"There is no safety except in believing all possible evil of evil men."
We seem to be faced with a new dilemma with this administration and their apparent end run for socialism/Marxism. But in reality, we've always been faced with this need to carefully monitor our government.
When I was in DC I was impressed by the statue in front of the National Archives bearing the
inscription, "Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty." But we, as a nation, have failed to exercise that vigilance. We've countenanced innumerable violations of constitutional restraints on government and government officials. We've done so consistently enough to embolden present day socialists to the point they are making the ongoing dash for the revolutionary finish line.
Even now, as we watch it happening, it's difficult to accept the possibility that people we freely elected would openly advocate the overthrow of our Constitution, our form of government, the Republic and a free market economy in favor of a system that has failed--failed miserably--every time it's been tried.
But the question remains, when is it time to declare what we're seeing? When, after we realize the emperor is naked, do we actually mention it to the rest of the crowd at the parade? What do we do when we point it out and no one seems to care nor willing to accept or admit it themselves? What do we do when the populace seems lulled into complacency as they squander hard-won liberties--their own as well as ours--to preserve those liberties for our own children?! How do we prevent those cowards, willing to be slaves in exchange for a diminished security, from dragging us into the same slavery with them?
Certainly, we don't want to be too hasty to throw around the term, "evil." It's so final, so firm and so absolute, we want to have absolute certainty before declaring it. There are few who deny that Adolf Hitler was evil, but when it comes to defining why, we run into significant troubles and contention. Identifying what made him evil and how the German people might have recognized that evil early on, thus preventing his rise to power is a valid pursuit, but one made ineffectual by a lack of clarity in definition of the terms.
In recent years, we've seen protestors comparing George W. Bush to Hitler on the basis that, in the opinions of the protestors, both are obviously evil. If asked why, of course, they have a variety of reasons, but none make much sense. There is little in the story of Hitler that resembles the story of Bush. But there are numerous similarities between Hitler's rise to power and those of other totalitarian dictators. More seriously, there are distinct similarities between Hitler's ideas and those of present day liberals and socialists.
So the question remains, when could (and indeed) should the Germans have identified and declared Hitler and his agenda evil on its face and mobilize to stop him?
It seems that this process of recognizing and declaring evil involves some cognitive stages that we have to negotiate. First, there is the ability to accurately recognize evil designs or intentions of designing politicians, including distinctions between well-meaning but erroneous actions. This is difficult in itself, being something inherently subjective. As a cop, it was consistently more difficult in a criminal case to prove those crimes in which specific intent was an element. It involved an awareness of what was in one's mind and we all know the difficulties of that! But there was the recognition that intent is often demonstrated by action.
It can be convincingly argued that no one with any rudimentary economic understanding would undertake the fool-hardy proposals of B. Hussein Obama at a time of economic "crisis." As I see it, we have to either believe Obama and a host of trained and educated advisers are utterly moronic or completely ignorant of those basic economic principles, or that they are acting to deliberately undermine the private sector pursuant to the subjection of this country to a socialistic dictatorship. Glenn Beck has made some convincing arguments to the latter. But I can't think of a third possibility.
Next, even if we clearly recognize the evil or evil intentions or even that the results are grossly undesirable to free citizens, we have the hurdles of our own beliefs and expectations that are deeply ingrained in each of us, that there are checks and balances to stop such things and lead us to presume that a socialist revolution can't happen here. After all, we're Americans, right? But, as the above quote calls us to remember, if we can accurately identify something, someone, or an agenda as evil and destructive, we must then be prepared to accept the reality that "all possible evil" is possible!
Again, as a police officer, we were trained and frequently reminded to be aware of the dangers of "presumed compliance" in those we arrest. When we project our own values and belief systems onto a criminal suspect, especially at the precise moment of arrest, we mentally rule out the possibility of certain methods and forms of attacks from the person being arrested. When those inhibitions toward violence do not exist in the criminal's mind, we are at terrible risk and likelihood of success for the bad guy is increased immeasurably.
We likewise place ourselves in a precarious position when we neglect our duty of vigilance over government officials, politicians and policies. When we project our own beliefs and expectations on unscrupulous politicians, we are neglecting that duty and endangering ourselves and posterity.
Finally, when these hurdles are cleared, we are faced with informing others--in raising the alarm. More importantly, we are duty bound to raise it effectively--to make a convincing and factual case that genuine evil is at work and must be stopped. Glenn Beck has called for watch dogs. I would introduce another analogy from my law enforcement background and training. It's not my own.
First, our population consists primarily of sheep and wolves. The sheep are not stupid, nor worthless citizens. Rather, they are the valuable ones. They are the ones who are productive and law-abiding, and worth the life and blood of the Shepherd. The wolves are those who will feed on the sheep absolutely devoid of mercy or forbearance. They relentlessly hunt and destroy the weakest of the flock. But there is another animal in the mix and that is the sheepdog. The sheep are suspicious of the sheepdog because it looks a little like the wolves. It runs around at night, sniffing and growling. It occasionally has to push the sheep back into the safety of the flock (in the case of the cops). The sheepdog is frequently resented and vilified, particularly by the wolves in disguise among the sheep. But when the wolf is at the door--clearly identified and recognized--the entire flock is lined up behind the lonely sheepdog. If there is anything that is negative typical of the sheep it is the fact that they tend to first deal with threats and problems with denial. They keep their heads in the grass--focused on their work and day-to-day lives--and tend to ignore the threat until it's imminent. The effective watchdog or sheepdog needs to be able to clearly and certainly identify the wolves at the maximum possible distance and effectively declare the threat and convince the flock of the threat in time. But in so doing, the sheepdog must not, cannot turn its teeth on the sheep.
Bill Maher, paragon of human ignorance and wolf enabler, observed that people are stupid and should be "[dragged to it]" in reference to the current march toward socialism and his frustration with dissent. We, who value liberty certainly can't "drag" the opposition against their will, lest in winning, we lose what we're fighting for in the process! Further, we are frequently more concerned with maintaining decorum and manners in the debate than in conveying the passion that should accompany an appeal for our enduring liberty! The left observes no such restraint, and are willing to resort to physical violence to enforce their views. But those who defend the constitution timidly or apologetically accept the label of "extremist" or "nut."
The right of socialists in this nation to believe and to say that they believe in the superiority of their brand of slavery over capitalism absolutely must be preserved. But at the same time, every citizen who values liberty must engage in that debate with passion and without fear. We cannot allow ourselves to sit idly and allow ourselves to be "dragged to" socialism by default!
I don't have an answer at this point, other than being vocal and passionate about my love for this country and for liberty and, of course, loudly declaring the nudity of the emperor parading around before us! We must be vigilant and we must engage on the battlefield of ideas. We need to re-instill a healthy suspicion of government and government officials. We absolutely must roll back the massive expansion of government that has taken place over the last 100 years or more.
I welcome your thoughts on this one.
NOTE: I know I'm using words like "evil" in what appears to be a casual way. Not so. I came across this article on American Thinker that echoes both my reasons for terms in this post as well as the overall purpose for pursuing this blog. Enjoy! http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/silence_of_the_lambs_1.html
We seem to be faced with a new dilemma with this administration and their apparent end run for socialism/Marxism. But in reality, we've always been faced with this need to carefully monitor our government.
When I was in DC I was impressed by the statue in front of the National Archives bearing the
inscription, "Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty." But we, as a nation, have failed to exercise that vigilance. We've countenanced innumerable violations of constitutional restraints on government and government officials. We've done so consistently enough to embolden present day socialists to the point they are making the ongoing dash for the revolutionary finish line.Even now, as we watch it happening, it's difficult to accept the possibility that people we freely elected would openly advocate the overthrow of our Constitution, our form of government, the Republic and a free market economy in favor of a system that has failed--failed miserably--every time it's been tried.
But the question remains, when is it time to declare what we're seeing? When, after we realize the emperor is naked, do we actually mention it to the rest of the crowd at the parade? What do we do when we point it out and no one seems to care nor willing to accept or admit it themselves? What do we do when the populace seems lulled into complacency as they squander hard-won liberties--their own as well as ours--to preserve those liberties for our own children?! How do we prevent those cowards, willing to be slaves in exchange for a diminished security, from dragging us into the same slavery with them?
Certainly, we don't want to be too hasty to throw around the term, "evil." It's so final, so firm and so absolute, we want to have absolute certainty before declaring it. There are few who deny that Adolf Hitler was evil, but when it comes to defining why, we run into significant troubles and contention. Identifying what made him evil and how the German people might have recognized that evil early on, thus preventing his rise to power is a valid pursuit, but one made ineffectual by a lack of clarity in definition of the terms.
In recent years, we've seen protestors comparing George W. Bush to Hitler on the basis that, in the opinions of the protestors, both are obviously evil. If asked why, of course, they have a variety of reasons, but none make much sense. There is little in the story of Hitler that resembles the story of Bush. But there are numerous similarities between Hitler's rise to power and those of other totalitarian dictators. More seriously, there are distinct similarities between Hitler's ideas and those of present day liberals and socialists.
So the question remains, when could (and indeed) should the Germans have identified and declared Hitler and his agenda evil on its face and mobilize to stop him?
It seems that this process of recognizing and declaring evil involves some cognitive stages that we have to negotiate. First, there is the ability to accurately recognize evil designs or intentions of designing politicians, including distinctions between well-meaning but erroneous actions. This is difficult in itself, being something inherently subjective. As a cop, it was consistently more difficult in a criminal case to prove those crimes in which specific intent was an element. It involved an awareness of what was in one's mind and we all know the difficulties of that! But there was the recognition that intent is often demonstrated by action.
It can be convincingly argued that no one with any rudimentary economic understanding would undertake the fool-hardy proposals of B. Hussein Obama at a time of economic "crisis." As I see it, we have to either believe Obama and a host of trained and educated advisers are utterly moronic or completely ignorant of those basic economic principles, or that they are acting to deliberately undermine the private sector pursuant to the subjection of this country to a socialistic dictatorship. Glenn Beck has made some convincing arguments to the latter. But I can't think of a third possibility.
Next, even if we clearly recognize the evil or evil intentions or even that the results are grossly undesirable to free citizens, we have the hurdles of our own beliefs and expectations that are deeply ingrained in each of us, that there are checks and balances to stop such things and lead us to presume that a socialist revolution can't happen here. After all, we're Americans, right? But, as the above quote calls us to remember, if we can accurately identify something, someone, or an agenda as evil and destructive, we must then be prepared to accept the reality that "all possible evil" is possible!
Again, as a police officer, we were trained and frequently reminded to be aware of the dangers of "presumed compliance" in those we arrest. When we project our own values and belief systems onto a criminal suspect, especially at the precise moment of arrest, we mentally rule out the possibility of certain methods and forms of attacks from the person being arrested. When those inhibitions toward violence do not exist in the criminal's mind, we are at terrible risk and likelihood of success for the bad guy is increased immeasurably.
We likewise place ourselves in a precarious position when we neglect our duty of vigilance over government officials, politicians and policies. When we project our own beliefs and expectations on unscrupulous politicians, we are neglecting that duty and endangering ourselves and posterity.
Finally, when these hurdles are cleared, we are faced with informing others--in raising the alarm. More importantly, we are duty bound to raise it effectively--to make a convincing and factual case that genuine evil is at work and must be stopped. Glenn Beck has called for watch dogs. I would introduce another analogy from my law enforcement background and training. It's not my own.
First, our population consists primarily of sheep and wolves. The sheep are not stupid, nor worthless citizens. Rather, they are the valuable ones. They are the ones who are productive and law-abiding, and worth the life and blood of the Shepherd. The wolves are those who will feed on the sheep absolutely devoid of mercy or forbearance. They relentlessly hunt and destroy the weakest of the flock. But there is another animal in the mix and that is the sheepdog. The sheep are suspicious of the sheepdog because it looks a little like the wolves. It runs around at night, sniffing and growling. It occasionally has to push the sheep back into the safety of the flock (in the case of the cops). The sheepdog is frequently resented and vilified, particularly by the wolves in disguise among the sheep. But when the wolf is at the door--clearly identified and recognized--the entire flock is lined up behind the lonely sheepdog. If there is anything that is negative typical of the sheep it is the fact that they tend to first deal with threats and problems with denial. They keep their heads in the grass--focused on their work and day-to-day lives--and tend to ignore the threat until it's imminent. The effective watchdog or sheepdog needs to be able to clearly and certainly identify the wolves at the maximum possible distance and effectively declare the threat and convince the flock of the threat in time. But in so doing, the sheepdog must not, cannot turn its teeth on the sheep.
Bill Maher, paragon of human ignorance and wolf enabler, observed that people are stupid and should be "[dragged to it]" in reference to the current march toward socialism and his frustration with dissent. We, who value liberty certainly can't "drag" the opposition against their will, lest in winning, we lose what we're fighting for in the process! Further, we are frequently more concerned with maintaining decorum and manners in the debate than in conveying the passion that should accompany an appeal for our enduring liberty! The left observes no such restraint, and are willing to resort to physical violence to enforce their views. But those who defend the constitution timidly or apologetically accept the label of "extremist" or "nut."
The right of socialists in this nation to believe and to say that they believe in the superiority of their brand of slavery over capitalism absolutely must be preserved. But at the same time, every citizen who values liberty must engage in that debate with passion and without fear. We cannot allow ourselves to sit idly and allow ourselves to be "dragged to" socialism by default!
I don't have an answer at this point, other than being vocal and passionate about my love for this country and for liberty and, of course, loudly declaring the nudity of the emperor parading around before us! We must be vigilant and we must engage on the battlefield of ideas. We need to re-instill a healthy suspicion of government and government officials. We absolutely must roll back the massive expansion of government that has taken place over the last 100 years or more.
I welcome your thoughts on this one.
NOTE: I know I'm using words like "evil" in what appears to be a casual way. Not so. I came across this article on American Thinker that echoes both my reasons for terms in this post as well as the overall purpose for pursuing this blog. Enjoy! http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/silence_of_the_lambs_1.html
You say you don't have an answer at this point and that you welcome thoughts on this one. Well, I don't know either. Sometimes I feel that nothing can be done.
ReplyDeleteJohn Adams said- "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it... " Our liberties were wone through bloodshed- no amount of talking or convincing could have done it. Once liberties are voluntarily sacrificeed, no government will voluntarily restore them.
Our freedom and liberty is a gift from God who raised up wise men to establish freedom upon this land. Sometimes I do feel like giving up to the inevitable- but I can't. I just have to continue the fight in whatever way I can.
Sorry it took so long to respond to this, Gareth! I missed your comment until today, for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI think history bears out the supposition that no government ever peacefully relinquishes power once it is seized. I hope that won't be the case in our present situation, but I see no concrete reason to think otherwise. Whatever happens, I am convinced that our commitment to liberty will be tested to the utmost whether by threat of violence or the lure of "free" access to the wealth of others.
I think there is some hope that becoming a living example of commitment to the principles of the Constitution will do wonders as will being constantly and consistently vocal.