WEBSTER'S BLOGSPOT

Showing posts with label American Federalist Blog. Show all posts

Thursday, March 19, 2009

What's up with Janet Napolitano?

What's up with her is this, she's taking the exact position on illegal immigration and border security that she took as Governor of Arizona - leave the flood gates open wide until you're dragged kicking and screaming, three years ex post facto in the case of her governorship, to begin the process of closing them. This woman doesn't belong within a thousand miles of the homeland security department, which ought to tell us something about the judgment, and/or the intentions of Barack Hussein Obama, and the distance that ought to forever separate him and his kind from the presidency.

Limits or Balance, or both?

In connection with the video posted at the AFB, and also with the Democracy or Republic entry posted below, some of you may be interested in this Oct. 2007 AFB discussion on limiting government via governmental balance.

The discussion initially got a little heated between myself and our libertarian friend ol' shep, but we finally came to an understanding agreeing that re-establishing governmental balance is a superior concept to that of placing artificial arbitrary restrictions on government in order to limit its power to do evil. If you care to read the discussion avoiding all of the initial hostility exhibited between myself and ol' shep, you can start about here (Note: I was writing at that time under the pen name D. Webster.).

Also, for a better understanding of what "Balanced Government" is as we at the AFB have attempted to explicate it, see my AFB article What is Balanced Government?. I need to make some revisions to the article, but the basic concepts are all there. Also, the article, in fact both of these AFB articles are permanently linked at the top of this blog's left sidebar under the heading Select AFB Articles.

Federalism AND Nationalism

See the You Tube video I posted on the subject over at the AFB.

Promoting and Advancing the Ideas of Balanced Constitutional Government

That is what this blog is all about when you boil it all down. Everything I post on, whether it be the dangers we face from Islam and its incompatibility with the West, or mass immigration into the United States from third-worlders, or the irrationality of liberalism and its dominating and destructive effects on our nation; even the anecdotes I share from time to time, or whatever, the most traditional and conservative and, yes, American thing I can think of is this concept of Balanced Constitutional Government.

Without the restoration of balance to our governmental systems, it is all a lost cause. Why? Because (1) restoration of principled conservatism cannot be effected without it, and (2) even if it could, it could not be long sustained outside of Balanced Constitutional Government.

Amending the Constitution - the right way

(Update: The commenter calling himself "statusquobuster" has provided us with the url to the site of a group calling itself "Friends of the Article V Convention," or FOAVC. I've embedded the hyperlink to the site, as you can see, within the group's name itself. Y'all be sure and check it out, there's some interesting information I certainly wasn't aware of gathered at the site.)

My good friend, Mike Tams, has a nice post up over at the AFB concerning the Article V provisions for amending the U.S. Constitution, ummmm, constitutionally. Since this has been one of my favorite topics of discussion ever since I first discovered the distinctive provisions of Article V a few years ago, Mike's post really resonates with me...

As I said in my comments to the post, there are basically three methods of amending the constitution, only two of which are provided for in Article V. The other method - the liberal method - is illegitimate precisely because it is in the truest sense of the term "extra-constitutional." And by the way, my fellow AFBers know that when I hear the term "unconstitutional" bandied about, by liberals or conservatives, I usually just dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because first of all to many conservatives, anything "liberal" is considered unconstitutional, and vice versa. And second, since the people retain ultimate and final authority to themselves, it is they themselves who will ultimately determine what is or isn't "constitutional" either directly or indirectly.

Now, as a conservative and a traditionalist, I find it thoroughly non-traditionalist and non-conservative to alter the existing constitution by any means other than that provided for in the constitution itself. So when liberals use their preferred (extra-constitutional) method of amending the constitution -the federal courts- so effectively in establishing as dominant the destructive ideology of liberalism in America, I can think of but one proper, legitimate, and effective remedy: a constitutional amendment via the second provision of article V restricting the self-destructive influence of liberalism itself - a return to balanced constitutional government. Indeed, if this is not the purpose of having a written constitution, not to mention the second of the article V provisions itself, then I don't know what is.

And by the way, for anyone wondering what such an amendment would look like, or read like, I'll refer you to Lawrence Auster's skeletal amendment proposal from a couple of months back as I recall. This VFR article is permanently linked in the left sidebar of this blog under the heading Select VFR Articles.

On the idea of Secession (Part 2)

(Update: I've added a few initial thoughts on the comments I've received so far.)

This is an important, as well as a very interesting topic. I'm going to post the excellent comments that I got to the original entry under the read more section of this entry in hopes that this will prevent their being missed (Please post additional comments pertinent to this question here)...

VA writes:

Terry, you've written a very well-thought out entry on this topic.
I appreciate your point of view.
I think many of those who are involved in the secessionist movement are not necessarily driven by pure animus towards DC, but an alarm at what is being done in and to our country. For many reasons it looks as though our elected officials have cut themselves off from the will of the people, which as you know, is supposed to be the basis for our government. I think many people, seeing a government which is utterly unresponsive to our will, think that such a government is no longer legitimate.

"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law." - Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808

"The mother principle [is] that 'governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.'" - Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

The fact that our government seems to be attempting to overturn the people by repopulating our country with a new majority is extremely serious. I can't imagine that our forefathers would accept such a thing; their grievances against King George were not as serious as today's grievances.
Having Confederate ancestors, I don't see secession as a great evil per se, though it's not something to be taken lightly by any means. Still I think there has to be the option of peacefully leaving the Union if it no longer is what it was designed to be, and if it no longer embodies the will of the people.
Peaceful separations have happened in history.

Fellow AFBer, Mike Tams writes:

Good post. I'd say that my thoughts on the matter aren't far different from yours. A voluntary union should imply a perpetual right to dissolve it - for legitimate reasons, and then it's not a matter to be taken lightly. Dissolving the Union would hold, in my opinion, grave consequences both here and abroad.

And lest Mark Alexander think we're on the same page here, I must reiterate that dissolving that bond would only be just for just reasons; and then, I would imagine that such a dissolution would be followed by another, different, union. History may have been written much differently had our union been less effective.

Populist writes:

While I'm not familiar with the calls for secession (who or why), I find the very notion a farse. In addition to representatives that will govern with the will of the people, I believe that the states need to rely less on the "central government" (to borrow a term from Mr. Morris)to govern. To me, because of party politics, the state governments have become to intertwined with the "central government." These so called representatives are more interested in who controls the house/senate and White House (not to mention re-election), than what is best for these United States. We, the governed, need to wake up from our seemingly endless slumber and take back our government! We have allowed a minority of power brokers, from both parties, to determine the direction of our country and it doesn't take a genious to see that they are running it right in to the ground.

(I will add any further comments on this idea under this title, as well as my own replies to the comments later on.)

**********

Here are my initial thoughts on what my commenters have said so far:

First, I didn't mean to imply that these secessionist groups are necessarily driven by pure animus toward the central government, only that this is the impression I get from what I've read of them so far. My impression could be totally wrong, to be sure, and VA is right to point this out.

Also, I don't necessarily believe that these secessionist movements are bad, or that they'll ultimately result in dire consequences for the United States, though this does concern me, as it does all of my commenters.

Indeed, I think a good argument can be made that the mere threat of secession might alarm folks enough to say to themselves "hey!, we've got a serious threat here of breaking up the union of these States, which could potentially result in putting the disparate parts, and therefore the whole North American Continent, in a very precarious and vulnerable situation. We better try to devise a better plan here; a plan to strengthen, not to dissolve the union."

And this is one reason that I think it is dangerous for us to ever look on secession as illegal, unconstitutional, or whatever. If we consider it to be so, then we deprive ourselves, this nation, of one method of detecting a problem and correcting itself. I.e., the threat of the break up of the union.

I've written many times in the past, but for the benefit of Populist let me reiterate, that the American Civil War resulted in some very problematic alterations to our form of government. Essentially we went from a Federal Representative Republic where there was a built-in balance between the national and the federal aspects, to a centralized form of government where the moderating influence of federalism was essentially removed via incorporation which the fourteenth amendment provided an avenue for the federal courts to assert and enforce, though this was not the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment. Things have steadily degenerated ever since.

Nonetheless, this is what has happened, and I think it's perfectly understandable that many Americans do not (yet) realize how far we've strayed from the original legitimate, self-correcting design of this government. I mean, this is all we've known for how many decades? We cannot allow it to continue though. And if it takes the threat of the breakup of the union to get people to realize there's a huge problem here that needs to be resolved, then I'm all for it. We just need to be able to help them understand the true nature of the problem, and the proper way of going about fixing it. If this can be done without breaking up the union (and I'm persuaded that it can and must), but rather in actually strengthening it, then I can hardly see how dissolving the union of these States to be the preferable alternative. Though an alternative it must remain.

On the idea of Secession (Part 1)

I've been promising to link up to the AFB post on this topic for several days now. I wanted to do a full post on the topic myself, but I just haven't been able to wrap my brain around the subject enough in this context to put together what I would consider a quality entry.

However, I went over to Vanishing American's last night and discovered that VA had done a post on the topic as well...

While I still can't seem to get my mind wrapped around the idea in this context (Southerners and Leftists uniting to disunite), I will say this about VA's questions concerning the "legality" of Secession under the Constitution:

To my mind (and I invite anyone to correct me here) the very idea of "voluntary union" implies a perpetual right to secession. Once it becomes perpetually impossible or illegal or "unconstitutional" to secede from the union, there's nothing "voluntary" about it. I hold that this federal union was originally formed through voluntary political association. I hold as well that no State in this union has any inherent right to voluntarily become a perpetual slave to this union; that to do so is to deprive one's progeny of their very freedom. This, in short, is the Biblical Christian view of God, man, and government.

One thing that distinguishes America in the history of nations, and of nation-making, is this very concept of voluntary political union. And one way in which the founding fathers secured this idea is through federalism, which, incidentally, is a perfectly untenable political organization without an acknowledgment of the basic right of secession, or, voluntary disassociation. In other words, where there exists no right to voluntarily secede from the union of these states, there is no longer any federalism to balance the excesses of nationalism. This is the very reason that we now wrongly refer to the central government as the "federal government," which it most certainly is not.

I personally do not think it wise for these political opposites to unite under the banner of secession. I get the impression from what I read of them that they're so blinded by their animus toward the central government that they can't, nor do they even wish to see their way to a better solution. And I personally think there is one.

It's easy to say "let's dissolve the union," particularly when you don't put much reflection to what that would mean at length. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the map and immediately determine that the United States appears as though it was ordered by Providence to be one united country. That the founders were wise enough to see this, and to make us "several as to ourselves, one as to all others," should give us pause when we start thinking in terms of breaking up the union of these states into so many sovereignties under no united government.

Are Americans, which have historically been an "enlightened" people, destined to commit the same political errors that stain the annals of human history? Are we to revert to our base natures and to break ourselves up into three, four, or more warring factions on a single continent with no centralizing and uniting influence exerted over us; an influence which we can cheerfully submit ourselves to for the common good of this nation and this people?

I think Americans have historically been better than this. Yes; we had a secessionist movement once before which resulted in the war between the states, the fourteenth amendment, and incorporation, and so on and so forth. But it seems to me that the age-old question "can men be governed by reflection and choice, or must we rely on conquest and force for our political constitutions?," should be an ever-present reminder that a wrong election on our parts might finally settle the question firmly in favor of the latter.

Case in Point

I mentioned several days ago that I get Don Wildmon's AFA newsletter via email. Also, I mentioned that any concern or objection that I raise with Wildmon's positions, among others, is generally ignored...

Here is a case in point, not of my raising a concern (which I long since gave up on with these Christian organizations), but of my disagreeing with a a position taken by these groups.

Specifically? I have no desire to save social security for my children and grandchildren, I want to save my children and grandchildren from social security. I don't have a problem with social security per se. What I do have a problem with is entrusting it to the federal government, as well as the involuntary nature of the social security system.

And what the h*ll is Newt doing among this group anyway???

Savage on Legislating Morality

Over at Brave New World Watch, John Savage has put up another interesting entry concerning legislating morality. One thing I've argued ... forever it seems, is that everyone, irregardless of how often or how vehemently they deny it, has an inseparable personal bond to legislating morality...

I've argued this position in any number of ways, stating it in a variety of terms. In fact, if I recall correctly, one of the first things my brothers and I over at the AFB (the orginal three of us) discussed was this idea of legislating morality, or, that all laws are founded on a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. My argument today is essentially the same as it was then: that all legislation can be reduced to a moral foundation whether it's coming from liberals, conservative, libertarians, or any of their offshoots. Why? Because we're all human beings, which is to say "moral" beings.

But I think there's an underlying principle that needs to be brought out here. And it is basically this:

Someone who denies that they wish to legislate on a moral basis, and there are many of them across party lines, is almost irrelevant to any cause seeking to set things aright. Until one embraces this fundamental truth, they are simply living a lie, and there is no basis for a truth-seeker to give any credence to what they say.

From my view, I have a lot more respect for someone who admits a fondness and attachment to legislating morality, even someone whose morality I disagree with. At least that person is honest about his intentions. I appreciate honesty in anyone, particularly concerning one's motives, even those I have differences with.

Dishonesty about one's attachment to legislating morality betrays a person's ill-intentions, whatever party he aligns himself with. On the other hand, we have to recognize that some folks are not necessarily dishonest about legislating morality as much as they are misguided about it. But in either case, dishonesty or misguidedness, someone who denies an attachment to legislating morality while at the same moment appealing to a moral perspective as the foundation of his position, warrants little attention.

If people are incapable of separating their morality from their politics (and I firmly believe this is the case) then what good is it to any cause to claim an "amoral" position? And by the way, I think the term "amoral" is an altogether illegitimate term insofar as it defines a person's actual position on a given subject. All the term is good for, in my view, is to show where a person claims to be on a given subject, not where he actually is. In other words, you can bet your bottom dollar every time that an individual holds a moral position, in spite of the fact that he claims a position of moral neutrality. In fact, many times this claim of moral neutrality betrays a sense in the individual claiming it, of holding the moral high ground. Which sort of defeats the purpose, don't ya know.

Self Critique

For the 100th entry to this blog, I've decided to do a little self critique on the efforts put forth to date. It's not by any means an exhaustive critique, nor is it intended to be one. But it serves well enough, I think, to illustrate where I think this blog can make some vast improvements...

First, I got off to a bit of a slow start. Having never operated a personal blog, all of my previous blogging efforts had been restricted to what little I'd done over at the AFB. In my first post here at Webster's, A New AF-Blogoventure, I explain to some extent what the idea behind having personal blogs entailed, and why the idea came to me to begin with. The truth is that I had, just prior to Webster's coming online, broken out of my shell and had begun to discover the Traditionalist Conservative blogging hemisphere.

That discovery, coupled with the fact that I usually have a lot to say on a variety of subjects that the AFB doesn't necessarily lend itself to, convinced me that a personal blog would be a good outlet for expressing those ideas and opinions more frequently, and for getting to know some of the other traditionalists who were already out there, and who had already become pretty well established as far as the blogosphere goes. Indeed, I had been living in such a bubble that I was not even aware of the traditionalist blogging movement. So much so that VFR had even escaped my radar.

The content of this blog is nowhere near where I'd like it to be as yet. So far it is not well defined, nor has it lived up to its billing as explicated in the blog description section. It is still the primary mission of this blog, as was announced from the beginning, to propagate and advance the ideas of Balanced Government which developed over at the AFB. It is, in short, to advance the concepts of returning to a national-federal structure of government overall, as the founders originally designed the framework of this government.

The process begins with the presupposition that something has gone seriously awry; that that something is reducible to a singular primary cause from which all other posthumous causes are really effects of either the primary first cause, or effects of some other secondary cause, which itself is an effect of some other cause. In other words, it recognizes the cause-effect relationship, and seeks to explain the conditions under which we now live thereby.

As I've said one way or the other so many times, what is evident on the surface is just that, surface scum. Examining this surface material should give us some insight into what lies beneath. And what lies beneath the surface is vastly more important than what is on the surface. The surface material only has value as it relates to and instructs us on the true nature of the underlying material.

But the key to it all is that we have to realize and own that the surface material itself is merely indicative of what is at the core. As long as we're treating the symptom and not the disease, we will ever continue to take more steps backwards than forward steps. It is my firm conviction indeed, that hopelessness is a well placed emotion whenever our whole approach to a given problem involves the process of attempting to limit the effects by dealing only with the effects and not the cause.

I hereby make the following commitment. From this day forward I will make a conscious effort to get to the heart of the matter on anything, any subject for which I choose to discuss on this blog. Recognizing my own limitations, I already know full well that I shall fail in this endeavor on numerous future occasions. But I hope that with my off-blog extra-curriculars, conversations and consultations with other traditionalist thinkers, the incorporation of more study and reflection, and etc., I will meet the requirements of this commitment to a fuller extent than has thus far been shown. In the meantime, I hope you'll bear with me as I continue to dust off my brain so that I can see things a little more clearly, and seeing them more clearly, thereby being equipped to express them more clearly. That is my commitment; that is the task before me. It is the very reason that I'm currently re-visiting so many volumes of material concurrently, and as we speak.

I appreciate everyone's patience, and I hope to make this blog better as time goes on.

Departing Post?

When I said in my last entry that it was a departing entry, what I meant to say was that it was the last entry for the day as I would be indisposed the rest of the day Friday. I did not mean that I was departing for good, or for the next four or five days, or indefinately, as my lengthy absence may have suggested to some of you. No; I suspect this blog, irregardless of how popular it is or isn't, becomes or doesn't become, will remain up for quite some time to come...

And besides, this entry is my 99th entry since first starting this blog. There's no way I would ever stop short of posting the 100th. Speaking of which, I reckon I should post something special for the century post at Web's, but at the moment I still haven't come up with anything that seems just right. Notwithstanding that fact, the 100th post will definately be posted by tomorrow morning.

I do owe y'all an explanation for my absence, however. First, I've been busy with other pressing items. Second, I've been experiencing some real problems with my remote server. In fact, I could not even get online most of the day today. Third, I've been working on several things relevant to this blog behind the scenes. Today, as a matter of fact, I had a nice lengthy phone conversation with my fellow AFBer, Mike Tams, wherein we discussed several items of import related to the AFB, and to this blog, and to Balanced/Constitutional government in general -- how do we get there? I appreciate Mike's willingness to hear me out on the number of points I raised, as well as his kind words, which were very encouraging. If you ever get the chance to talk to Mike over the phone, here's my advice: jump on it!

Otherwise, there are a few additional items here at Web's that some of you may or may not have noticed already. 1. I've added The Maritime Sentry blog to my blogroll. The founding father quotes over there, which it seems they put up on a daily basis, are great! Second, I've added yet another article to my Select VFR Articles section in the left sidebar. To my Links of Interest section, I've added a link to the Federalist Papers (Thanks for the suggestion, John!), as well as a link to the Federalist Patriot's Historic Documents page. One last item of note is that I've changed "Webster's Featured Entries" to Webster's Recommended Blog Posts so that I could add to that list entries from other blogs which I frequent. This idea I borrowed from John Savage over at BNWW, with his blessing. I'll be adding soon a section entitled Select AFB Posts as well, so be on the lookout for that.

Y'all look for the "century post" in the morning. I'll try to come up with something worthwhile.

Jefferson on Balanced Government

In his autobiography Thomas Jefferson makes his case for Balanced Government.

Jefferson writes:

But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor. Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending in gradation from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all. ...

In a letter to Justice William Johnson, Jefferson writes:

The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the states all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others. (emphasis mine)...

Jefferson continues:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

[...]

Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing against the general government, at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties and restraining vice, within their own territory?...Can any good be effected by taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority, or to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaning of words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference on inference, from heaven to earth, like Jacob's ladder? Such an intention was impossible, and such a licenteousness of construction and inference, if exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all power, general and particular, and break up the foundations of the Union.

[...]

"The States supposed that by their ninth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers..."(emphasis mine)

Balanced/Constitutional Government via Article V?

With the direction the postings here at Webster's have taken the last few days, with no small thanks going out to Mr. Auster of VFR, I'd like to begin a discussion on how to effect Balanced Government, as we over at the AFB would describe it, and a return to constitutional government, as Mr. Auster at VFR has described it...

Yes; essentially I think that the AFB's Balanced Government, and VFR's return to constitutional government, are the very same things stated differently. But how do we get there? This is the question I'd like to investigate, and I invite everyone to join into the conversation.

To begin the discussion, I will simply point to an aspect of Article V of the U.S. Constitution which I do not believe to be widely known among this citizenry. That aspect, or provision of Article V is what I termed several years ago for my own purposes, the state initiated method of amendment. That said, I would direct you to the text of Article V itself, as well as Federalist #85. And I will let you draw your own conclusions.

I will definately be adding to this post later. Stay tuned.

Toward Amending the Constitution with pinpoint accuracy

(Note: In addition to the VFR Article linked below, see also Austers entry from today, How to drive a stake into the heart of modern liberalism, which provides some background information on Auster's original proposal, as well as his recent amendments to it.)

I've mentioned before the Enumerated Powers Amendment proposal offered by the folks over at the Federalist Patriot, and some of the reasons for which I think it a good and a necessary amendment. And truly, I thought I'd never see an amendment proposal that is as good, or that could better that one.

However, Lawrence Auster from VFR has introduced me to an amendment proposal that may well outclass that of the EP Amendment. Now, I've put little reflection to Auster's amendment proposal to this point. So I'm not going to offer any reasons as yet for why I think this one may be a better proposal. Except to say that instead of going after judicial activists and judicial activism, as the EP amendment does, what Auster is proposing is to get to the very heart of the matter which tends to this kind of activism on the part of the federal judiciary. (I have mentioned that the final sentence in the EP amendment does bother me, and this is primarily why)

One thing that has, for a long time now, bothered me about the fourteenth amendment is that its language more or less lends itself to faulty interpretations, and thus to faulty and unauthorized applications. Berger's book, Government by Judiciary, which came highly recommended to me by Mr. Auster himself, deals specifically with the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment, which is very helpful to someone like myself who has seen some real problems with the fourteenth, but did not have the scholarly background to determine what the real intent of the framers actually was.

What Auster is suggesting in his amendment proposal, and in light of Berger's excellent scholarship, is that the language of the fourteenth be clarified so as to be consistent with what the framers intended by that language, not what meaning may be squeezed from the text, as Jefferson so aptly put it.

Here's the thing, I'm not endorsing Auster's amendment in this post. What I am endorsing, and emphatically so, is his willingness to explore ways of overcoming the evils we experience at the hands of the federal judiciary, via its long practice of ascribing meanings to certain phrases in the fourteenth which all the evidence shows was not originally intended by the framers of the amendment.

We all know the old adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." In this case of the fourteenth amendment, this seems to be strikingly appropriate and fitting. And I absolutely agree with Auster when he says that whether it is likely that we can effect such changes via such an amendment proposal, it is nevertheless vitally important that we discuss it. And I would add that it is vitally important that we discuss, or explore ways, or means, in which there is some real potential for reaching the goal of "returning to constitutional government." The AFB deals particularly with that.

Look for more to be added to this entry later. And in the meantime, go read Auster's proposal, and tell us what you think. As I understand it, this is still a work in progress. So if you can think of something that may be added or taken away, do not hesitate to let Auster know. But on just a little reflection from this end, it looks like he's got the makings of a very good amendment here. Indeed, this may well eventually make its way into the section here at Webster's, Select VFR Articles.

Repairing the Breach through Balance; Checking the Extremism of Liberalism

While my mind seems to be consumed with these kind of thoughts of late, I may as well ask you to go back and re-read my entry from a couple of days ago, Washington's Farewell Speech, wherein I have added some additional relevant links, and a few other thoughts on the matter.

I'll probably add some additional thoughts, as well as some additional links to this post later.

Washington's Farewell Speech

(Note: This post has undergone some minor editing so as to include the link to the full speech from whence the excerpted portion posted below was taken. And also to add just a few more thoughts, and a couple more helpful links.)

Below is posted a long excerpt from Washington's Farewell Speech. Never dull reading for yours truly.

I have highlighted in bold text portions of the speech which struck me on this, the latest of the many times I've read it. I know that many of you would highlight other portions of the speech, and indeed it's hard to pick above others certain phrases to highlight. Nonetheless I've done so here as they relate in no small way to our current situation and how to go about fixing it.

Somewhere around the house here I have a copy of the speech which I printed from the computer wherein I broke the speech down into sub-headings and cross-referenced some of the principles I have highlighted in bold below with my copy of the Federalist Papers. I need to locate that copy, and/or, print off a new one and redo the work I so laboriously engaged way back when. I think I'd rather find the old one and see whether I need to add something, rather than retracing all of those steps. Not that retracing them doesn't have its advantages too.

And by the way, a great online resource for finding many relevant historical documents associated with the story of liberty, from the Magna Charta to the Mayflower Compact; from John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and to Madison's Proposal for the Bill of Rights and beyond, is provided here.

One more link I would add is to an AFB post I did apparently back in October of '06, Expanding Upon the Concept of Balance. This entry, along with its sister post, Why libertarians have it wrong, though not particularly well done, nonetheless has relevancy in this context. The discussion that ensued upon both of these postings is in some ways more helpful than the actual entries themselves.

**********

Washington writes:

[...]

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now near to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand, Turning partly into its own channels the sea men of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing the parties by geographical discriminations - Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western - whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the executive and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of 2 treaties - that with Great Britain and that with Spain - which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations toward confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the off-spring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty.

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; the facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of persons and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep live the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party, but in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confirm themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! Is it rendered possible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government, but that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to use have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish - that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good - that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the impostures of pretended patriotism - this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe my proclamation of [1793-04-22], is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined as far as should depend upon me to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity toward other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after 45 years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government - the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers."

The Dual Threat of Islam and Liberalism

I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet, and to move you in the right direction as I said what I needed to say in my entry to the AFB this morning.

But the core of the issue is this, we face a dual threat which comes in the forms of Islam, and liberalism. Both ideologies are extreme at the core. Both must be dealt with in a way that extinguishes the threat each of them pose us or we face the threat of being consumed by them, and are, in a word, dead.

In an attempt to find a way of dealing with the dual nature of this crisis, I put the question to Lawrence Auster of whether his separationist strategy for dealing with the threat of Islam might as well be capable of dealing with the threat of liberalism, which I see as just as much a threat to our safety and existence as is the extreme ideology of Islam. And here Mr. Auster answers me.

For a better understanding of where I'm coming from here, click on the link to the entry I put up this morning over at the AFB. And if you have any ideas about how to apply the principles of the separationist strategy to liberalism, do make them known to Mr. Auster.

Creedal Patriotism; Legitimate or not?

(Note: Do not neglect to read John Savage's first comments to this post. John's comments further reveal that the 4W position betrays their actual desire to formulate a new American creed more conducive to their own brand of patriotism...)

John Savage has suggested that I post the following comments I made earlier this morning to his fine entry “Toward an Understanding of Patriotism According to WWWW,” here at Webster's.

I should explain that John got my attention on this when he cited the header description line at the AFB as an example of the kind of ideological patriotism that 4W had taken their stand against.

As I explain in the comments below, my view is that if creedal patriotism can be shown to be an illegitimate form of patriotism, then it should be rejected. And if it truly is an illegitimate form of patriotism worthy of rejection, then its antagonists should be able to lay down reasonable arguments for its illegitimacy while fully adhering to the dictates of their own reasons...

John poses this interesting question in reply to an earlier comment of mine:

“Back to what Terry said. I'm wondering if it implies that creedal patriotism is not uniquely American, but there's always some unifying creed that binds a nation. That creed may be relatively unstated, but it commands love for certain symbols, heroes, etc. The fact that we have a shared ancestry needs to have some meaning attached to it, I suppose. Otherwise kinship had better be very close if we're going to care about it, and act upon it. Is that right, Terry?”

Here is my answer:

“Well, I tend to think that way, yes. Indeed, it seems to me that family unity and so forth is part of the creed, not separate from it. We can analyze them separately, but I don't see how they can be completely separated as distinctive kinds of patriotism and loyalty capable (or not) of themselves to satisfy the elements comprising 'legitimate' patriotism.

I don't deny the importance of natural affection, familiar places and smells and all of that. As a matter of fact I affirm it, but it only goes so far. Cella and Martin seem to leave no room for a blending of these, claiming one to be an illegitimate form of patriotism and loyalties, supposedly rejecting it in favor of the other.

If it's truly illegitimate then it oughta be rejected. But if it's truly illegitimate as they claim, then why do they adhere to it? I doubt, for instance, that Cella and Martin would assert that their own blood ties with their extended families are stronger inducements to loyalty than their ideological kinship to one-another. Even if they are blood relatives, they likely don't identify as well, nor do they have as strong a bond to other blood kin whose ideological beliefs are different than their own. The proof seems to me in the pudding.

It seems to me that blood ties and kinship based on purely natural kinds of affection would tend to break down in proportion to the distance removed from the immediate family. And that's just speculation on my part because I don't think we have any real examples to look to where this kind of purely natural loyalty is adhered to in strictness.

Ideological loyalty has its limitations too. It would break down the further removed one was from the core ideas and principles. But you cannot simply reject it based on its inherent limitations anymore than you can reject the other based on the same thing.

Again they concentrate their efforts on identifying the weaknesses inherent to ideological loyalties, neglecting to deal with the limitations and weaknesses of the more primitive kinds of loyalty.

In short, it seems to me that Cella and Martin argue in favor of an ideological loyalty. Their creed seems to be no-creed. But it's still a creed, isn't it?”

John's comment that follows to the effect of this not being my final word on the subject is fair enough. It certainly wasn't intended as the final word from this end, but more of a beginning. And I certainly intend to say more. As for now this should suffice to give you a window into what I believe some of the problems are with the 4W position on ideological patriotism. In the absence of a more compelling argument for a rejection of creedal patriotism, I take my stand for it.

-DW

Do We Deserve Our Government?

This is one of those questions that just eats at ya, y'know? Those who know me well know that I've been an outspoken critic of the American People for a long time now, placing the blame for our governmental situation on ourselves at least as much as on any of our so-called 'leaders,' and often more so. One of my oft repeated refrains, in fact, has been some form of this: “the next time you have a complaint about your elected officials and the way they're conducting themselves, in their 'personal' or their 'private' lives, just go to the nearest mirror in your home, look at yourself and repeat these words “I am (insert offending leader's name).”

Now, this is not a very popular position to take, even within 'conservative' circles, but as VA and others write, 'we should be able to have an adult conversation about this thing, and whether it has any truth to it.' Indeed we should, and ultimately we must, I should think...

I mention VA because she put up an entry a few days ago dealing with this very question over at her blog, Iowa and the government we deserve. And yes, implicit in the title is the idea contained in the body of the post indicting us Americans – We the People – for the government we have and complain so often about. We've had this conversation more than a few times over at the AFB, and elsewhere, and the conversation went southward fairly quickly in some instances where someone was offended by the notion that we have ourselves, and only ourselves, to blame for our condition, when ya boil it all down.

Personally I think the idea applies to Americans in a very unique way. Even at this point when things seem to be so very bad; when our government seems so very out of control, when the cancers of liberalism and political correctness seem to have almost thoroughly overtaken us in our political capacity as 'one nation; one people,' we still hold the purse strings; we still are the ultimate and the final authority in this government founded on laws and free elections.

In some other parts of the world, people are ruled by 'arbitrary' government, that is, they are ruled by illegitimate government, founded on illegitimate ideas of government. But not us. Not yet. Not completely. Many of us traditionalists who point to our Christian roots as the very foundation which gave rise to this government 'of, by, and for the People,' as well as has been chiefly responsible for sustaining it, often recur to scriptures such as Psalms 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”, in our various warnings that we need to get back to those traditional roots in order to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' The implication being, of course, that the foundations themselves, once destroyed, leave us with a fragmented or a non-existent means of putting humpty dumpty back together again.

So, is our nation's foundation still left intact? In other words, do we still have in place a solid enough foundation upon which to rebuild those parts of the American edifice which we've witnessed (and actually contributed to in many cases) deteriorate over time, but at a very accelerated pace over the last couple of decades? I'm thinking here in terms of the absolute moral degradation that has seemingly overtaken us during that span of time.

To me the question is a vitally important one, because either way we answer it within ourselves, ultimately will determine within us, and without us, what measures we take, or don't take, to ameliorate the impending crisis. And seriously, folks, I don't care what it is we're talking about, whether it's immigration reform, conducting a war against islamic jihadists the world over, restraining (or not) such things as promiscuous and immoral sexually devious lifestyles, putting restraints on certain tendencies to be ungovernable, to be anarchist; or coming to grips nationally with the immorality of Abortion, or whatever, our Christian tradition always (Always!) applies in an extremely 'foundational' way.

Our founding fathers and mothers understood this concept very well. And they passed on to their children and grandchildren these fundamentally reducible principles of 'Christian Self-Government.' Not only do we see it in their writings leading up to the revolution where this example may be given as a prime one of a collective determination on their parts,:

Whereas it has pleased the righteous Sovereign of the Universe, in just indignation against the sins of a People long blessed with inestimable privileges, civil and religious, to suffer the plots of wicked men on both sides of the Atlantic...

-A Proclamation of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, April 15, 1775

But we see it as well in their progeny such as this exemplary example shows:

I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg pardon! The Bible is authority for everything it touches...The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other...

-Matthew Fontaine Maury

Many other examples of the same line of thinking may be had by even a cursory investigation into our unique history as a distinct nation. But the point is this, that which makes us, and always has made us a distinctive people when compared against other peoples of the world is our history of being unwilling to allow extra-biblical, extra-traditional doctrines to creep into our thinking. Our founders understood that to do so would eventually pave the way for extra-constitutional, anti-traditionalist American values to corrupt our system, our laws, our institutions, our very culture. And so it is that we bear witness to today.

So what is the answer? How do we get this nation back on track? Truly I believe that the only answer, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, is that we need to rediscover our Christian roots, and to apply those uniquely Christian principles of government that this nation was founded upon. Some of course will scoff at this notion, but if I know anything at all to be a 'truth,' it is that if there is a God (and God exists, don't kid yourselves), then He has revealed certain things to his moral creatures (mankind), in 'general' and 'special' kinds of revelation. The Bible being of that latter kind of revelation, reason would teach us that, as Maury relates, whatever it touches, it is authority for. And if it touches on political science, it is authority for that as well.

Truly we are at fault my friends, because with all of our scientific 'advances,' and those things which we've discovered, not invented, having made our lives so easy, we have forgotten to whom to give the glory.

Blessed be the name of the Lord!

-DW

So Much To Say; So Little Time to Say It...

My friends, thanks in large part to your contributions to this blog, I have many things I desire to post on, and as immediately as possible. This post is simply going to be dedicated to informing you of what kinds of topics you're likely to see here in the next few days, beginning this evening hopefully, if all goes as planned...

First of all, I want to get back to the Ron Paul series we started a while back. I think that two or three more posts should suffice to complete the series to my satisfaction, unless of course there are questions raised that need to be dealt with in an additional post or two.

Second, y'all be sure and check out John Savage's interesting analysis on his recent poll that I recommended to you some time back. I'll be addressing his analysis more fully in a post forthcoming. Also, John brings to the fore an interesting idea in this post that I have been contemplating myself. As I said once before, my idea for it will take a good deal of research on my part prior to adding the feature I have envisioned emanating from it here at Webster's. And so far I've had very little, good, quality, uninterrupted time that I could devote to that specific purpose. But I'm just going to have to resolve to make time for it; that's all there is to it.

Third, Katie's Dad helped to convince me that I should pursue an idea for an entry on the immigration situation in his comments to my post "So You've Considered Moving to Oklahoma, Have You?" Look for something rather unique in that vein in the near future. And btw, Edmund and Mike, I need to get back with you guys on the video thing. I will have CTO provide you with a link to what he's developed so far. In any event, we've not forgotten it, just haven't had time to work on it lately.

Finally, I think I've pretty well covered what you can expect to see posted here over the next few days. I want to thank everyone for the ideas they inspire, either at their blogs, or in their comments to my posts here at Web's, because without them I would simply be at a loss - I simply don't have a deep reservoir from whence to gather ideas for posts in the absence of feedback from the readership like some of my friends seem to have.

We have a pressing issue (don't worry yourselves, it's not life threatening or anything like that, just pressing) that we need to resolve around here. After having successfully completed this mission, I should be able to devote some quality time to honoring these commitments I've purposely entered into here. I imagine it will take us the rest of today to get this issue resolved, and as I said, I hope to be back here working on these other items thereafter.

If everything goes as planned, I should have three good solid days at my disposal to work on them. And I should hope that I wouldn't squander any of that time. But I get a little lazy from time to time to be honest. And that's the reason I make these announcements; because it will serve to motivate me to get to work when I might get a hankering to just relax a bit.

Y'all be on the lookout for all of that, and I'll see ya later...

-DW

Webster's Recommended Blog Posts

Recent Comments

Blogs, websites and links of Interest

Label Cloud

Blog Archive

The Star Spangled Banner

Select AFB Articles

Select VFR Articles

On Islam

About Me

Blog Description

Countdown

Subscribe via email

Site Statistics

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Friday, November 9, 2007

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Monday, October 8, 2007

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Friday, September 7, 2007

Monday, September 3, 2007

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Monday, August 13, 2007

Thursday, August 2, 2007