A constitutionalist

I never intended to make any entries to this blog that were so specific in one ideology as to spurn the opinions of anyone, desiring rather to only opine the most simple of principles to promote a healthier understanding of political discourse. Today however I am breaking, at least slightly, with that objective to fully endorse a candidate for president in this upcoming election. I feel so strongly about this candidate and his adherence to the constitution that I hope you will forgive this one exception.

George Washington once said that “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, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

I am beginning to get frustrated, on the verge of exasperation, with the half hearted constitutionalist among today’s conservatives. On a time I was under the impression that conservatives were pretty well aligned with a respect for that founding document of our republic. I believed that it was the politicians, who promised to respect the constitution while campaigning but dismissed it once in office, was our real problem. I understood the founders to be regarded by conservatives for their insight on the forgery of an experimental government which gave us the liberty of self governance. I thought that the foremost tenant of conservatism was to preserve that precious republic, handed down to us by those generations that came before and to pass it on to the future, as a shining example of what individual liberty can do for a nation. Today, I am not sure if any of this applies to what has become known as conservatism.

Today I find myself in a sea of self described conservatives, patriots, and lovers of freedom who can’t seem to see the glaringly evident signs of hypocrisy within their own lines of reason. I am alarmed to see those who would claim a respect and even reverence for the likes of Thomas Jefferson but turn around and dismiss his abundantly clear positions on foreign policy, as fringe and dangerous. It concerns me for the future of our nation, those who will claim adoration for the freedoms and rights declared in the constitution but will, for the sake of perceived safety, succumb to championing such legislation as the Patriot Act which denies specifically the rule of law outlined in the constitution. My heart aches, when my biggest detractors these days, are those whom I had counted as likeminded defenders of our constitution as late as a year ago, now seem to be an army of piece meal constitution followers, putting their emotions in place of consistency. The ignorance that spurs this changeability has dampened my hope for this country, a hope I believed was nearing a true revolution in our revere for our founding. When I saw the rise of the TEA party, I had hopes that the giant was finally stirring. When all forms of literature, regarding the founding of this country, seemed to leap up in sales and distribution, I reveled at the idea that we as a society were once again ready to embrace to the notions of liberty as stated by the likes of Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, and Jefferson. With a great many seats gained in our government this last cycle, by people who unabashedly cited the constitution and rallied to defend it, I was convinced that the revolution had begun. I was mistaken.

I was mistaken that such narrow path could really be chosen. I was mistaken that a true understanding of what it means to be a republic had been recovered. What has appears to be little more than lip service, to the principles of the constitution, has proven worse than an all out assault from our known ideological opposites. My biggest fear is that this rift, among conservatives, will spell the final doom of the United States of America. It will be ours to lose, as we have been given the option to change course if we would only listen. This choice was presented to us before and we ignored it. In 2008 Ron Paul was introduced to many Americans for the first time. Though he has served in the United States Congress for over thirty years, his voice and name was only known outside Washington to his few constituents in Texas and a handful of libertarians across the country. While he did run for president in 1988, it was on a third party ticket which as we all know did not really get much mention in any media circles, so in reality his national debut was arguable in late 2006 when he entered the republican primary.

What does the introduction of Ron Paul, have to do with the divide amongst conservatives, you may ask. Well it has everything to do with it. I write this today as an ardent and passionate supporter of what Ron Paul does and says. I am what many call, disparagingly, a Paulbot or a Paultard.  I am convinced that he is the only candidate that represents the true pillar of our republic, the constitution and I stand firmly in my insistence that no matter what, he will get my vote in 2012. For this ardent and unwavering support, I find myself at odds with the group I have long since felt a part of. The left gives me less grief for supporting this known constitutionalist.  More than once, and once too often, I have been convinced to vote for the lesser of two evils when casting the only meaningful voice I have in our system of government and I will honestly say that I regret those votes. Principles do not waiver, political parties do.  I am sick of being persuaded to vote republican on the promise that government will be constrained but instead it grows more. That termination dampens the conservative spirit and so a Democrat takes over the next time around and so on and so on. Restraint on government never happens. Well no more, I am drawing my line in the sand and I will at least hold onto my honor by voting for my conscience and the constitution.

For those of you touting the moniker of conservatism but dismiss Ron Paul, I beg you to consider your own logic. The entire field of GOP candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, is made up of these same kinds of Republicans that each time, talks the talk but when it comes to governing, are too weak to walk the walk. Ron Paul has been consistent, from his first day taking office, to defend the constitution. He has never allowed political pressure to sway his opinions and always returns to the constitution to defend his positions. The particulars of his policies may at times seem odd but I only ask that you consider it against the design of the structure of our government. When Ron Paul surmises that it is not within our authority to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon, consider the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said “In defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.” When Ron Paul states that power must be returned to the states for social policies like marriage or welfare, return again to this admonishment given by our third president, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Are any of the other candidates ready to challenge the status quo of these social programs and polarizing issues? There are in my opinion really only two types of politicians; those who bend and sway with the wind basing their positions on the latest polls and those who hold their principles on something more rigid. The constitution is what births the rigidity in Ron Paul and I for one will stick with him. I will settle for nothing less.

Divided States of America

There is much turmoil in the politics of today, there is little doubt. Turmoil driven by a divide in this country reminiscent of the late 1850’s when America was torn between two distinct factions. War was brewing and tensions were high between these two sides when in December of 1860, North Carolina became the first state to formally secede from the union, followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. These Confederate States, while indeed proponents of the continuation of slavery, had many causes that led them to this separation. It was widely accepted in the south that the federal government, physically resting on northern soil, had become unambiguous in its deference to the interest of northern states, many charging that the abolition movement was just a ruse to keep the fast developing plantation states from gaining such power as to threaten the north’s long held position as the center of this new nation.  This paints a picture of the shear divide between citizens, families, and even patriots, who held firm in their conviction even to the climax of a bloody war.

In today’s political dialogue, there is a similarly huge divide in this country. The geographical lines are not so clear nor the ideology behind it but the chasm is there, plainly enough for any to see.  But what is this divide? Where does it come from and are there any alternatives to bloodshed? Before the latter can be answered we must define, as best we can, what it is that divides us. As previously discussed, http://bruteofmonticello.blogspot.com/2011/01/right-vs-left.html there is at least one seemingly clear division of “right” and “left” to describe this rift but with that delineation comes the further confusion of where either side is coming from or what their demands may be.  As mentioned before, these two sides are often changing in principle and direction and their only constant would seem to be their title. Republicans and Democrats are the two teams, both with ardent supporters that make up their base relying on a third group, the independents, to join their ranks during an election cycle. This is how it has been for some time now, though I would make the case that it has been magnified in recent years to an all out disdain when it comes to the two bases and even flowing into the independents, whichever team they join that particular cycle.

This is a particularly troublesome point, in that for most of the year this large group, calling themselves independent, has sense enough to put distance between themselves and either of the major parties and yet, when it comes time to make their voices count with their vote, they put that sense aside and play the game with all the other partisan sheep. Why doesn’t this large group of the electorate stand behind an independent candidate, perhaps someone like themselves, who does not correlate their principles with a party that has none? The accepted answer to this question would be that any independent candidate would just be “unelectable” and therefore a wasted vote. There is some truth to this assertion, especially when talking about the office of the presidency, as many third party or even “independent” candidates have pursued very prominent campaigns and yet none have even come close to winning the seat. The closest ever was Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party, who in 1912 received 88 electoral votes, more than the Republican candidate’s 8 votes but far less than Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s 435. As popular as it may seem, to be “independent”, when it comes down to it, to when it matters most, we fall back to the party hierarchy, Republican or Democrat.

So back to the question of whether or not we can close the divide that separates us; can anything, short of a bloody revolution, be found to unite again the bonds of America and her citizens?  Perhaps the South was right. Not for the issue of slavery and I do not mean to diminish the importance of such an issue but for a moment, if that issue was taken away, would it not seem that the Confederacy was fighting for the same thing the revolutionaries fought for, a generation before? They saw the Federal government as a growing tyranny, a threat to the liberty that was by right the States and people to control. I can only see two possible solutions to affect a change in our current political divide.

The first would be an abandonment of parties’ altogether; a novel idea perhaps but one of significant difference to our current method of painting, with broad strokes, the beliefs and persuasions of large groups and thus their respective candidates. George Washington gave us an example of this, though it has never been repeated. He was elected to the office of president twice, without party affiliation and even went on to warn us, as a nation, against the notions of party loyalty; decrying it as fire, quick to consume the entire process of representative government. In his day, it was the Federalist and Democratic Republicans, selling their propaganda for the people and while Mr. Washington could arguably be accounted as a Federalist, supporting many of that party’s platforms, he would never formally join. Even though he agreed with the Federalist’s general prescriptions of government he believed it important not to tie his name with them. A farsighted decision it would seem, an almost magnanimous act supporting the legacy of this celebrated founder; and yet a simple choice that can easily be made by every one of us today.

Surely it cannot be refuted, that both have played a part in the division but it is sadly a far stretch that we could see their demise in our lifetimes. Over the years they have amassed such power and control that it could almost not be expected that a movement could gain the traction as to wage a strong enough battle against the established parties. The other possible solution then would be to define them. Define them clearly and separately that the ruse of difference be washed away and leave a true choice in principle and governance. While it is true that political parties have almost always existed among us, it is their ability to change face that keeps us guessing; the Whigs of yesteryear would be Republicans today or the Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights legislation of the sixties are now the champions of Civil Rights. Well no more! In order for us to affect change we must define for ourselves what it is to be this or that in the seats of our government, holding individuals to account for their ability to uphold these principles. This is in my opinion the less attractive solution but likely the most practical.

But how then will each party be defined? Who should decide the definitions? An arduous task certainly but I recommend that we let history be our guide and let the hands that crafted our founding again be part of our reclaiming. Let us turn to the wisdom of our forefathers and see what divisions there were that we may glimpse the answer to assuage our present plight. Early on in the crafting of our founding documents a division arose between those who would have a large and influential federal government and those who would prefer to see the states retain more of the power of government leaving only the most simple and uncontested duties to the federal head. The Federalist and Anti federalist, as they came to be known, were perhaps the most clearly divided parties to ever exist on this continent and yet only one became an organized political party, the Federalist.

When discussing the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist it is important to note that theses names also changed in meaning and direction from the Declaration stages to the adoption of the Constitution in the time of our founding.  The original Federalist were those arguing for a central government and formal union of the different states as opposed to complete sovereignty and independent governance of each state. The Anti-Federalist feared any form of federal government, seeing it as the precise cause for the revolution against the powerful central government of England.  Federalist won the day, when in 1778 the Continental Congress opted for a completely new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation which gave basically no authority to any federal government and signed the Constitution of the United States of America. Then there was another split. The Federalist proper, kept up with all policies enforcing a stronger and stronger federal government until many who were accounted as Federalist before, found that they no longer fell in line with what was happening to the States authority. This divide is often considered a continuation of the Federalist, Anti-Federalist feud but it is important to note that what became of those not solidly behind the Federalist movement were not necessarily Anti-Federalist before. Thomas Jefferson for instance, was most definitely a Federalist in his belief that a strong union was mandatory in order for liberty to be secured but was also the first to split when after the union was established he saw too much power being granted to the federal head. It was actually Mr. Jefferson along with James Madison who established the new adversary party to the Federalist. Not wishing to be defined as a party existing only to be against something, Mr. Jefferson proposed dropping the Anti-Federalist title and opted for the Democratic Republican party, espousing more balance of authority between the states and federal governments.  All this to say that a party system defined on the central issue of federal authority would serve us incredibly better than our current indefinable and chaotic, party loyalty games.

Imagine a two party system that actually had two different solutions to any issue. Take any topic at hand and ask yourself if it may not be more prudent that each state form its own policy and let examples guide other states rather than experiments done at large for the entire country.  Of course there will be issues that can only be addressed at the federal level but I believe those to be infrequent and really the most obvious. The beauty of a Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist party system would be that there are only two choices, real choices; whether it should be Federal or State. In order to affect this kind of change we can start today, we can start right now. When asked what party you support, declare with pride that you are either a Federalist, seeking stronger influence of our central government or a Democratic Republican, looking for a more balanced approach to the governance of men by a limited and clearly defined role for the Federal government and a genuinely liberal approach to the individual States.

I give you my word

How often, to the point of cliché, has it become to give someone your word? How eager are we to accept one at their word? Is this just an example of clinging to a language expression that has lost its meaning? “How are you today?” “What? No I don’t want you to go into it, I just want you to say, ‘fine’ and be done with it.” As with our common vernacular habits, especially in greetings, I feel that to give our word, has lost some of the potency it once held. Our word once given should be counted upon by others but too often is not and for good reason. It seems a trifle that a man will say something and do quite another. It has become quite acceptable to the point of being expected that what a person says must be taken with a proverbial grain of salt. Why is that? Take politicians for instance; during a campaign we hear amazing promises of how that person is going to fix this and that, how they will make our lives better, how with the simple act of electing them we can kiss our problems goodbye. Do you believe them? I don’t think many people put much stock in this grandstanding but we do still tolerate it. That begs the question; do we like to be lied to? Have we somehow become so conditioned to hearing a lie that we now only wish for better liars?

                It has been said that the only thing we can give and yet keep with us, is our word. Our word being more than just what we say but an extension of our own selves, an inanimate expression to be regarded or to be dismissed based on its worth to those who receive it. Honor may be another way of explaining this but that word can also conjure meanings not strictly related to honesty in what we say. Upon a time the honor of a man was based upon his honesty, his words being something to count on.  Along with other physical actions and precepts, a man counted his word as dearly as his life. An example of this sentiment, tying one’s words to one’s very life, can be seen in an example that nearly changed history. The account of a young Abraham Lincoln summoned to duel an adversary by the name of James Shield. The incident began while Mr. Lincoln was still in the Illinois legislature, making a name for himself as a brash and witty politician. The row was between himself and a member of the opposing political party that oddly enough had been his partner in a bipartisan effort to help save a their financially floundering state only a short time before. Despite their history of working together, notwithstanding being at odds politically, the union quickly faded when Mr. Shields became the state auditor and Mr. Lincoln began to openly rebuke and even mock the positions his old partner came to espouse.  Mr. Lincoln took his mockery to public view by means of the local paper. With letters to the editor, penned by an assumed identity, Mr. Lincoln berated Mr. Shields ceaselessly and was even joined by his future wife, Marry Todd and another friend by the name of Julia Jayne. The trio made a mockery of the actions of Mr. Shields and even took to lambasting completely fictitious circumstances all made to incite the public servant to rage.  It worked. Upon pressing the editor of the newspaper, Mr. Shields was given the name of Abraham Lincoln as the sole detractor. The identity of the two women was withheld and not by coincidence but that is beside the point. James Shield now had the information he desired and immediately set out to force a retraction from Mr. Lincoln for the incendiary comments he had made.

Upon receiving a letter demanding such a retraction, Mr. Lincoln pertly requested that if any apology were to be expected, a more genteel letter of request was in order. This infuriated Shields, who upon hearing the response decided to up the ante. While dueling had become a much less frequent practice of deciding victory, it nonetheless was still held as a novel way of showing decidedly who won any debate. Mr. Shield sent the formal summons, at which point Lincoln realized the severity of the situation. He had never meant to infuriate his opponent to this point. He may have believed what he said but now he questioned if were the right things to say. Was it worth his life? In that moment Abraham Lincoln realized the weight of a man’s word and from that day forward a more prudent man emerged. The man that came to be can easily be traced back to this incident, where he learned the value with which some men hold their own honor. He began the practice of writing letters never to be sent, that he might relieve his own desire to scold and yet hold in check that aggression his outpouring would have induced should they become known. As he came to be counted one of the greatest orators of all times, Abraham Lincoln took this lesson to heart and allowed it to shape his life thereafter. The duel never came to fruition by means not wholly credited to Mr. Lincoln but at least in part to his physical stature as it relates to the Calvary broad sword “the chosen weapon for the duel” and perhaps also his willingness to agree on the type of retraction to be made in which to amend the honor of one James Shield.

                  This lesson in the value and consequence as it relates to honor and our word has too often been forgotten in today’s time where it is acceptable if not outright celebrated to be man of eloquence rather than honest. It seems we have little regard or faith in what others say and likewise, in our own speech, a commitment to honesty is heeded only when it seem convenient. What if you were called upon to defend something you said with your life? Of course the reason that duels ceased to be, as a means to dissolve differences, had to do with the terminality of the outcome. Truth was not always vindicated, though the propensity of believing their case to be grounded by the participants was most likely a very high margin. A man willing to die for what he says is most often granted a credence that otherwise may be bereft of him. Perhaps in our dissolution of the practice we forgot to hold any thought for the restraints it so naturally incurred. Not that a return to similar bloodshed should be considered but perhaps a substitute should be found. A man may be destroyed without losing his life. Look again at the  politician for example; should the idea of honor be something revered by us and then to have one grandstanding on the pulpit of the electorate body be caught saying anything but the whole and unadulterated truth, could we then show a disdain for dishonesty? Could we show them to the door? Of course and just so I don’t leave anyone out or leave any to seek understanding for the preceding statement, do NOT elect them. While their life is spared the office they sought would be taken from their grasp. This would prove an even more gigantic a leap for mankind than others I can think of. Politicians are not alone of course and perhaps even too large an example to start with. Every person and every situation is unique and there could never be written a litany to precede the correct solution except for the general notion that all should be held accountable for what they say. The means and the reaction will inevitably change with every new day and yet the idea will always be. Another glaring example I can think of where widespread dishonesty is glaringly acceptable would be the advertisement industry. This is one that really seams harmless and perhaps it is but I am reminded again of that conditioning effect that I believe is the main cause for the rampart removal of honesty in our society. Look at any fast food commercial showcasing food that would pass for a five star dining experience the sight of which entices the senses into a fever of desire. Of course when we get there and the food arrives we see nothing like what we were promised but a shrunken counterfeit as it were, of the mouthwatering indulgence we anticipated. Again this in and of itself is cause for no real alarm and many may drop this book immediately upon the nit picking of such a miniscule matter but I am not trying address any one particular company or even fast food in general. It is only an example of where we are that we all know it to be a farce and yet we are fine with it. If we are fine with being mislead about the food we eat and similarly find it quite natural to be deceived by those we send to represent us in Washington, where else have we found comfort in untruth? I charge it to be all around us.

                Think for a moment, your entire life and all those whom you have come into contact with. Who among them can you count on for everything they say? Look also inwards; how many people do you think count on your word as reliable? Reflecting on this may cause distress and I won’t begin to try and lessen the severity of it but don’t let it get you down. Recognition is the first step but I have found it to be possibly the most difficult. After recognition a simple choice is then made; does it matter to me? If it does then what will you do about it? Take this moment, this day, and decide whether a commitment to honesty is worth your consideration. Once taken upon yourself, the task could easily be seen as complete and truly the benefits of taking it only so far are rewarding indeed but there is one last step that can be taken. This last step can prove dangerous and yet also the most important in making a difference in the world around you. Simply put it is the act of swinging the same measure you hold to yourself to those around you, the demand for honesty in others. Not so much as a judge but more as the prosecuting attorney. Demand that the truth be applied when dealing in debate with others. When your points of argument are spun out of context, corral them back again and show disdain for your need to do so. If your words are well reasoned and established on grounds seeded in honesty, it is completely reasonable and justified to defend them and likewise, if another’s words are found to be a concealment of anything but the truth in its entirety, condemn it without prejudice.

Ignorance is the only method by which you can get the wrong answer by an honest means.

When agitated with another, remind yourself of this and if you are inclined to believe them only ignorant, let it not trouble you greatly. Ignorance, after all, can be remedied with education and understanding. If on the contrary, you suppose them full of deceit, let this also not be a trouble to you for it is impossible to converse with a liar to any suffcient end and therefore a waste of time. Remember also in ourselves to attend this same test for who can achieve complete perfection in knowledge? We all begin in ignorance and must also remain in her care on at least some subjects, there being too many for the cause of a singular man. Relax in the grace of ignorance but do not tarry in her comforts. Always strive to rise above it and yet know full well it is not attainable. It is not a specific end but the struggle that makes it a worthy and wholesome charge.

~Brutus Sophos Monticello~

Education In Our Own Laws

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, which in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law; and that in Boston they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness of debate will say, that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honorable and learned friend on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say for animadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I, that when great honors and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and litigious. Abeunt studia in mores. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defense, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.

~Edmund Burke~

Conscience

If in all the world, I have found one thing that is made solely of the fibers of honesty and truth, it must be that still small voice given to each one of us, which gives clarity in the midst of the torrents of indecision. While subject to error, it has remained the most faithful champion of thoughtfulness without prejudice. 

 ~Brutus Sophos Monticello~

Foreign & Domestic

Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

~Joseph Story~

Throw Off The Yoke of Party Loyalty

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.... 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.

~George Washington~

Right VS Left

Right and left as it concerns political or ideological alignment is surely one of the biggest mockeries of our intelligence I can think of. Are we to believe that in matters of public policy there are but two roads to choose? Have we become so lazy as to accept that our own beliefs must fit into one of these predetermined camps of thought? Are the two sides we have been given an option to choose from really all that different? Perhaps we should examine the origins of the terminology Right & Left, that we may decipher whether or not it merits our continued faith.

The first uses of these monikers right and left, to describe conservative and liberal respectively, can be traced back to the French National Assembly of 1789 where the more liberal delegates congregated on the left side of the chamber and the opposing conservative members camped upon the right. This simple seating arrangement has since swayed most legislative bodies worldwide, into this practice of creating an imaginary line of center which creates in turn the real divide of legislative members within the body. This has basically put form to the theory that all things political can be represented on a linear axis, a straight line going from one extreme to another. This two dimensional explanation states that going from either direction, simple steps of succession lead only to a more rigid belief in the pronounced extreme of either side.

The matter is exponentially complicated when we ask what ends populate either side of this given axis. To one it may be a line based on classes of society, the left being a champion of lower classes and the right being the friend of the upper class in society. Another explanation might show the divide in government involvement, the left representing large government programs and high taxation to fund them or the right’s belief that government should be limited in its reach and less of a financial burden to the citizenry. Another possibility might be in the manner of legislation. The right could be said to represent a rigidity of principle regardless of the tangible ends whereas the left might be said to follow the singular principle that every circumstance demands its own consideration based on expected ends. This invariably clouds the discussion when we argue one set line against another, whose line may have a different definition. If my interpretation of left to right was the amount government involvement with a belief that lower class citizens have the best chance of rising out of their current class by means of less government involvement, I would assuredly be on the right. With the same belief but on the scale of class compassion, wouldn’t I then be on the left? Also, if we took the level of government involvement method we would see socialism on the far left and anarchy, or the lack of a government, on the extreme right, right? Well perhaps, if all agreed on the axis but as I recall, fascism is most often considered being an extreme right system of government which is defined as a system lead by a dictator, regimenting all forms of industry and commerce. So this system of pure government control could be considered either left or right depending on the axis used.

Here in America the right and left is represented by the Democratic and Republican parties although the defined axis is less clear. It would seem that for any given topic each of these parties account for their respective sides but often by different views of the axis. When it comes to war efforts, the Republicans are the accepted champions, most often citing a principle of common defense for this stance, disregarding the largeness of government it entails. Likewise the Democratic Party is often marketed as the party of the free thought, championing the notions of free speech and expression. The term liberal even stems directly from the word, liberty. Free thought and expression however are most often coincided by a lack of regulation and therefore a more limited government which now places them on the right. This circular means of reasoning can quickly overwhelm those without the insight to see past this ploy and entices those easily led, to choose one or the other as if they were the only choices to be had.

This must be stopped. We must put away this erroneous delineation of a single line, explaining all positions of policy. Forget the idea that what is presented as left and right are actually the polar opposites of each other. We must choose for ourselves a position, based upon principles within us, to determine where we stand on every issue. Who can we trust but ourselves and our own personal lives and experiences to determine not right or left but right and wrong? Let us then make every effort to map our own political philosophies, individually with an understanding not only of where we stand but also why. Take any policy issue at hand, resist the impulse to jump into a familiar form of thought and treat this issue singularly and without prejudice. Look to history and good council to weigh your conclusion but begin with your own sense of conscience and let that be strengthened by the exercise that in time, when any new matter arises, your faculties may be sharpened for the consideration.

Finally, drop all names of confederation whenever possible, for to take on the name of any group entitles you also to their whole ideology. Likewise, abstain from determining another’s entire philosophy by concluding from a single position that they make known. This has stifled the furtherance of political discourse in America to a very sad degree. Every debate seems so quickly reduced to pitting one’s own group and all its positions against the other, instead of looking at the matter singularly and without thought or care to how a particular group views it. Take pride in your own beliefs and do not rely on others to define or defend them but take this responsibility on yourself. The pleasure of knowing why you believe something in addition to simply knowing what you believe, grants enough personal reward to condone the practice and more so when you consider the effects on this nation, should any large number of people subscribe to it.

Brutus Sophos Monticello

A Matter of Principle Over Emotion.

Often times I find myself very separated in what I see as good personal policy and what should remain as good public policy, and since I deem my personal policies to be, well personal, I speak here, rather to notions of public policy, and that at times makes me come off as cold and heartless. But this is also where I think the root of many discussions have gotten off track in the dialogue of public policy. A government that is not limited to a set of principles is constantly growing the scope of what it will govern. So rather than keep the debate on whether it is the role of government to do this or that, we get caught up in whether we personally approve of it, which causes the divide in debate. Also we must remember that some things that are good public policy are still not appropriate for our form of a republic style government. For instance I will share a question that had me scratching my head for a bit. On the one side I do not believe in the ability of government to determine how I spend my money, and yet I am sick of people being able to buy elections because of rich supporters. Principle tells me that no matter how much I hate lobbyist being able to buy politicians and race outcomes, it is not the role of a government of free people to determine how best to control such a practice. Beyond principle, one could also argue to the unintended effects of such legislation and the ability to always find a loop hole would only make matters worse. No, this is one where, at least in my opinion, it is the responsibility of the people to stop the practice. We could stop it. I am astounded some times when people say things to the effect that "it's always been that way". All of society, its strengths and weaknesses are only what the masses believe them to be. We are united not by lines of a map nor bound to a certain definable creed, but we all claim to be American, free, and so on. It is because we believe this that makes it so. If tomorrow we the people decided that if a politician would make better as a public servant if they would abstain completely from the lobbyist then we would never see another. So, the labels of greedy and hateful, while very effective in tearing someone down personally, doesn’t  really add much in the scope of national governance debate. So the next time you enter into a discussion with a friend, family member, or just some person on the street, about what you believe is right for the country, do not allow the argument to spiral into emotional feelings, especially those based on a personal faith in how something should be. I am speaking to this, because I am tired of talking with likeminded conservatives who are just afraid of debating such topics with anyone who disagrees because they are afraid of being called names and being treated as if they want all the poor people in America to suffer rather than lend a little support, when in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. I hope that this may inspire someone who may have been reluctant in the past to speak without fear in the knowledge that their position is based on principle and not emotion.

Brutus Sophos Monticello

A matter of civilty.

With the understanding that what I am about to say may seem crass or exasperating to some, I feel compelled none the less to pen my frustration at the incessant calls for a return to civility in our political discourse. Yes, I for one am sick to death of hearing this reproof not so much because I would gainsay the notion but rather because it is an odious obfuscation of what is really going on in our public discourse. Unless of course, civility suddenly became the synonym for honesty, in which case I would not only laud the effort but jump at the opportunity to account myself in that accord. Honesty however, is not the buzzword of the day. In fact it seems not only lost but little missed, upon the people at large and downright abhorred by those who populate our seats of government. Much has been made about the possible causes leading up the horrific shootings in Tucson, earlier this year. Nearly immediately, the charges of rhetoric being the complicit accomplice were thrown around and then countered and re-countered again until it would seem a consensus formed. Civility or the lack thereof became the underlying reason whether it could be directly linked or not. Finally we all were treated to the admonishment of our most upright in civility, civil servant, the president. Once given a time for reflection we have now been offered some comic relief it would seem, in the painstaking methods that some are trying to take in blazing this new road of civility. There are some who feel their best means of adding to public discourse is by simply editing their lexicon of any words that may in any way be also used in describing any war time campaign. “I wonder if that word will be taken off the table now. A campaign is after all what you call an advancing army.” From cross hairs to battle ground states, we are now being asked to reexamine the terms we use when discussing such weighty matters as our own government. To what end? Where will this lead us? In all my short life, I have seen little that is more frustrating than the political discourse of my country. Never once though, was I under the impression that it was a lack of manners that kept conversation in a stalemate. If anything, I have at times winced to see one so prolific in debate be dissuaded from furthering their position at the deference to decorum. In these times I am reminded of our congress’s counterparts across the pond in the English parliament, bantering back and forth most heatedly in discussion of their nation’s politics. Have we come so far as to forget the passion of debate that founded us? It was not by sword or musket alone that we took on that empire to form our own country but most assuredly by means of the men whose passionate debate and diction awaked in ourselves a notion of liberty. Our congress, once known as the greatest deliberative body on the face of this earth, has also it seems become entangled in this farce of civility being somehow the most righteous cause above all else. I beg that you consider an alternative to this fruitless pursuit and cast aside the notion of politically correct speech in favor of a stringent demand of the truth. This I would argue is what we have been missing most in our dialogue concerning government. From empty and quickly broken campaign promises to a misrepresentation of an opponent’s stance on an issue, the lack of honesty we hold our officials to is shameful. We are so conditioned to lying and being lied to that we hardly ever make the effort to see the truth, when most often it is the glaringly obvious. Let each of us then pledge one to another, a return to honesty and let us furthermore hold it dearer than any semblance of civility, though we must not consider either to be exclusive of the other. If on occasion they are at odds then let honesty always win out. If we can do this simple thing then we may yet bask in a place of honor among the generations of Americans as have gone before us; if we cannot, a brief spot of shame I fear is our due record. Let it not be said that we counted semblance over substance or that we coward from the truth for an easy repast of empty, though colorful, words.

Brutus Sophos Monticello