Squaring the Culture

Michelle Malkin’s site this morning contains a lengthy recitation of the escalating violence against military recruitment stations in the United States. Yesterday’s bombing of a recruitment center in Times Square was nothing new or unusual, except that it involves a bomb instead of less deadly forms of vandalism. We have a growing problem here at home.

Americans have a love-hate relationship with political activism, because we recognize how disruptive violence is, but our own nation was born out of a violent, political struggle followed by outright war. Consequently, I thought it was appropriate to review the reasoning behind our own violent government overthrow.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

That’s the relevant portion from the colonists’ Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, with the central argument highlighted. Jefferson claims that governments exist to secure natural rights, and derive their authority from the consent of those who are being governed. He then argues that if the government aims, instead, at imposing pure despotism over the people, the people have a duty to change the government, forcefully if need be. This is a solemn duty, and should only be approached after “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object…” This duty is owed ultimately to God, Himself.

What we’re seeing with the military recruitment stations, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with this sober, thoughtful assertion of divinely-appointed duty.

In the first place, ours is an all-volunteer military. Recruits enter recruitment stations entirely of their own accord. Nobody is forcing them. The recruiters themselves operate more like retail stores than like any sort of oppressive government.

In the second place, we elect our officials, and they continue to serve by means of our ongoing consent. Gray Davis, former governor of California, discovered the hard way that even when a politician has a clearly-defined term of office, he can’t count on finishing the term if his performance doesn’t meet with the citizens’ approval. Richard Nixon and William Clinton discovered the same thing, although Clinton did not have enough of a sense of civic duty to remove himself for the sake of the nation’s peace, as Nixon did.

In the third place, there is no “long train of abuses and usurpations.” Even if every charge the high-frequency-whining Left has laid against the Bush administration were true (and to my knowledge, they don’t have a single complaint that can survive a sober assessment of the facts, which is truly remarkable given the number of accusations) Bush’s term is about to expire. The sort of activism that says it’s a part of the process would be aimed at getting a Democrat elected President, not throwing red paint at military recruiters doing their jobs, let alone planting bombs.

No, what we’re looking at is an assault on the system. First attacking, then bombing recruitment centers says “We want the entire political system to collapse, and we especially want the military to collapse.” These activists are enemies of democracy, and need to be treated as such.

I imagine law enforcement is working long hours to bring the perpetrators of the Times Square bombing to justice. I hope, and I expect, that the FBI is carefully watching anarchist groups who are attempting this sort of disruption, as violent protesters, even when not planting bombs, are enemies of the system, attempting something far more damaging than mere vandalism.

The leftward blogosphere is already crying “foul” at the mere insinuation that it was probably a leftist activist organization that set off the bomb. Tough. There’s “a long train of abuses and usurpations” from leftists, “pursuing invariably the same object,” the disruption of military recruiting (and with it, the disruption of the Republic.) If they want credibility, they need loudly and consistently to condemn all those who use violence to achieve political ends in the US, and denounce these specific bombers, even if they’re leftists. I haven’t heard any such yet.

Update: A leftist writer named Steven Reynolds at a blog called “All Spin Zone” accuses PowerLine’s John Hinderaker of spreading malicious rumors. He says “John himself speculates that Code Pink, the anti-war protest group, is responsible for the bomb that went off at a military recruiting station at 3:43 a.m. this morning.” That’s a direct quote from Reynolds’ site. I read PowerLine’s comment, and Reynolds’ statement is simply and completely false; there is no such speculation. I posted a comment to that effect on All Spin Zone, and he tried to shrug off the false accusation by claiming that PowerLine was engaging in “insinuation, not accusation.” This, also, is false — there was no such insinuation, Hinderaker simply observed that “a liberal group is the most likely suspect.” I posted a rebuttal to his cowardly and false evasion, but Reynolds, coward that he is, refused to publish it. Also, Reynolds links to four alleged instances of rightward blogs who took Hinderaker’s lead and accused Code Pink; only one of them actually did, a scandal rag called “Catskill Commentator” (I attempted to post a comment there as well, indicating the error, but the operator of that blog did not post it). Reynolds is simply a liar. Put “All Spin Zone” firmly in the category of “untrustworthy blogs operated by individuals of low character.” Tenatively put “Catskill Commentator” in the same category.

Updated Update: I checked at 1:27 PM, and Reynolds has posted my second comment on his blog, but without answer. I’ll give him credit for posting my opinion; I still believe he’s falsely accusing John Hinderaker of Power Line Blog, and should be considered untrustworthy. Still no word from Catskill Commentator; either he’s not paying attention, or he doesn’t care about reporting accurately, and is also untrustworthy.