01-18-2011
Permalink
Silencio!
|
Subject: The Rhetoric of Anger
In spite of their being no established causal connection between the
political right and the actions of such people as
Jared
Loughner (the Tucson, AZ shooter of Congresswomen Giffords), or
James Jay Lee
(the Discovery Communications headquarter hostage taker in Silver
Springs, MD), or Andrew
Joseph Stack (who flew his small plane into an Austin, TX IRS
building), this has not quieted the call from the left for
"swearing
off the rhetoric of violence", stopping the
"climate
of hate", eliminating the
"vitriol
... about tearing down the government", and
"toning
down the partisan rhetoric" while
"promot[ing]
centrism and moderation".
It has also been pointed out that the left constantly uses language or
tactics that imply violence, such as calling for the targeting
of Democrats who are insufficiently progressive, while placing
"bulls eyes" on
Gabrielle
Giffords herself, as well as various
Republicans.
Or calling for
Nuremberg-style
trials for the "bastards" who deny climate change. Or
graphically depicting the
blowing
up of any school child who chooses to think for him or herself.
Or Barack Obama famously stating his position with regard to Republican
campaign attacks:
"If
they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." None of
this seems to matter in mitigating the left's outrage.
Of course it is perfectly clear to anyone engaged in or observing
the rough-and-tumble of political discourse, that all of these
references to "targeting the enemy", "keeping the
opposition in one's crosshairs", "mounting a battle plan",
"taking aim", "fighting an uphill battle",
"setting off a powder keg of dissent", "dropping a
bombshell" and so forth are nothing more than combat metaphors
emphasizing the struggle between two opposing (i.e., "warring")
groups, and in no way reflect a call for the literal use of knives,
guns or bombs, or the actual killing of any person. So why all the
disingenuous accusations by the left in demanding a revision in tone
and language used by the right? Because it serves their purpose:
To curtail free speech and silence their opposition
— by whatever means necessary.
Now it is true that those on the progressive left are very much
afraid of what they perceive to be happening among those to their
political right. But it is not a violent uprising or attacks on their
person that they fear. What the left is accurately observing, and what
is generating such angst, is the rising passion among
Republicans, Libertarians and Independents. It is the awakening of an
honest and justified anger concerning what has, and is
currently being done to this country and its citizens — and what
is being done to them! The left correctly senses that the jig
may well be up for their programs of theft and subjugation if the
victims stop accepting the unearned guilt and duty they have been told
they must bear, and instead, begin pushing back.
The left knows that they cannot win on the battlefield of ideas,
because in most matters, the powerful weapon of truth is on the
side of their foes. So they resort to a time-tested tactic: they
attempt to guilt others into abandoning their intellectual
ammunition—their truth—and voluntarily surrendering
their winning stance.
For years, one strategy has been to cast the accusation of
"racism" and watch their opponents immediately back down.
This tactic had been successful because, being unable to mount a
proper philosophical defense against this insult, many people had
wrongly accepted an unearned guilt and allowed themselves to be
held accountable for the past actions of others, thereby handing
the left a leverage point which they could exploit to their benefit.
However, since the election of Barack Obama, we have entered a
post-racial era, and the left is no longer finding this to be the
effective ploy it once was — although they keep trying!
With racism effectively off the table, the left has now switched to
charges of "violence". And as they are so accustomed to doing,
without the need for any actual evidence, they merely proclaim that
the rhetoric of the right is responsible for inciting violence in
other impressionable people and then hope that those accused will
fail to understand the principles involved and swiftly retreat,
wishing to distance themselves from the warrantless invective.
Fortunately, what they are discovering is that this tactic is also
achieving very little traction. In fighting back against these
baseless indictments, the right is learning how to not let the
left get away with writing the political narrative.
Responding to a decade of unprecedented statist abuses during both the
Bush and the Obama administrations, a sleeping giant has now been
awakened. Where once federal political power went substantially
unchallenged by a complacent populace that was focused primarily
on their day-to-day lives, many of these same people have now been
transformed into political activists, operating either individually,
or as members of a grassroots Tea Party organization, to challenge
the status quo and assert a newfound commitment to the fundamental
principles of constitutionally constrained government, fiscal
responsibility, free markets, and individual rights. What this
nascent movement lacks by way of an incomplete formulation and
understanding of these principles, it compensates for with energy,
fervor and dedication. And it is this new spirit of participation
and the willingness to fight for self-preservation that so terrifies
the left.
When the left seeks to "promote centrism and moderation", they
are asking the right to compromise their principles. Here is what
Ayn Rand had to say concerning the act of compromise:
A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual
concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise
have some valid claim and some value to offer each other.
And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental
principle which serves as a base for their deal.
It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing
a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise.
For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one
wants to receive for one's product, and agree on a sum
somewhere between one's demand and his offer. The mutually
accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of
trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his
product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer
wanted to obtain one's product for nothing, no compromise,
agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total
surrender of one or the other.
There can be no compromise between a property owner and a
burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's
silverware would not be a compromise, but a total
surrender—the recognition of his right to one's property.
—
"Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" from
The Virtue of Selfishness
|
This is a profoundly important observation. Compromise is not possible
on matters of fundamental principles, for any attempt to do so utterly
destroys that principle in the process. And this is precisely what the
left is counting on. If they cannot guilt us into surrender, then they
merely ask that we negotiate a compromise of such things as our lives,
our liberty, our property and our privacy. And the moment we concede
even the smallest breach of our individual rights, then those rights
have been effectively extinguished and all that remains are
insubstantial words to which some may cling in delusion, but which will
provide no protection, ultimately resulting in our being conscripted
into national service; or being told what type of medical treatments
will be permitted and which will be denied; or having half, or three
quarters, or all of one's wealth confiscated; or being subject to
warrantless wiretaps and strip searches at the airport. This art of
compromise is a game of gotcha that the left fully understands
and applies against the unwary. Fortunately, the defense is easy:
simply say "No!" and stand firm.
A more sophisticated version of this game can be seen when the left
demands that the right "tone down the partisan rhetoric." What
they are actually saying is, "stop being passionate about your
cause," because they understand full well that passion is
infectious and can ignite similar feelings and commitment in others.
If they can convince us to give up the anger we feel in response to
their actions, they know we will have been defused and no longer pose
a threat. So they manufacture criticism designed to make us question
the legitimacy of our feelings and hope that the resulting guilt will
lead us to internally sabotage our values; to compromise our principles
without a fight. It is a strategy that has often worked, but is
ineffective when seen for what it is.
Today we are engaged in a serious battle of competing
ideologies, with the future of this country—and our personal
freedom—hanging in the balance. The progressives have seized
an opportunity to advance their totalitarian agenda, consolidating
an unprecedented level of arbitrary power in the hands of the
President, while eroding the rights of every citizen. If, in the
modern era, there was ever an appropriate time to be provoked by
political events, this is certainly it, and the displeasure exhibited
through the outpouring of articles, speeches, rallies, protests,
and letters to Congress, are all fully justified, as are the use of
combat metaphors which effectively punctuate the seriousness of our
concerns and accurately convey the level of our outrage. At this
point, the citizens of this country are not advocating the use of
violence, but instead are engaged in the rhetoric of anger,
which will continue to be dialed up until they are finally
acknowledged.
However, it must be pointed out that while the protests of the
citizenry have remained generally peaceful as they attempt to address
their concerns through the expression of ideas and via the electoral
process, the same cannot be said of the actions of government. By
its very nature, government operates by means of coercion. Every
initiative it takes is imposed upon the citizens with the explicit
threat that failure to comply will be met with physical force. As
the regulations which restrict our freedom of speech, expression,
movement and choice grow, and the theft of our property increases,
all at the point of a gun, the country is being moved closer and
closer towards a dangerous tipping point. If our supposedly
representative government continues to ignore the message being
communicated by a large segment of the populace, and persists in
further destroying the rights of the individual, Then all bets are
off.
Our politicians, many of whom just now appear to be getting their first
education into the meaning and purpose of the U.S. Constitution,
should also reacquaint themselves with the Declaration of
Independence, which states in part:
|
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.
[Emphasis added]
|
There was a time when those in America had had enough. Pushed beyond
their limits, they declared their independence from an oppressive
government — and when that government attempted to enforce its
despotic control, these people fought back in the cause of their
freedom. Today we find ourselves on the cusp of a Second American
Revolution, with the parallels to 1776 clearly seen in the excerpt
above. However, we have at our disposal a significant advantage
that was unavailable to our forefathers — the remnants of
constitutional protections that they bequeathed to us. While the
First Amendment is currently under concerted attack by the Obama
administration, we still enjoy a reasonably unfettered ability to
voice our opposition and work to educate more and more people as to
the true nature of the progressive's totalitarian agenda, without
the need to resort to actual bullets. And we are making visible
progress! But the path back towards a proper society based upon
inviolable individual rights and strictly limited government is long
and arduous, and will require real passion in order to fuel our
ongoing commitment to the cause of liberty. Do not allow the enemy
to wear you down or convince you to relinquish your justified anger.
Reason must always be one's guide to action, but respect your inner
flame and let it inspire and drive you forward to do what is necessary
in order to win this battle and vanquish, once and for all, the
philosophical ideology dedicated to human destruction.
Please reread Brian Faulkner's poem at the opening of this article,
as it expresses my deepest feelings concerning the current state of
the world. I pledge myself to the rhetoric of anger, so long
as it shall be required — and not a moment longer.
If anger was itself a thing of steel
How sharp would fly the bullets from my mind.
To victory!
|
