideas…this needs to be about big actions and effective results.  The referenced “return to limited government” can no longer fit nicely into some ambiguous task to “reform”.  It should be understood that this will require completely dismantling large portions of the federal behemoth that will be openly hostile to the movement every step of the way.  There will be many casualties and turncoats among the elected ranks along the way and, while the immediate electoral needs in the upcoming midterm are obvious, a continuous grooming of and planning for replacements and improvements needs to be well underway before all of November’s ballots are counted.  We want our guys in there now but, as a local car dealer advertises, we “aren’t married to none of them”.

The point to that little diatribe is that this is more than a conversation and it better be much more than a single climactic, cathartic electoral eruption in early November with lots of immediate devastation and the impression that the worst (and the hard work) is over and the healing can begin.  History needs to record the next half decade or more as an American political tsunami to the right.  Certainly the period since between late last March and the approaching November, if not actually beginning a year before that, should in retrospect be viewed as the drawback when it was clear to all what was coming next and the midterms will be the first waves crashing over the beach.  The relentless onrush should peak in November 2012 and the surging tide needs to continue through the following midterm.  That is the type of persistence…active support for and positive pressure on our elected representation…required to battle the entrenched evils already codified into the bureaucratic monstrosity that aims to choke the liberty out of the American dream.  I hope the Tea Partiers are up to the task.

While a sweep of some size may already be dealt into 2010, it is also already in the cards that the elections of 2012 will be the fight for the future of the republic as we know it.  Battle plans are already being drawn.

I suspect we will see familiar themes from history emerge before Christmas…there is only one liberal/progressive playbook and it really isn’t all that long.  The complete failure of the current administration, the current congress, and the current agenda will need to me mitigated…and blamed on us, of course…so the narrative will shift to the country being “ungovernable” and the presidency as “too big for one person”.  This will be relentlessly pounded into our collective psyche by the loyally incurious media for the better part of a year.  That will lay the groundwork for the all-but-certain Biden exit and “spectacular” announcement of the liberal dream team…still president and his number two, of course, but (wink, wink) effectively co-presidents…and the only ticket smart enough, progressive enough, electable enough and, not to mention, diverse enough to save us from ourselves.  Obama-Clinton-2012 is its name and that, my friends, is what ultimately stands between you and freedom on the other side of the approaching storm.  (Sorry to break the bad news to those who assumed we had already weathered through mid-storm…you aint seen nothin’ yet.)

And that’s the way I see it from the oppressive summer Texas heat of August 2010.  Prepare yourselves appropriately.

Ntrepid

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?