The following is not a call to arms or any sort of battle cry. It is not a threat to my government but rather it is a sincerely concerned warning. My education cannot help but lead me to be distressed by what I saw happen in Nevada last week. I am not offended by anything I saw but rather I am disappointed and concerned about how such a bad position could have been found. The cause of governance of any kind, good or bad was very ill-served last week.
How important is perception to the republic? How meaningless can the general public come to see the exercise of voting before the benefits of democracy cease to be significant? Can a population lose its respect for a government to such a degree that the rule of law becomes tenuous? Is a tipping point possible where the government essentially ceases to be effective at its assigned task because of perception? Is there a reachable point beyond that where the government in question ceases to be legitimate? Unfortunately that's a reality today's United States federal government must be wary of.
When I was studying political science these sorts of questions seemed very hypothetical. Some even scratched their heads at the reasoning behind Richard Nixon not challenging the 1960 election results in spite of strong evidence of voter fraud in Chicago. He said he didn't want to risk a constitutional crisis. Such a thing seemed so very unlikely it was hard to believe that the ambitious Nixon was really worried about such a thing.
Then came the 2000 election and Al Gore dared to go where Nixon had not. And Nixon's wisdom in 1960 became painfully apparent. The challenge caused many Americans to stop believing in the election process. To this day respected commentators say the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court. This is highly inaccurate but it's close enough to popular perception that they get away with it, and it serves their purposes.
And the problem with it isn't so much that people begin to believe their votes don't count as it is something in the other direction. It is that they believe if they support the right politicians and win they will, or at least they should get whatever they want. They believe that the only reason government doesn't deliver everything they want is because the democratic process is broken. Not that it may be wisely constrained by the constitution from doing so.
So challenges like the one that took place in 2000 and the continued mantra about that election not reflecting the will of the people cuts dangerously in two directions. People either no longer believe their will is reflected in elections or they believe if it ever is, the government should do things it never should. A catch 22 where government must either oppress whatever minority of the day is currently in the majority's way or be seen as oppressive through voter suppression and other means of thwarting the majority's will.
That brings me to the population's respect for its government and what happened in Nevada last week.. With the pressure on government to deliver more and more to the winners of elections the government pushes more and more against its constitutional restraints. The result of this is heavy handed impositions on private citizens which was the subject of what the nation witnessed in Nevada.
The rancher Cliven Bundy is clearly on the wrong side of the rule of law but much of the nation is still on his side. Is it because much of the nation has no appreciation for the rule of law? I don't think so, and much of the analysis I've seen doesn't get anywhere near that conclusion either.
Because of federal actions in 1934 pushed past a Supreme Court that was cowed by a president determined to deliver on the will of a people suffering through the great depression, 80% of the land in Nevada become federal property. Now a family's livelihood is being threatened in the name of protecting a few turtles from their cattle and the Bundys are resisting. Throw in the politics of the last two and half decades where anyone who thinks there are limits on federal authority written into the constitution is portrayed by the most recent majority as anti-democracy or worse and there we have it.
We now live in a nation divided between those who must either get their way or believe themselves to be disenfranchised on one side, and those who are rapidly losing respect for a federal government that regularly pushes against and through its constitutional restraints.
There can only be more of these kind of showdowns between citizens who respect the constitution more than the government officials sworn to obey it, and those same officials being given directives to enforce bad laws. Some believe, and with good reason, that the feds aren't done with the Bundys but I don't think the government has any good options under its current philosophical framework.
If they do nothing, more people will defy them. If they persist in getting their way more people will defy them. They cannot make an example of the Bundys without making them into martyrs. Their best option is to try and win quietly and with as little notice as possible, but that will only allow them to say they enforced the court order. It will win them nothing in public perception and they just lost much.
The feds lost the moment the thousands advanced on their position and demanded they release the cattle and leave. At that point right and the rule of law came into conflict and right won. This wasn't the Little Big Horn. It wasn't a people on the wrong side of cruel history getting a rare victory. It was a people growing in number who are not going away. And yes, federal authorities were foolish enough to set the stage for this unnecessary showdown that left them looking inadequate to the task of governance.
The federal government is clearly perceived as having overstepped the bounds of the constitution and no amount of establishment thinking within the Supreme Court is going to deter the citizenry from acting as though that's the case.
I don't actually think we're at any of the tipping points I mentioned above, yet. But that is only because the democratic elements of our Republic still exist. The people who believe the government needs a major restraining can still primarily win their fight at the ballot box and/or through a constitutional convention of the states. At the very least they have some brave state governments to support them.
But if these means fail them then the tipping point for them will be reached and I dread that day. Nevada proves there is a will to do what is necessary to put the federal government back in its place by whatever means is required.
As for the people who believe the government must either serve their perceived righteous goals or be guilty of disenfranchising , I don't think they have it in them to do what was done by their counterparts in Nevada last week. We've already seen the left's worst. They've destroyed this republic in the minds and hearts of way too many people, but the damage is mostly done. In the mind-set they teach it can never be the great place it really is. Even if they get their way, and especially if they get their way, it must always be a place of oppression.
Most Americans will either come to the realization that their choice is between liberty and a constant oppressive state of commiseration, or the tipping points will come.
And one historical note. It is likely that a plebiscite in the American colonies would have voted to remain British colonies just before and even part way into the Revolutionary War. Most historians believe that only a third of the colonists wanted independence. Because of that (and other reasons of course) I believe if liberty has a fighting chance it will usually prevail.
To reconsider, that is my advice to anyone who may choose to work against it.
How important is perception to the republic? How meaningless can the general public come to see the exercise of voting before the benefits of democracy cease to be significant? Can a population lose its respect for a government to such a degree that the rule of law becomes tenuous? Is a tipping point possible where the government essentially ceases to be effective at its assigned task because of perception? Is there a reachable point beyond that where the government in question ceases to be legitimate? Unfortunately that's a reality today's United States federal government must be wary of.
Benefits of democracy?
When I was studying political science these sorts of questions seemed very hypothetical. Some even scratched their heads at the reasoning behind Richard Nixon not challenging the 1960 election results in spite of strong evidence of voter fraud in Chicago. He said he didn't want to risk a constitutional crisis. Such a thing seemed so very unlikely it was hard to believe that the ambitious Nixon was really worried about such a thing.
Then came the 2000 election and Al Gore dared to go where Nixon had not. And Nixon's wisdom in 1960 became painfully apparent. The challenge caused many Americans to stop believing in the election process. To this day respected commentators say the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court. This is highly inaccurate but it's close enough to popular perception that they get away with it, and it serves their purposes.
And the problem with it isn't so much that people begin to believe their votes don't count as it is something in the other direction. It is that they believe if they support the right politicians and win they will, or at least they should get whatever they want. They believe that the only reason government doesn't deliver everything they want is because the democratic process is broken. Not that it may be wisely constrained by the constitution from doing so.
So challenges like the one that took place in 2000 and the continued mantra about that election not reflecting the will of the people cuts dangerously in two directions. People either no longer believe their will is reflected in elections or they believe if it ever is, the government should do things it never should. A catch 22 where government must either oppress whatever minority of the day is currently in the majority's way or be seen as oppressive through voter suppression and other means of thwarting the majority's will.
Rule of law?
That brings me to the population's respect for its government and what happened in Nevada last week.. With the pressure on government to deliver more and more to the winners of elections the government pushes more and more against its constitutional restraints. The result of this is heavy handed impositions on private citizens which was the subject of what the nation witnessed in Nevada.
The rancher Cliven Bundy is clearly on the wrong side of the rule of law but much of the nation is still on his side. Is it because much of the nation has no appreciation for the rule of law? I don't think so, and much of the analysis I've seen doesn't get anywhere near that conclusion either.
Because of federal actions in 1934 pushed past a Supreme Court that was cowed by a president determined to deliver on the will of a people suffering through the great depression, 80% of the land in Nevada become federal property. Now a family's livelihood is being threatened in the name of protecting a few turtles from their cattle and the Bundys are resisting. Throw in the politics of the last two and half decades where anyone who thinks there are limits on federal authority written into the constitution is portrayed by the most recent majority as anti-democracy or worse and there we have it.
We now live in a nation divided between those who must either get their way or believe themselves to be disenfranchised on one side, and those who are rapidly losing respect for a federal government that regularly pushes against and through its constitutional restraints.
There can only be more of these kind of showdowns between citizens who respect the constitution more than the government officials sworn to obey it, and those same officials being given directives to enforce bad laws. Some believe, and with good reason, that the feds aren't done with the Bundys but I don't think the government has any good options under its current philosophical framework.
If they do nothing, more people will defy them. If they persist in getting their way more people will defy them. They cannot make an example of the Bundys without making them into martyrs. Their best option is to try and win quietly and with as little notice as possible, but that will only allow them to say they enforced the court order. It will win them nothing in public perception and they just lost much.
The feds lost the moment the thousands advanced on their position and demanded they release the cattle and leave. At that point right and the rule of law came into conflict and right won. This wasn't the Little Big Horn. It wasn't a people on the wrong side of cruel history getting a rare victory. It was a people growing in number who are not going away. And yes, federal authorities were foolish enough to set the stage for this unnecessary showdown that left them looking inadequate to the task of governance.
The federal government is clearly perceived as having overstepped the bounds of the constitution and no amount of establishment thinking within the Supreme Court is going to deter the citizenry from acting as though that's the case.
Tipping point?
I don't actually think we're at any of the tipping points I mentioned above, yet. But that is only because the democratic elements of our Republic still exist. The people who believe the government needs a major restraining can still primarily win their fight at the ballot box and/or through a constitutional convention of the states. At the very least they have some brave state governments to support them.
But if these means fail them then the tipping point for them will be reached and I dread that day. Nevada proves there is a will to do what is necessary to put the federal government back in its place by whatever means is required.
As for the people who believe the government must either serve their perceived righteous goals or be guilty of disenfranchising , I don't think they have it in them to do what was done by their counterparts in Nevada last week. We've already seen the left's worst. They've destroyed this republic in the minds and hearts of way too many people, but the damage is mostly done. In the mind-set they teach it can never be the great place it really is. Even if they get their way, and especially if they get their way, it must always be a place of oppression.
Most Americans will either come to the realization that their choice is between liberty and a constant oppressive state of commiseration, or the tipping points will come.
And one historical note. It is likely that a plebiscite in the American colonies would have voted to remain British colonies just before and even part way into the Revolutionary War. Most historians believe that only a third of the colonists wanted independence. Because of that (and other reasons of course) I believe if liberty has a fighting chance it will usually prevail.
To reconsider, that is my advice to anyone who may choose to work against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment