Where is speech “freer” for minorities? Lynchburg or San Francisco?
1984 in Congress Today
Sigmund Neumann wrote an article, “The Rule of the Demagogue,” that was published in the American Sociological Review in 1938. According to the German Wiki, he came to the U.S. in 1934. He describes how demagogues rely on the existence of democracy, and “the breakdown of institutions.” While twisting the meanings of words, the demagogue become the “substitute for institutions.” Modern demagogues, he says, borrow their concepts and slogans of an “ennobled democracy” from their enemies.
In concluding, he plainly writes:
In an democracy, however, there persists an absolute unwillingness to give up the search for truth and the freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil.
Today, we have cause to wonder about Congress’s insistence on the truth. The Congressional Record, is supposed to be, well, “the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress.” But Congressmen, apparently, do not like records of their actions. They change the “Record” all the time. Kimberley Strassel describes a recent change in which a little dialogue is inserted into the “Record.” It’s a dialogue for the purpose of bailing out the auto industry. It purports to show the intent of Congress in giving the Secretary of the Treasury $700 billion.
Sometimes the “intent of Congress” is used to support Supreme Court decisions. Just last week, a case was argued before the Supreme Court in which the federal government argued for convicting a man of illegally owning a firearm because of the “intent” of Congress. Justice Scalia was skeptical about reading a law, not based on what the law says but on the “intent” of Congress.
When law is not based on what is written, but intentions, I have to wonder if we’re not becoming Byzantine. As Neumann noted, demagogues don’t like the printed word–people can think it over and criticize it, and it leaves a record. Sadly much of federal “law” is not law passed by Congress but is enforced through Byzantine regulations in conjunction with interest groups, like I described before in Barney’s Blarney with an “Appendix A” and Acorn. So the Bush administration, like the Clinton one before it, is “burrowing” political appointees into the bureaucracy in hopes of influencing the bureaucracy.
Why can’t we insist that Congress keeps a real record and passes laws that are clearly written?
Sad to say, Neumann may have the answer. He noted an “outspoken bluntness with which [demagogues] advise their henchmen.” He says that they “permit the masses to look behind the curtain of demagogic domination…. and make them admire the efficiency of their methods.”
So who are we? Are we those who admire the powerful and the “efficiency of their methods,” or are we those who persist in “an absolute unwillingness to give up the search for truth and the freedom of choice in the knowledge of god and evil”?
Will we allow that “most decisive principle of demagogical propaganda, the exclusion of counter-propaganda“? Will we allow Pelosi’s “fairness” to be twisted to silence public debate?
Church and State Habits
Habits are tough to break, and a bad habit is a tough problem to overcome. And problem solving is great when problems are solved, otherwise problem solving can be fatiguing, if not depressing. And it’s easy for tired problem solvers to quit and say there is no solution. But quitting is not proof there is no solution to a problem.
Following the election my pastor made a couple of comments, to encourage a proper perspective and keep our eyes focused on Jesus. And indeed, we need to keep a proper perspective, and doing so is difficult when wrapped up in the passions of party politics.
Dealing with “church and state” seems to be an ongoing problem, or, rather, a recurring point of discussion–as though there were a problem every two or four years. But the regularity of the discussion may be evidence of the lack of a real problem, and so evidence there is a solution, a proper perspective.
As a People we’re never directly involved in our national government, in actual governing. We don’t make laws, or vote to approve laws, or vote to approve or disapprove Roe or even Supreme Court Justices; we only choose representatives. And we’ve been doing that with great regularity, in times of peace and war since the beginning of the nation.
Still, there’s a suggestion that there’s a problem. And sometimes the suggestion, like my pastor’s, is that the problem is secondary. In a way, that’s fine. We shouldn’t fret about politics, particularly if it’s working. But if the suggestion is that we shouldn’t fret about politics, not because the problem is minor, but because politics is unimportant, then I’m skeptical. Perhaps I, the political philosophy junkie, like the pastor, am overtaken by bias but I’m skeptical about discounting the work of politics.
It’s quite true that no politician is going to usher in the kingdom of God and no politician is going to usher it out. But were I more like the skeptical Lincoln, I might respond by saying that no preacher is going to usher in the kingdom, and no preacher is going to usher it out.
God will have his glory. God will save his people. But, as with Esther, it’s better for us to do the job we’re given. Like Mordecai said to Esther:
Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. 14For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?
It seems to me that, like Esther, we each have a job to do, even if it’s not in a palace. Of course, voting in a little booth is a lot less scary than Esther’s approaching the king to speak the truth. But although our involvement in politics is limited, can our involvement be anymore unrelated to God’s plan than Esther’s? Can speaking the truth be secondary to “kingdom” work? Can the administration and execution of justice be secondary? If faith without works is dead, what is faith without a concern for justice?
Some have taken up justice as a mission. “IJM’s work is founded on the Christian call to justice articulated in the Bible (Isaiah 1:17): Seek justice, protect the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”
At times, however, I wonder about the commitment of churches. This past election, a number of pastors have said that the Bible applies to politics and have refused to speak in generalities. They’re breaking with a habit that’s formed since the 1960’s when tax exemptions were threatened. At times, I wonder about the habits of churches and the influence of laws and “secular” ways of thinking.
You see, sometimes I wonder if moral relativism doesn’t creep into the church. It seems that preaching against sin, necessary for preaching the gospel, is acceptable, as long as it doesn’t mean being serious about applying it and confronting public life….
Consider Prop 8 in California. Preaching against sodomy was okay, or um, preaching against “sexual sin” was okay, until it meant something real. Now even the moral relativism of “personal” religious beliefs comes in for criticism for donating money to support “traditional” marriage. A theater director gave money to the “wrong” side and has now been forced to resign. See LA Times story here including this:
he basically gave me that thing we’re just sick of hearing — ‘these are my religious beliefs, but it’s nothing personal’ ” against gay people. “I don’t want to hear that anymore. I just told him I’m disgusted at that use of money that came in some way from a show I created.
And see the director’s blog and his resignation letter here.
Here’s the LAtest:
Yes on 8 forces plan a Friday news conference to decry the “outrageous campaign of blacklisting, harassment, and intimidation against supporters of the Yes on 8 Campaign. Churches have been defaced. Employers of donors and volunteers for Yes on 8 have been intimidated into firings, and forced resignation of employees who simply exercised their constitutional right to participate in the political process.”
Some poor woman made the mistake of opposing some protesters in Palm Springs.
And even the “N-word” came out of the closet in some instances because blacks supported Prop 8. Can the church take the heat? Can it do so as a matter of course? Can it stay out of the closet?
Post-election Alaska Post
In catching up on some reading, I read a short article, “Strategic Alaska.” (It has nothing to do with electoral college campaign strategy, but military strategy.) It seemed related to some recent news.
With Obama becoming President-elect, Russia announced a plan to deploy missiles on the borders of its Central European neighbors. This of course raises a question about Obama’s commitment to the former communist states of Central Europe, and of his commitment to missile defense.
Like he did on most issues, he fudged as he spoke to different audiences at different times as he spoke about missile defense. He was in favor of missile defense, because of countries like North Korea and Iran. But he was also in favor of cutting the defense budget and “unproven missile defense systems.” …. Russia is not North Korea or Iran.
Given that, and his request for Georgia to exercise restraint in the face of a Russian invasion, I’d say the Central European countries that want freedom from Russian domination are in a tough spot…..
But Russia is not just putting the pressure on small Central European states. The article, “Strategic Alaska,” said Russia is increasingly testing U.S. responses to its strategic patrols. Russia’s Gen. Zelin said he plans to have as many as 30 per month along the U.S. border. The AFA article includes a picture of an F-22 intercepting a Russian Bear bomber. (The bomber still has its tail painted with a Red Star, some 17 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.) Here’s another picture showing a Raptor when it was first used to intercepted Bear a year ago.
When Sarah Palin mentioned the strategic importance of Alaska and her awareness of strategic issues, it didn’t seem to be treated seriously by the media. But this article notes, “Alaska’s strategic Arctic location is viewed as useful for missile defense, air defense, and force deployments to locations ranging from Europe to East Asia. . . . Forces could arrive in Europe faster than if flying from the East Coast of the US.” Alaskan forces are a necessary part of any contingency plan for the Pacific region and C-17s from Alaska aided in quake relief for China.
And there’s even an “unproven” 49th Missile Defense Battalion stationed in Alaska, manned by Alaska National Guardsmen at Fort Greely Alaska.
Obama’s campaign speeches leave me wondering not only about the security of Central European states, but also about whether he will break with the Democrat opposition to missile defense for the U.S. That’s not likely, and as Reuter’s reports, missile defense “is widely viewed as bait for Obama’s budget scalpel.” So will he dismantle the real defense of Alaska’s Fort Greely? or will he push for reliance on ineffective international agreements like Democrats have done since before Jimmy Carter?
Waiting Periods
From my Glock Bro’: Raped woman calls 911 but police don’t arrive in time for rapist.
Barack Obama says he supports reasonable gun control. In Illinois, this woman may have been subject to prosecution. The story said she borrowed a weapon and in Illinois a permit is required before possession of a shotgun can be legal. Moreover, our President Elect opposed immunity for people using guns to defend themselves in their own homes.
His past voting record has not ben about reasonable restrictions that support public safety. His past voting record is anti-gun, plain and simple. He has campaigned, however, saying he won’t take our guns. That, is not much of a concession. Taking guns is not easy; were that the aim, it wouldn’t be the first step. But what will he do?
Obama, to discount his record, repeatedly said he supported the Second Amendment. His plans for re-election therefore may moderate his actions against gun owners and gun manufacturers. We’ll have to wait and see what the Democrats pass in Congress and what Barack signs.
The Democrats will be pushing more gun control. They will be using federal regulations and ATF “interpretations” etc. of manufacturing, sales and ownership to make self-defense more difficult, but all in the name of public safety.
I doubt the primary target of gun legislation and regulation will be criminals like rapists; the target of socialists is liberty. In the end, I suspect the “reasonable” restrictions will do less to decrease crime than borrowing a shotgun did in this case.
