Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

12/26/2009 (8:46 am)

Secede

The outcome of the Senate vote regarding the Democrats’ health care monstrosity is actually moot. The fate of the dollar is already sealed; even without the new, dead weight of yet another unfunded and unfundable ball on the end of our fiscal chain, the collapse will come sooner rather than later. The massive debt accumulations, the rising mandatory spending, the inability of the government to find lenders, the unwillingness of government to even begin to address the easily recognizable fiscal disaster, and the abandonment of free enterprise and the rule of law, have all worked their corrosion; it seems unlikely to me that the nation will be able to provide even the first dollar of the new health care regime. The outcome of this “debate” does not matter.

What matters is what the incident says about the Democratic party.

We’ve just witnessed a massive assault on individual liberty. Every word produced by the Democratic party during the “debate” was a lie; not a single claim from the party was true. At no time did they participate in the system in good faith; at every point they made every effort to hide their intentions, to bury the true effect of the bill under mountains of opaque verbage. They passed their measures hurriedly, in the dead of night, knowing that they lacked the support of the nation, knowing that their own Senatorial support would evaporate if permitted exposure to the folks back home. Even the few who supported the measure are misled. None of the alleged goals of the new system have been met in the new bill. It is not cheaper. It does not increase access. It does not reduce claim assessments from unfriendly adjusters. It does not improve health care in any way; it simply adds power to the Democratic control machine. That was the goal: power to the Democratic party. And less liberty for you.

They used a technique I’m calling the Kamikaze Ratchet. They know perfectly well that there will be a voter reaction in 2010, and that many who supported this measure will face opposition that might not have had any force except for anger over the health bill. Some will lose their seats. They know this; that’s the Kamikaze part. The Ratchet part is that they’re betting that the new Congress in 2010 will not have the numbers, or the guts, to substantially change the new health regime. They may lose their seats, but the new Masters in Washington will have acquired their authority permanently.

The point is that the Democratic party is not a participant in the American experiment in liberty. It has not been, in fact, at any time since the beginning of the 20th century. At all points in time, the Democratic party has represented the element in American culture that wants to throw off the cumbersome engine of compromise required to keep the nation free, and replace it with a sleek, streamlined autocracy run by experts, an oligarchy of the scientifically-minded elite. They believe that they, and they alone, know how to make the trains run on time, how to usher in the Age of Aquarius, how to build a new and more perfect world. They’ve been hankering after the power to do what they have in their minds, unmolested. Their every move, from 1914 onward, has been to acquire that power in order to end Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Laura Ingraham groused last week, during a moment of disgust regarding the health bill in the Senate, that there are no moderate Democrats. This is the meaningful take from the incident. She is correct. The party itself is not moderate; it aims at ending citizen government, and replacing it with an oligarchy of the elite.

I took a lesson from incidents in my childhood when I attempted to play a game with someone who cheated, not just once, but repeatedly. I could catch them at it part of the time, but there would always be times that I did not catch them, and they’d get away with something and skew the game. I learned that there is no point in playing a game with somebody who is intent on cheating. The only sane response to learning that your opponent cheats repeatedly and will continue to try to cheat, is to quit the game.

Why would it ever make sense to participate in self-government when one party in the two-party system intends to bring self-government to an end? The very exercise of attempting to participate with such people is systemic suicide. Every time they gain a little power, they will use that power to break something permanently, and ratchet the entire system in the direction of oligarchy. The only reason we should ever participate in such an exercise is if we have no choice.

But we do have a choice.

The beauty of the American system is that it rests on voluntary participation. We all have the right to leave the system if we choose. It is time to exercise that choice. Come January 1, I will be writing to the governors of every state where it appears that the majority of the citizens retain belief in citizen government, asking them to consider seceding from the United States. I will find secession movements in those states and contribute to those that sanely defend human liberty. I will commit this blog to the goal of separating the Union, and creating a new, separate country that actually believes in the ideals written into our original Constitution.

It’s the only plausible solution. Washington is corrupt beyond redemption. Electing a new Congress will not correct even the most recent mistake, let alone the 20th century’s serial legacy of mistakes. The Democrats do not believe in the system, and will institute their Fascist oligarchy at the first opportunity. Let’s take our ball and go home.

The American Constitution describes a government that cannot threaten the inherent rights of the people. The political system created by this Constitution works to defend the people’s rights so long as all participants in the political system agree to the fundamental rules of the system. The Democrats do not believe in this system, and have not for almost 100 years. We see the outcome — a government bloated and out of control, fiscal collapse, economic misery, corrupted education, corrupted justice, corrupted news and entertainment. Let them have it. We’ll start a proper government elsewhere, and let them have their failed, socialist state. The world will quickly see which is the saner course.

« « Russians Pile Onto Climategate | Main | Trickle-Down Obama (Updated Twice) » »

22 Comments »

December 26, 2009 @ 10:11 am #

What makes you think that the outcome will be substantially better than the one experienced in the late 1800′s?

December 26, 2009 @ 10:27 am #

What makes you think that the outcome will be substantially better than the one experienced in the late 1800′s?

Reasonable question.

1) Barack Obama does not have the fortitude of Abraham Lincoln. He might not resort to military action at all.

2) Nor does the nation have the stomach for violence that it had in the 1850s.

3) A large percentage of the military is located on ground in states that would probably secede, and a disproportionate percentage of military personnel would probably be favorable toward the secession.

4) Even if secession fails, it’s necessary to express the level of outrage. Death in the defense of liberty would be better than living under tyranny. But we would not start with the intention of failing.

December 26, 2009 @ 10:39 am #

Well, any secessionist would necessarily partition up the United States in a way that would leave you in democrat territory. You’d be a lot better off in some place like Wyoming. Seriously, I am waiting until after 2012 before I start talking about secession or armed revolt. I’d feel a lot safer then living in a place like Montana. Eastern Washington would most likely be the front line.

December 26, 2009 @ 10:51 am #

For years I’ve wondered if succession/civil war is the unavoidable conclusion to the late great United States of America.

This is a solution I’ve hesitated to advocate because no matter what ‘side’ of the line you live on, what comes after will almost assuredly be worse than what we have today. In a civil war we all will lose something dear to us. The only thing about Obama you can count on is his self love and that self love guarantees that he’d assume the mantle of Lincoln with visions of his countenance being carved into Mt. Rushmore after he successfully ‘preserved’ the union.

December 26, 2009 @ 4:52 pm #

This is a solution I’ve hesitated to advocate because no matter what ’side’ of the line you live on, what comes after will almost assuredly be worse than what we have today.

This is correct, and the only reason I’m willing to take that route is that what will follow if we do not secede will also be far worse that what we have today. Nothing stays the same, and the die is cast regarding the national currency; the dollar is doomed, the US economy is going to sink like a rock, and it’s all due to God-awful government policy. Secession is the only avenue to address this that permits even a part of the former USA to survive and thrive, and even that not without significant dislocation. Without splitting the nation, can you imagine any Congress, even a majority Republican one, rolling back both the national government and Constitutional jurisprudence to a point before the New Deal? Can you imagine any plausible political solution to the unfunded liabilities of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and government pensions (which now include the UAW’s pensions at GM and Chrysler), the sum of which is greater than $50 trillion, and probably closer to $100 trillion?

Ain’t gonna happen. The only solution at this point is to hit the “reset” button. That means revolution or secession. I don’t want revolution, and frankly, too many citizens have been de-educated and are unable to understand the lessons of the failure of socialism for me to want to try to include them and re-educate them. The only avenue on which there’s even a prayer of saving something without fighting a bloody civil war is peaceful secession.

December 27, 2009 @ 7:29 am #

You people are forgetting that Lieberman will filibuster any final version of the health care bill that is not fiscally responsible.

Lieberman is also going to turn Republican;
count on it.

Obama will not politically survive the impending GAO investigation of Acorn.

The Demorats will lose both Houses by time Biden is running.

December 27, 2009 @ 3:06 pm #

No…Lieberman will _not_ turn GOP. He’s already turned Independent – there’s absolutely no reason for him to join the GOP in actual party membership. He can vote with them or against them, as he sees fit. He doesn’t agree with the GOP on most issues, and personally, I think he’s a man of principle – even if I don’t agree with his principles. He has integrity. He’s a Democrat at heart – but not an extreme left Democrat, imo.

He’ll stay where he is.

That’s _my_ bet anyway!

December 27, 2009 @ 4:36 pm #

I will take that bet for the bill with Ben Franklin’s portrait.

December 28, 2009 @ 8:44 am #

[...] : "http%3A%2F%2Fashevilleteaparty.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2F28%2Fsecede%2F" } …from Plumb Bob Blog: The outcome of the Senate vote regarding the Democrats’ health care monstrosity is actually [...]

December 28, 2009 @ 9:03 am #

Phil–

That was one of your best essays (and that’s saying a lot). I posted some of it and ‘janeq’ and I added some thoughts of our own at the Asheville Tea Party blog.

The only part where I think you might have been more clear was where you wrote: “the cumbersome engine of compromise required to keep the nation free”.

I would counter that compromise is precisely the act that has cost us our freedom. When one is offered a compromise between wholesome food and poison, what does one get? A slower-acting poison, but poison nonetheless.

There are certain principles that are necessary for men to live together in peace and prosperity. When those principles are compromised, we all suffer.

Perhaps I’m reading this wrong…

December 28, 2009 @ 11:52 am #

>>I would counter that compromise is precisely the act that has cost us our freedom.>>

I’ve had this discussion with my husband. He contends that negotiation and compromise is necessary – ” each person gets something they want, neither gets _all_ they want”. The problem is see is that if the fight is about 12 inches, and in each encounter you give up only 1 inch, overtime you’ll end up giving up all 12 inches. It seems to me that the GOP has been doing all the compromising, and the Dems haven’t yielded much if anything. I agree with you – there have to be _some_ lines in the sand!

>>I will take that bet for the bill with Ben Franklin’s portrait.>>

Heh. Time frame? Connected to the present bills in Congress, or connected to 2010 elections? Do we have to wait till he’s on his death bed to finalize win or lose on this?

Why do you think he’d do that? He’s in a terrific bargaining position right where he is – completely aside from any principles of position…

December 28, 2009 @ 12:01 pm #

>>The problem is see is>>

Ugh. Should be “The problem I see is … “

December 28, 2009 @ 1:14 pm #

The only part where I think you might have been more clear was where you wrote: “the cumbersome engine of compromise required to keep the nation free”. I would counter that compromise is precisely the act that has cost us our freedom.

We’re talking about different types of compromises, and yes, I could have been more clear. What I meant was, the checks and balances of the representative government constructed by the Constitution requires the disparate parties to compromise in order to run the government. This protects liberty by preventing any party from dominating, but it frustrates autocrats to no end; they want the ability to efficiently impose their own agenda, without hindrance. The Constitution has been a constant thorn in the sides of progressives, for which reason they’re constantly trying to neuter it.

You’re talking about conservatives compromising their principles, and yes, that’s a problem too, but a different one. It’s one of the ironic beauties of our cumbersome system of government — each party forcefully attempting to pursue its own agenda, arrives at a compromise position that protects everybody. If we begin by moderating our position, but our opponents do not moderate theirs, they win before we start. We have to treat political actions like negotiations — begin with a demand that’s outside your opponent’s range of acceptable positions, and then scale your demand back until it just barely slips into that range.

This answer’s SueK’s objection as well. One thing that’s been happening is that the Democrats are better at negotiating than are the Republicans. They begin with their position outside OUR acceptable range, but insist that we modify our position before negotiations begin. They get away with it because they control the discussion through dominating news, education, and entertainment, so Republicans go along. This guarantees the Democrats a favorable outcome.

A review of negotiating basics is in order here. I come in with a widget to sell, and you want to buy it. I want to sell for as much as possible, but will accept $10 for my widget. You want to buy for as little as possible, but are willing to spend as much as $20 for a widget. Any price between $10 and $20 will satisfy us both, but the question is, are we going to be closer to $10 or to $20? If I begin negotiations by demanding only $15 for my widget, no matter where we end up, I’ve left at least $5 on the table that I could have had. If they come in saying they’ll pay $15 for my widget, no matter where negotiations end up, they’ll have spent at least $5 more than they could have.

So, the optimum strategy for either player is to begin negotiations outside their opponent’s acceptable range, and then back down into it. I should start by demanding $30 for my widget. You should start by offering $5. If I demand $30, and you offer $12, we’re going to end up higher; if you offer $5, and I demand $15, we’re going to end up lower.

Only, we don’t really know what the opponent is willing to do… and the sooner we give away our acceptable range, the more advantage the other guy has.

This is where the Democrats have been smart. They judge what we’re willing to do, and begin way, way outside of that — but they insist that in order to be “fair,” we have to begin with a position they can accept. They wheedle us into beginning from that point, without giving up an inch of their own. That’s like them offering $5, but insisting that we begin by demanding $12. They’ve won before we begin.

Of course, the problem I outlined in the article dominates this entire process. Negotiation requires that all parties observe the rules of the marketplace. So long as all parties agree to observe those rules, negotiating to a compromise serves the needs of all. The problem is that the Democrats have been angling at demolishing the marketplace all along, and never intended to abide by the rules. In that situation, any compromise brings you closer to losing everything.

In our widget example, it would be like what would happen if our opponent had figured out a way to use our widget to kill us and take over the widget factory. In that case, any sale of the widget at all is a dead loss, even if we sell for $20 or higher; if we sell at all, we’re dead. Our only sane strategy is to stop offering to sell the widget to this miscreant. That’s why it’s time to leave.

December 28, 2009 @ 10:01 pm #

Phil–

So then if I believe that I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and sixty Democrats in Congress believes that I have a ‘right’ to do as I’m told for the good of the state, then you believe we should compromise?

I’m sorry, but I think you picked a really bad analogy there.

December 28, 2009 @ 10:47 pm #

John,

You must not have been reading carefully. My point was that compromise is what’s demanded by our system of government so long as everybody involved genuinely agrees to abide by the rules of the system. I thought I was very clear about that. The sixty Democrats in Congress don’t want to abide by the rules of the system, they want to end the system. That’s why we can’t continue to function in our Constitutional system with them.

December 29, 2009 @ 11:30 am #

Phil–

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Here’s another good article discussing the mechanics of a limited Constitutional Convention by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

How To Curtail the Federal Beast

December 29, 2009 @ 4:25 pm #

Thanks John, I read it and it’s well worth the read. Judge Andrew Napolitano’s ideas are well worth considering as is the note from Glenn at the bottom of the article. The point is that more and more people are beginning to realize that something needs to be done.

For the first time in my experience we are seeing educated thoughtful people talking about Secession, amending the Constitution to limit the Federal Government, convening a constitutional convention, or even out right revolution.

The internet might actually give us the power to pull it off. MAYBE!!!

Dale…

December 29, 2009 @ 5:44 pm #

>>…amending the Constitution to limit the Federal Government>>

First, I haven’t read the article yet. I will, but haven’t as yet. That being said, I don’t think we really need to amend the Constitution to limit the Federal Government – what we need to do is to limit the money flow both to and from the Feds. More money needs to stay in the states for them to administer their own needs, and less needs to flow from the Feds to the States in order to prevent the Feds from using the money flow to get States in line. I don’t think that would require amendments – although things being where they are, it might be the quickest simplest way. Congress will _not_ want to give up it’s largesse though. And the power that the funds – which they seem to think are unlimited – give them.

December 29, 2009 @ 5:50 pm #

Exhibit 1…

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/12/judicial-watch-announces-most-corrupt.html

December 30, 2009 @ 4:07 am #

I will bet your hubby’s 12 inches :)

January 10, 2010 @ 12:28 am #

IMHO the best, and quickest beginning toward limiting the federal government is for the states to refuse to enforce all unconstitutional mandates imposed by the feds. That includes education, welfare, intrastate commerce, and many others. They also should refuse to collect taxes for the feds on the citizens of their states. On second thought, it might be easier and quicker to just secede.

January 13, 2010 @ 9:56 pm #

[...] among us, I say we have to secure a separate territory in which we are able to produce it, hence my call for secession a few weeks [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>