It can't happen here
One thing I've been marveling at over the last couple of weeks is the eye-rolling disdain reserved for those of us willing to draw upon the historical lessons of the 20th century in describing the current state of affairs in the United States. Friends, family members and acquaintances of a different political bent who engage me in political discourse have one of two responses-- to chucklingly write me off as a harmless streetcorner preacher-type to be humored, or to loudly decry me as a hopelessly misinformed conspiracist. The result is the same, it's just a matter of degree. Nevertheless, those I know who are truly hardline leftists treat me as they would a child-- a promising novice who can't escape his essential centrism and unwillingness to embrace dogma. Again, it amounts to much the same. Somebody's wrong, and I'm confident that it's the righties.
Consider the hushed comments of other moderates I know, unwilling to say anything aloud but eager to breathlessly express their concerns over the liberties this administration is taking with issues that we all learn about in civics classes. They'll all sound familiar to you: the Revolutionary War was fought against tyranny, against the right of rulers to run roughshod over the common man, and against the notion that the rule of law is a relative thing, applying only to some. And the current ruling party in this nation is on the wrong side of each of these issues.
Of course, the rule of law is relative to some degree, and the wealthiest among us have the best chance of getting away with crimes. Rulers, elected or not, still use their position to enrich themselves at the expense of their homelands, and tyranny comes in as many forms as their are opportunities for abuse of power.
But something I saw today prompted me to write this post, a relatively rare "personal essay" on politics. It was a review on Amazon of Sinclair Lewis' book "It Can't Happen Here," in which the reviewer lavishly praised the book as a parable about the dangers of progressivism-- specifically German socialism in the 1930's. The smug, ex cathedra reasoning employed in the review served only to highlight the point of the book, which isn't "liberalism ain't no good," but that unchecked power and arrogant self-righteousness among leaders produces disastrous results. After all, the ultimate result of the German political movement wasn't a left-wing society, but a totalitarian nightmare (please note that totalitarianism is the extreme manifestation of conservatism). The same is true of the last century's communist regimes. They might have stemmed from progressive movements, but the end result was a right-wing hell on earth.
One of the greatest tenets of liberalism is that it takes measures to prevent that from happening. Thus our national charters provide for checks & balances, independence of the various branches of government, and limitations upon the power of any one man or group of men.
The inherent danger to the freedoms of a given society isn't that it will fall into the hands of the left or the right, but that it will fall into the hands of men profoundly disinclined to relinquish power once they have gained it-- and again, their mode of governance is invariably conservative in that it seeks to preserve the status quo. The more certain a personally beneficial course, no matter how disastrous for the nation as a whole, is to maintain the power of those in control, the greater the potential for corruption. And the greater the threat to the long-term health of the state (and in the case of a superpower, to the world), the more desperate becomes the grip of the "ins" on the reins of power.
I therefore think that the most profound virtue of the statesman is willingness to relinquish control once certain goals have been met. I remember reading in a book by Lester Thurow, The Future of Capitalism, that public works were so highly regarded in ancient Rome that the wealthiest citizens did all they could to ensure that their contributions to the greater good would last the longest in public memory, outstripping those of their fellow upper-crustians. This is the ideal system for a republic-- a competition between citizens who are the most committed to benefit the state in the greatest way they are able. May the most far-sighted and magnanimous prevail. Given the perhaps eventual failure of such a system, when it is discovered that someone has been elected with the sole interest of increasing personal wealth and power coupled with a disregard for the welfare of the nation, there must be a system in place for removing that individual (or group thereof) from power as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Any other system of politics in the United States, such as the primacy of corporate money over political speech, the use of belligerence to squelch debate, or the clear subjugation of individual political action in favor of elected officials' personal agendas, should be considered anathema. To stand vigilant against such abuses is the responsibility that comes with the right of citizenship in such a society. It is a responsibility ignored by millions, if not tens of millions. Moreover, it is a responsibility keenly exploited by those who think they can game the system and use their voices to further their own ends at the expense of the well-being of their fellow citizens.
That's why I write about political matters and otherwise pursue the ideals of our republic. To peacably oppose corruption isn't beyond our means, and to ensure the personal liberty of every American citizen is our duty. I'm surprised myself to be using rhetoric sometimes employed by the likes of libertarian militiamen, but then, I don't advocate arming one's self to the teeth and holing up in a bunker. Another painful lesson learned in the last century is that while violence can silence the voices of millions, speech can sway the minds of the living. Even from beyond the grave.
Consider the hushed comments of other moderates I know, unwilling to say anything aloud but eager to breathlessly express their concerns over the liberties this administration is taking with issues that we all learn about in civics classes. They'll all sound familiar to you: the Revolutionary War was fought against tyranny, against the right of rulers to run roughshod over the common man, and against the notion that the rule of law is a relative thing, applying only to some. And the current ruling party in this nation is on the wrong side of each of these issues.
Of course, the rule of law is relative to some degree, and the wealthiest among us have the best chance of getting away with crimes. Rulers, elected or not, still use their position to enrich themselves at the expense of their homelands, and tyranny comes in as many forms as their are opportunities for abuse of power.
But something I saw today prompted me to write this post, a relatively rare "personal essay" on politics. It was a review on Amazon of Sinclair Lewis' book "It Can't Happen Here," in which the reviewer lavishly praised the book as a parable about the dangers of progressivism-- specifically German socialism in the 1930's. The smug, ex cathedra reasoning employed in the review served only to highlight the point of the book, which isn't "liberalism ain't no good," but that unchecked power and arrogant self-righteousness among leaders produces disastrous results. After all, the ultimate result of the German political movement wasn't a left-wing society, but a totalitarian nightmare (please note that totalitarianism is the extreme manifestation of conservatism). The same is true of the last century's communist regimes. They might have stemmed from progressive movements, but the end result was a right-wing hell on earth.
One of the greatest tenets of liberalism is that it takes measures to prevent that from happening. Thus our national charters provide for checks & balances, independence of the various branches of government, and limitations upon the power of any one man or group of men.
The inherent danger to the freedoms of a given society isn't that it will fall into the hands of the left or the right, but that it will fall into the hands of men profoundly disinclined to relinquish power once they have gained it-- and again, their mode of governance is invariably conservative in that it seeks to preserve the status quo. The more certain a personally beneficial course, no matter how disastrous for the nation as a whole, is to maintain the power of those in control, the greater the potential for corruption. And the greater the threat to the long-term health of the state (and in the case of a superpower, to the world), the more desperate becomes the grip of the "ins" on the reins of power.
I therefore think that the most profound virtue of the statesman is willingness to relinquish control once certain goals have been met. I remember reading in a book by Lester Thurow, The Future of Capitalism, that public works were so highly regarded in ancient Rome that the wealthiest citizens did all they could to ensure that their contributions to the greater good would last the longest in public memory, outstripping those of their fellow upper-crustians. This is the ideal system for a republic-- a competition between citizens who are the most committed to benefit the state in the greatest way they are able. May the most far-sighted and magnanimous prevail. Given the perhaps eventual failure of such a system, when it is discovered that someone has been elected with the sole interest of increasing personal wealth and power coupled with a disregard for the welfare of the nation, there must be a system in place for removing that individual (or group thereof) from power as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Any other system of politics in the United States, such as the primacy of corporate money over political speech, the use of belligerence to squelch debate, or the clear subjugation of individual political action in favor of elected officials' personal agendas, should be considered anathema. To stand vigilant against such abuses is the responsibility that comes with the right of citizenship in such a society. It is a responsibility ignored by millions, if not tens of millions. Moreover, it is a responsibility keenly exploited by those who think they can game the system and use their voices to further their own ends at the expense of the well-being of their fellow citizens.
That's why I write about political matters and otherwise pursue the ideals of our republic. To peacably oppose corruption isn't beyond our means, and to ensure the personal liberty of every American citizen is our duty. I'm surprised myself to be using rhetoric sometimes employed by the likes of libertarian militiamen, but then, I don't advocate arming one's self to the teeth and holing up in a bunker. Another painful lesson learned in the last century is that while violence can silence the voices of millions, speech can sway the minds of the living. Even from beyond the grave.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 7:49 PM
<< Home