The Front End of Tyranny

The lines between tyranny and liberty are being ever more clearly drawn each day.  The present political storms are both divisive and illuminating.

On the one hand is the very clear philosophy that there should be a ruling class of "experts" who are above and beyond all question of those who should be ruled.  On the other, is the notion held by our Founders that the individual is sovereign, capable of self-rule, with inherent, inviolable individual rights and an idea that a "public servant" is just that--a servant.  The tyrants label the latter, "anarchists," and those in favor of the Founding principles label the former, "tyrants."  As the divide widens, the mutual respect amid frank candor is clearly eroding--actually accelerating the division.  Masks are coming off and the statist utopians are increasingly brazen in their declarations of intent to rule and increasingly expressing a willingness to use whatever means necessary to subjugate dissenters.

The observation ascribed to Thomas Jefferson that, "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," is true.  When any individual who is duly elected by the people to serve in positions of authority is derisive of any individual, and seeks to promote the ascendancy of the State over the rights of individuals, as is the tendency of human nature, they are displaying a bent toward tyranny and should be removed from office.

At the heart of the Founding Principles of federalism is the concept that local and limited government is best and the expansion of distant governments inevitably leads to arrogance of the governors, their contempt for the governed and, ultimately, tyranny.

In our State, we are faced with the forcible removal of a duly elected official, Cindy Hill, because she disrupted the flow of ever more power to the State and Federal governments in the VERY important arena of education.  While she was not a vocal opponent of the insidious Common Core Curriculum being foisted on our kids by the government, she was an avowed advocate of local influence and control of education.

Common Core is top-down indoctrination, data-basing, and manipulation by the federal government on an epic scale and is just one aspect of the growing arrogance of government.  It is an overt expression of the arrogance that claims superior expertise among the ruling class.

But worse, it shows an additional measure of that arrogance in dictating to local schools and parents that they have no right to opt out of information being gathered on their children, data-based, and shared throughout government and crony corporations.  Further, the indoctrination and psychological manipulation is downright frightening.

Those of us who have expressed valid concerns both in the unconstitutional removal of our sitting State Superintendent of Public Instruction and about Common Core in our state have been met with dismissive contempt, similar to that expressed toward us by Mr. Obama and his statist minions.

Disagreement is fine and is a vital part of the vision of our Founders.  But sneering dismissal is the rule of the day--no explanation, no coherent defense of reason or deliberation, just an attitude of "sit down and shut up.  We know what's best."  This type of behavior hastens the aforementioned widening divide among us.  And, as I mentioned, it is our tendency, when passionate about our beliefs.  We all, myself included, need to check ourselves in our debates.  But this necessity is magnified when one is elected to serve.

An example:  This is an e-mail to a constituent from one of our State Representatives--
_________
Representative Harvey [mailto:Elaine.Harvey@WYOLEG.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:05 AM
To: [NAME REMOVED TO PRESERVE PRIVACY]
Subject: Re: Wyoming Education

[NAME REMOVED TO PROTECT PRIVACY]
Perhaps I could find some credibility in your letter if it affected your family in any way. Your children are homeschooled. I also do not consider 15 form letters this morning credible.  If you are that bothered by it, read the article and write your own thoughts.
Baaaaaa
Representative Harvey


Sent from my iPhone
________

I should note that I've personally received similarly dismissive notes, comments and e-mails from other local politicians--some much worse in their expressions of contempt for me, personally, and content.  This is just one case in point.

Note that this Representative demands of the person being addressed, apparently, more time and effort writing an e-mail than she offers in return.  She sneers at the "form letters" being sent.  We've all seen sites that offer such "form letters" to assist people in contacting representatives about matters that concern them.

Yes, they're form letters, but they also help people to keep thoughts brief, concise and to the point at hand on issues of concern.  The fact that a person takes the time to send those letters SHOULD indicate that person's genuine concern for a given issue.  They are NOT irrelevant, nor are they less "credible" because of their format.  Moreover, this representative likely took less time to bang out this sneering response on her iPhone than she demands of the person she's writing to.

I would note, as well, that my inbox is deluged with "form letter" responses from representatives and senators I've written to.

Additionally, the comment that the person being addressed was not expressing his/her "own thoughts" is equally contemptuous, belittling, and dismissive.  Because the writer used a "form letter" does not mean that he/she was not expressing his/her own thoughts.  But can we also assume that this representative really wants those thoughts from this response?  Is she thoughtfully assigning homework in demanding that he/she "read the article?"  Or is the intent, here, to make her "ear" less accessible by creating a false requirement to be heard?  In other words, the attitude expressed here seems to be, "Go study things out, write me a demonstrable piece of exclusive research, prove that you, personally, are involved in the issue, --if you meet a standard I'm unwilling to meet--and then maybe I'll tell you 'No' in a more respectable way.  Until then, you're not worth of my time."
I know that's inferring a lot, but I would direct you to the closing line:  "Baaaaaa."

"Baaaaaa?!"

I leave it to the reader to decide if this communication depicts an attitude of a servant addressing a citizen or of a ruler castigating a subject.  I would suggest that there's no "fear" of the people in this letter, nor in the dozens I've received in response to valid expressions of concern about a variety of issues.

This if the front end of tyranny.