Good question!

After having toiled to put together both the concept and the website, I found the initial response from the public to be somewhat disappointing.  I took a bit of a wait-and-see attitude about it as I continued to participate in political discussions and to work on related projects.  Having mulled it over for nearly a year now my diagnosis is that the concept of “rule of law” is a bit high-minded for most Americans.  They just don’t “get it”.

Being the practically-minded person that I am, therefore, it falls to me to find a way to HELP them get it!  Thus am I now calculating the next steps for ROLR.  Of course, my hands are still somewhat tied with the age-old time/money problem that plagues all activist endeavors, but I think I may have a reasonable solution that can get things rolling again in short order.

Please expect some new activity shortly.

Jack

When I hear that, I naturally ask, “When was the Republican Party ‘conservative’?”

I normally get one of two answers:

1. When Ronald Reagan was in office.
2. When it was formed in 1854.

I submit, however, that there is very little to boast about for either time period.  I’ll submit another piece shortly on the early Republican Party, but for now, I’ll speak to Reagan.  Please keep in mind as you read that this author is likely one of the most non-partisan people in the nation.  I call it like I see it, regardless of political party.   So I don’t look for Rs and Ds, rather, I look for obedience to the Constitution.  If you want a fresh perspective on US politics, just take a new look throughout history to see when the Constitution has been violated and when it has been obeyed.

Now on to my thoughts about Reagan.

Reagan is not lauded because he was a staunch constitutionalist; it is because he was an anomaly—a popular bright spot on a dull backdrop. The personality and substance of his presidency were unlike the Republican Party beforehand and afterward. He was unlike them, and they would never emulate him afterward.

Had he not been so keenly affectionate and firm—had he not been grandfatherly and resolute in his persona, we would certainly not hear so much praise for him today—even if his policies were exactly the same.  America LIKED Ronald Reagan. That is the source of his popularity. It was not primarily because of his political prowess or his philosophy about the Constitution.

Remember, this is the same America that, even today, does not read its own Constitution, and that pretty much doesn’t care that we are a nation that does not follow its own laws. So what bragging rights are there in being merely likable? (When you’re the President, that is—not that being likable in itself is not a laudable thing.)

I imagine that America would quite enjoy having Dumbledore be President, too—even though he’s not a real person, not an American, and doesn’t know the Constitution, either.

Now that I’ve said all that—-Reagan DID wow self-identified “conservatives” with some great one-liners, calling for (and even achieving) reform in various ways.  And in those one-liners were curiously born the “conservative roots” of the Republican Party! They were “roots” that didn’t seem to exist much BEFORE Reagan took office, and they certainly didn’t exist one minute AFTER H.W. was sworn in. (Bush 41 began immediately to disassemble much of what Reagan accomplished. And in so doing, 41 was clearly following the official direction of the Republican Party.)

This is why I say Reagan was an anomaly. He was NOT the Republican Party; he was just a nice guy that the Republican Party let be president once upon a time.

Since then, we often hear the self-proclaimed spokespersons for the Republican Party saying, “I miss Reagan”. Yet they cannot, for the life of them, seem to replicate the man? Nobody can be found to be like Reagan? No one? The fact of the matter is that the real Republican Party leadership does not at this time WANT anyone like Reagan with regard to his philosophy that “government is the problem”. Yes, they’d like someone as popular, but not someone as resolute on that particular issue.

With Reagan, people see what they want to see. Those who like his “conservative values” remember those with enthusiasm. And those who simply like the fact that he won the White House for the Republican Party are enthusiastic about that.

Actually, Ron Paul is more like Reagan than Reagan was when it comes to small government! So why don’t all the people who “miss Reagan” cling to Ron Paul? It’s because for many, missing Reagan is not a thoroughly defined position. If Ron Paul had some more “John Wayne” in his persona, like Reagan did, he’d probably be more popular still. (Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think that Ron Paul needs to be like John Wayne, but the American people like that sort of thing, it seems, and would be apt to vote for it.)

Now, as to people claiming to be “Reagan Republicans”, just what are they really claiming? Aren’t they claiming that they, too, are anomalies—afloat in a sea of “non-Reagan Republicans”? Aren’t they claiming to be “real” Republicans in a sea of “RINOs”? Are they somehow attesting to the hopelessness of meaningful party reform? (That is, that 8 years of Reagan did NOT reform the character of the Republican Party, and that many of his few improvements were immediately reversed by Bush 41.)

I think the appeal to Reagan’s name is not a definitive tactic, but an emotional one. People who claim to be “Reagan Republicans” may not necessarily be any more willing to take a firm stand on obedience to the Constitution than people who claim to be a “Carter Democrat” (OK, bad example, because I don’t think anybody claims that—but you get the idea.)

It’s just talk. It says “I remember the warm feelings”. It does not say, “I’m ready to reform the Republican Party and the nation, too.”

But even so, what better time than now to say, “I’m a Reagan Republican”, since government is bigger and causing more trouble than ever. It will just as surely be said as there are sure to be plenty of unthinking people to find it a compelling sentiment.

What it will yield (at best), however, is a Republican sweep of the Congress in 2010. And then it will be the Republican Party’s chance, once again, to lead the way down the slippery slope of constitutional disobedience—which is exactly where the Party wanted to go before, during, and after Reagan.

Senator Patrick Leahy is building steam in his petition drive for a “Bush Truth Commission”, having gathered over 100,000 signatures so far.

In the video he says, “…everybody has to follow the law; even the President of the United States.”

He’s right, of course. And Bush should be prosecuted for sure. But what I want to know is this: Why doesn’t Leahy seem to understand that Mr. Obama, too, “has to follow the law”? Obama has broken more laws in the last week than I can count on two hands.

I, for one, wish that I were magically the CEO of one of these big corporations for a day so that I could tell Obama to go pound sand when he tries to give orders to the corporation.

That the nation is not up in arms about these blatant usurpations is a very foreboding sign, I’m afraid. Apparently, common sense is now so uncommon that Leahy can engage in such a double standard with impunity.

Who better, then, than the recent party-switcher, Arlen Specter, to represent America’s vast ignorance on the intended role of the justices of the Supreme Court.  In a message to Barack Obama this weekend, Specter tried to influence Obama on what type of person to appoint to replace retiring Justice Souter:

“We need more people to express a woman’s point of view or a minority point of view,“

Specter, as many Americans, appears not to understand that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to represent the views of certain segments of the American society.  No, that job goes to those certain segments of the American society, who are supposed to represent their own views and to influence the government as bet they can.

The job of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the other hand, is to represent the Constitution.  The Supreme Court was not constituted to do any of the following:

• Write laws.
• Make policy.
• Execute laws.
• Appropriate money.
• Be activists.
• Be a representative body of the population or of any special interests or partisan interests.

Their intended role is very simple:  Keep the nation on track with the Constitution—which just happens to be the very document that established the Court in the first place!  This job does not require a personal “point of view”.  Rather, it requires critical thinking skills, objectivity, great familiarity with the Constitution, and the personal integrity to keep one’s own personal views out of the process.

Perhaps Mr. Specter doesn’t realize it, but he has implied with his statement that it is not possible to find such people to serve as Justices.  Therefore, the implication goes, we must stack the court with people from different societal segments in order to see to it that the biases of the Court are balanced.  Rather than seeking a court with an unbiased view of the law, he seeks one in which every bias has a fair shot.

This, of course, shows great ignorance of the concept of the Rule of Law.  If the Congress were apt to do its job by limiting the terms of the SCOTUS justices only to such time as during which they are in “good behavior” (Article III, Section I), then it simply wouldn’t matter what societal segments are represented on the Court.

Specter’s suggestion is a prime example of treating the symptoms and not the cause.  Until America shuns this nasty habit and engages in some rational and fundamental analysis, we will never get anywhere good.  We must return to the Rule of Law; no other paradigm will do.

Jack Pelham

Recently I was driving about the countryside in central Alabama on a business trip when I chanced upon a sign that said:

“America: Love it or Leave It!”

I could not possibly count the number of times I have heard this sentiment expressed.  I remember hearing it as far back as the 80s, though.  What struck me this time, however, is just what a counterproductive and manipulative slogan it is.

In cult language, this phrase would be called a “thought stopper”.  That it, it has the effect of curbing critical thinking and redirecting the thinker to some other place.

And what are we to learn from this phrase?  What’s the “take-home message”?  The message is that criticism and concern have no place here.  I imagine  a conversation like the following:

“I”m really concerned about the way this country doesn’t even care that our government is not following its own laws.”
“Hey, buddy, this is America.  Love it or leave it.”

“Well, what I had in mind was that we’d actually fix it.”
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  Love it or leave it, buddy!”

“I’m not saying I don’t love the country; I’m just saying that I think we could get back to its foundations and turn some things around.”
“Oh, so you’re wanting to mess with the foundations, eh?  What are you….some sort of communist?”

I suppose the genius plan is that if everyone with rational criticisms will actually leave the country, then we’ll somehow be better off.

But that dog, as they say around these parts, won’t hunt.

America: Love it or Fix it!

That’s what I say.

Yes, I understand that a big part of our current problem is that Congress has done so much to “fix” things.  So I guess I’ll have to go with the more specific version:

America: Love it, or if you don’t love it as it is, then amend the Constitution to allow for whatever kind of “fixing” you have in mind, provided you can get the support of 3/4 of the states to do so, and then love it after you’ve fixed the way you like it.

Not quite as catchy, I know, but it’s the thought that counts!

Jack Pelham

]]> http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/27/america-love-it-or-________/feed/ 0 http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/27/overcoming-the-party-charged-conditioning/ http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/27/overcoming-the-party-charged-conditioning/#comments Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:31:46 +0000 ruleoflawrevolution http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/?p=691 If a man criticizes George W. Bush (Republican), then most will immediately assume that he is:

1. a “Liberal”
2. a “Leftist”
3. a “Democrat”
4. a “RINO” (”Republican in name only”)

If a man criticizes Barack Obama, then most will immediately assume that he is:

1. a “Conservative”
2. a “Right-winger”
3. a “Republican”
4. a “DINO” (”Democrat in name only”)

But could it be–and you’re going to think I’m crazy on this one—but could it just be that the critic is simply an American with a concern?  Why must every criticism must be the product of partisan prejudice?

The public’s bent for summarily labeling every critic with a derisive political label is evidence of a terrible problem in American politics.  It is as if they are saying, “OK, let’s get on with it and figure out what we can call this guy so that we can justify discounting his criticisms.”

And so it seems we are a nation of people (stereotypically speaking) who aren’t nearly as concerned with listening as they are with finding just cause not to listen.

Now perhaps this is because we have “heard it all before”.  Or so we think.  But how could we ever know if we shut a guy down the instant he criticizes something we have predetermined should be protected?

I was on a business call a few days ago–about this website–and the man on the other end said to me, “So, what do you think about President Obama so far, eh?”  I could hear the jubilant expectation in his voice, as if there was no possible way anyone could not think well of Obama.  I realized the spot I was in, for he was not going to be the type to listen without assuming more than I was saying, so I told him “Well, he concerns me a great deal, just like ‘W’ did, because he has violated the Constitution several times already in his first three months.”

There was an awkward moment.

And then I explained this new way of looking at things—not with regard to party, but with regard to whether it’s constitutional or not.  I couldn’t be sure whether he thought this was a reasonable idea or not!  But one thing gave me hope; he had looked at my website before we spoke, and he didn’t assume that I’d be against Obama!  Now I could take that one of two ways:

1. He has considered  the Constitution and has analyzed Obama’s acts in office, and sees no conflict.  Or,
2. He didn’t see anything on my site that seems partisan, so without me having mentioned Obama by name, he wasn’t aware of any reason I wouldn’t like him.

I’m thinking it was the latter.

Now as to this deep conditioning,  I can certainly see where the “two parties” have been at it long enough to have conditioned each other never to listen to what they’re saying.  What a shame it will be, though, if our nation utterly fails amid the petty partisan cacophony even though we had some non-Party people who had it figured out all along.

Partisanship is most certainly not about solving problems.  No, it appeals to the much baser drive simply to have something to which to “belong”.  My party, right or wrong, eh?

I, for one, hope for a smarter America than that!

Jack Pelham

Here are a few definitions I found at Google:

• a person who takes a position in the political center
• supporting or pursuing a course of action that is neither liberal nor conservative
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. …
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrist
• A person who advocates centrism; Of, pertaining to, or advocating centrism
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/centrist
• centrism – a political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

At first blush, this seems sensible enough.  We have the “left” and we have the “right”, and in between them, we have the “center”.  So that’s it.  End of topic.

Or so we think.

After considering this notion, however, it simply does not work in the real world.  If “Centrist” means “neither left nor right”, then we would be forced to understand some such diagram as the following:

There are some problems with this model, however.  First of all, if there is a “left” and a “right”, the center (the red dot above) has to represent something; it has to represent the point from which the “left” and “right” moved after the beginning of time.  That is, after the time the Constitution was adopted.  And while this model may work with regard to the Constitution, it most certainly does not work with regard to “lef” and “right”, as I shall show below.

It is not as if the Framers sought to make a Constitution over which the “left” and “right” could eternally squabble—leaving us with an unstable system that was ever to be under attack by opposing partisan agendas.  No, their intent was to hash it out in the beginning such that a system that was fair and equitable for all could be implemented from the get-go.  So the starting point in the diagram above simply must represent the Constitution.  Remember, in the very beginning, there were no organized political parties as we have now, and not even a hint of a “two-party system of government” was written into the Constitution.

Again, we must consider this phenomenon of “left” and “right” always with the starting point in mind, since this is a study in history.  Now I haven’t forgotten that we’re talking about “Centrists” right now, but to get to that, I must first show that such a diagram as we see above does indeed misrepresent the true nature of the “leftist” and “rightist”.

Let us assume for a moment that “Democrat” is generally equal to “leftist” and “Republican” is generally equal to “rightist”.  Whether this is true or not, who can say?  But clearly, this is the way the nation generally uses such terms.  Is it not?

In reality, therefore, we find that this diagram changes drastically, depending on the topic on the table in Congress at any given time.  For instance, when Congress voted to pass the USA Patriot Act in 2001, here’s how “left” and “right” behaved:

Both “sides” voted remarkably like each other.  But if they voted the same, did they not lose their distinction as “left” and “right”?  Thus we see that “left” and “right” are poor and unreliable labels.  In Washington, of course, they’d call this particular passage a “bi-partisan” or a “non-partisan” effort.  But even so, the “left” didn’t act like the “left” and the “right” didn’t act like the “right”.

Surely someone will say that they did each act as themselves.  Or perhaps that one acted as itself and the other acted out of character because of the extreme circumstances following September 11, 2001.  This leaves us at least with the idea that one term or the other doesn’t always mean the same thing.  And when terms don’t always mean the same thing, they are useless.

But even so, in this particular vote where the “two parties” were so remarkably united, where were the “Centrists”?  What would a “Centrist” have thought about the USA Patriot Act?  Remember, the popular definition of Centrist is “neither right nor left”.  Doesn’t it follow, then, that any Centrist would have opposed the USA Patriot Act?

And so the contradictions continue.  Republican Senator John McCain, for instance, has long been known as a “Centrist”, yet he voted in favor of the USA Patriot Act.  At the time, Senator Hillary Clinton was also known as a “Centrist”, yet she voted for the USA Patriot act, too.  So how can you be “neither left nor right” and vote in complete agreement with both the “left” and the “right” at the same time?

All this just goes to show how worthless these labels are.

Before we leave the topic, however, let me point out that there are times when the Republicans want to violate the Constitution in one particular way and are opposed by the Democrats for it.  Then in other instances, the roles are reversed.  How, then, can they still hold these “left” and “right” distinctions if they are each sometimes at the original starting point of the Constitution on some given issue?

If “Centrist” could really have a meaning, it should mean the same as “Constitutionalist”.  Clearly, however, it does not, for so-called “Centrists” such as John McCain violate the Constitution quite often.

If these terms, therefore, are so ethereal as not to have any real meaning, why do we insist so much on keeping them around?

Generally, by “Centrist” most normal Americans mean, “Sometimes I like what the Democrats want and sometimes I like what the Republicans want.”  This, however, tells us absolutely nothing about the foundations of the person’s political philosophy.  Do you have any guiding principles at all, or do you just float with the wind, landing wherever the wind takes you?

I know that such terms will still be in use long after I’m dead and gone, but I, for one, wish dearly that it were not so.  The use of such terminology is an exercise in meaninglessness.  It is the grand assumption that we are saying something of value to people who understand our exact meaning.  Yet the only thing we communicate, ultimately speaking, is that we are talking to people who do not care to understand words, and that they are being talked to by people who don’t care, either.

Exact meaning, however, in the realm of politics, is a dangerous thing, my friends.  What better place, therefore, for meaningless Doublespeak?

When a person christens himself with a political label, he ought honor himself enough to know exactly what that label means.  Moreover, there is greater honor yet in knowing, before donning a label, what one believes and why he believes it.

If you’re looking for a political identity, I’d like to suggest three fairly concrete terms.  I say “fairly” because one of the definitions is rock-solid, and the other two are moving targets of a sort, but still somewhat definable.  Let me explain:

1. Constitutionalist. This is the rock-solid term.  For this term, the definition is in the text of the Constitution.  I don’t mean to imply that the term itself is defined therein.  Rather, the Constitution itself is a finite and fixed document that says only what it says, and no more.  Thus, someone whose political philosophy is to keep to the Constitution has, therefore, a fixed position.  And if such a person has a criticism of the Constitution, even then he has recourse, for the Constitution allows for amendments, provided 3/4 of the States will concur.
2. Democrat. The definition I have in mind for “Democrat” is not concrete like that of Constitutionalist above, but it is consistent.  I use this definition only for those who are in office as Democrats, and not necessarily for the rank-and-file voters.  My definition of Democrat, in this limited context, is one who does the bidding of the Democratic Party’s leadership.  That leadership may not give the same orders year after year, but whatever the orders are, so goes the vote and/or actions of the official.
3. Republican. This definition would be exactly like that of Democrat above, except that the Republican does the bidding of the leadership of the Republican Party.

So we have three groups:  Those who do the bidding of the fixed and finite Constitution, and those who do the bidding of the two major parties.

And where does “Centrist” fall into this spectrum?

It really doesn’t.

Enough said about the “Centrist” term.

Now just a bit more about this impossible model of “left” and “right”. Are we to assume that of 300,000,000 Americans, only two distinct political philosophies exist?

So why aren’t there other parties in play?  I don’t mean the tiny parties such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party.  Why aren’t there any other contenders out there?

For one thing, having only a “left” and “right” makes things very easy to manage for those who own the “left” and the “right”.  Two’s company; three’s a crowd, if you know what I mean.

And besides that, the two best names are already taken.  Since we already have “Leftists” and “Rightists” (Yes, I know they don’t call themselves “Rightists”, but they should!), then what’s left?  Skewists?

The very notion that there are but two prominent leanings is absurd.  And that these two popular leanings cannot ever be trusted to lean consistently is evidence that giving them a directional name makes for a misnomer.

This political lingo is all fabricated for the sake of the unthinking masses who simply want something to be called, and something to call others.

No wonder people who don’t fit conveniently into the established norms are simply labeled as “kooks”.  In my mind, however, anybody who uses a term that he cannot define consistently over time is the one whose mental soundness should be examined.

The fact of the matter is that most Americans don’t really have much idea what they believe.  It’s much easier simply to pick your favorite team and follow blindly along.  It is as unprincipled an endeavor as picking one’s favorite sports team based upon the look of the uniforms.  But perhaps I have hit upon a worthy parallel here, for it seems to make about as much difference, too.

If we pull for the Republicans, we end up violating the Constitution.  And if we pull for the Democrats, we end up violating the Constitution.  And the “Centrists” (whatever that’s supposed to mean)—well isn’t it funny that they generally attach themselves to one of the two parties to whose philosophy they are, by definition, always contrary?

It’s time to throw all this gobbledygook into the trash can and do some fresh analysis.  And the only place from which to start, my friends, is the Constitution.  There is simply no other reasonable point of reference.

The Constitution is the only true “Center” we can have.

Jack Pelham

1.  A man says aloud at a public gathering, “I’m against the recreational use of narcotics; it should be illegal.”  Everyone in the crowd thinks, “Ah, that guy’s a conservative.”

2.  Then on some other day, at some other gathering, a man says aloud, “I’m against federal drug laws and the DEA, ATF, and the FDA”.  On this one the crowd is split.  Some say, “That guy must be a Libertarian.”  Others say, “That guy must be a liberal.”

3.  Then on yet another day, at yet another gathering, a man says aloud, “I’m for States’ Rights; the Federal Government needs to mind its own business.”  At this, most of the crowd thinks, “This guy is probably some Southern separatist, still bitter about the Civil War.”

Now what would you say if I told you that in all three stories, it’s the same man who is saying these things aloud?  What in the world would we call such a person.  We simply must have a label for him!  Right?

Or perhaps, on second thought,  we ought simply to stay away from this person, for he clearly is not sane!  I mean, nobody thinks like this guy!  He’s all over the place—completely inconsistent and irrational.  Right?  How could any one person possibly believe such a disparate set of views all at the same time?

It’s really quite simple, actually.  Here’s how.

1.  First he said, “I’m against the recreational use of narcotics; it should be illegal.” At this, most want to call him a “conservative”, but he would not call himself a conservative.  Rather, he is simply expressing his own philosophy on society—opining that it is better for a society not to allow the recreational use of narcotics.  Many assume that because he has said this, he would naturally be in favor of Federal laws prohibiting recreational use of narcotics.  But this is, in fact, not what the man believes, as we shall see below.

2.  Secondly, the man said, “I’m against federal drug laws and the DEA, ATF and the FDA”.  If you recall, some call him a “Libertarian” and others a “liberal”.  The man, however, would flatly reject either of these political labels, just as he would have rejected the “conservative” label in the previous example.  The reason he is against federal drug laws, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Food and Drug Administration is because he recognizes that the Constitution simply does not authorize Congress to make laws about drugs, nor to create such agencies as these.  It has nothing to do with politics or religion or philosophy in his mind; it is a simple matter of the rule of law.

3.  Thirdly, the man had said, “I’m for States’ Rights; the Federal Government needs to mind its own business.”  For this, you may recall, he is labeled a “Southern separatist”.  Again, the man would flatly reject this label, for he is neither from the South, nor in favor of secession for his State.  Further, his position has nothing to do with political parties.  Instead, his perspective is driven simply from the Rule of Law, for he finds the Constitution abundantly clear in the powers that are enumerated for Congress and for the Executive branch.  He sees no such things as federal drug laws, nor any of these agencies being authorized therein, so he opines that the federal government has over-reached its powers and ought to cut it out.  Further, he asserts that the 10th Amendment makes for an iron-clad case that any such laws or agencies as these must be created at the State level, and not at the Federal level.

Thus we see that our man is quite a reasonable man, and not a raving lunatic, as we might naturally assume.

This is my appeal.  We must drop our meaningless and obfuscating labels in favor of language that actually means something.  And we must drop our stubborn assumptions that all who agree with us on one issue ought to share the same label by which we brand ourselves—or that those who disagree with us on some issue ought to bear the same label that we brand upon our adversaries.  Such behavior only serves to keep us divided and dull as a people.  This senseless either/or thinking simply must stop if we are ever to get anywhere.

Liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, left/right…..

When such terms are used, it’s normally in a rush to define that which is not so easily defined, or to divide that which ought not be otherwise divided.

The Constitution is for us all.  Political philosophy has nothing to do with it……

….unless one’s philosophy is that we ought not follow our own laws and that ungoverned government is a good thing.

]]> http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/25/what-is-this-guy-a-liberal-or-a-conservative/feed/ 2 http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/25/what-is-a-republican-what-is-a-democrat/ http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/25/what-is-a-republican-what-is-a-democrat/#comments Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:40:00 +0000 ruleoflawrevolution http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/?p=648 In keeping with my general goal of trying to give deeper-than-normal thought to the trappings of our American political landscape, I thought it would be good to spend a few minutes with this important pair of questions.

Most of us, I’d say, would have to “um” and “uh” a bit before we could formulate a sensible answer.  Sure, we would dodge the question and answer simply that “A Republican is a member of the Republican Party”.  (And likewise for the Democrat question.)  But beyond the obvious, how shall we define these terms?

I, for one, have grown very leary of human labels, for they never seem to work once you start asking specific questions.  Do all Republicans agree exactly on all things political?  Do all Democrats?  What about all “conservatives” or all “liberals”?  So what, then does it mean to bear the labels?

Let’s look at three possible ways to define Republican and Democrat.  To make it easier, I’ll just make a hybrid of these two names so that I only have to go through this once.  We’ll call it Republicrat.  Or should it be Demublican?  OK, I’ll just switch back and forth for fun:

1. A Demublican is a person who is a signed member of the Demublican Party.
2. A Republicrat is a person who adheres completely to the political platform of the Republicrat Party, and who has no further political concerns beyond that platform.
3. A Demublican is a person who generally believes in the platform of the Demublican Party, more than in the platform of any other political party.
4. A Republicrat is a person who normally votes for Republicrat candidates.

I would venture to say that each of these four definitions are frequently understood as various people use the terms in question.  And we, as a nation, seem to be fairly content with that, requiring no further pinning down of exactly what is meant, or what ought to be meant.

But let me rephrase the questions just a bit to force us to do a bit more thinking:

What is Republicanism?  What is Democratism?

In other words, what are these parties fundamentally about?

Naturally, someone might say, “Oh, the Demublican Party is about its platform, which can be found at www.demublicanparty.com.”  Chances are, however that the official platform is considerably different from the behavior of those Demublicans who hold public office.

Someone else, then, might opine that “Republicratism is an aggregate political philosophy, made up of the various individual philosophies of millions and millions members of the Republicrat Party.   If this is the case, however, then why aren’t Republicrats routinely surveyed on all political matters in order to define this “aggregate” philosophy?

Now we can talk theory, or we can talk about the real world—which leads us to my favorite definition of Demublicanism:  Demublicanism is the aggregate political philosophy of all the current public officials who are members of the Demublican Party.  In other words, it matters not what they are saying in their official party platform, but what they are actually doing in office.  That is what defines the Demublican—and the Republicrat.

If we should follow this line of thinking, applying it to the last decade in Washington, then we could come up with definitions for Republican and Democrat by seeing just what the members of these parties voted for and against.

I wish I could provide for you at this juncture a broad analysis of the voting habits of Congress by party for the last decade.  Until I have that research completed, however, I’ll just have to settle for a single mundane example from this week in each house of Congress.

US House of Representatives

23 April 2009
HR 1139
The bill increases federal grant money to local law enforcement.  This is not authorized by the Constitution.
248 Democrats voted yes.   0 Democrats voted no.  6 Democrats did not vote.
94 Republicans voted yes.  78 Republicans voted no.  6 Republicans did not vote.

So by my method of defining the political parties by how their members behave in Congress, we see that both the Democratic and the Republican parties are BOTH  in favor of violating the Constitution in order to spend Federal dollars on local law enforcement.  It does not matter that 78 Republicans made a show of voting no  What matters is the outcome, and that the Republican Party did indeed supply a considerable number of votes to the cause.  In fact, because of the 94 Republican “yes” votes, as many as 124 Democratic representatives could have stayed home that day, and their will would have passed just the same!

US Senate

22 April 2009
S 386
This bill seeks to modify the definition of the word “obligation” as used in Senate bill 386, which bill concerns  “federal assistance and relief programs” that are themselves not authorized by the Constitution.
53 Democrats voted yes.  0 Democrats voted no.  3 Democrats did not vote.
40 Republicans voted yes.  0 Republicans voted no.  1 Republican did not vote.

]]> http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/25/what-is-a-republican-what-is-a-democrat/feed/ 0 http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/25/taxes-the-perfect-issue-for-republicans-in-2010/ http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/2009/04/25/taxes-the-perfect-issue-for-republicans-in-2010/#comments Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:20:35 +0000 ruleoflawrevolution http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/?p=646 It’s been exciting to see all the hubbub over the tax protests.  Seeing people get involved—hearing them voice their concerns—seeing the mainstream media have to decide whether to cover the protests favorably or critically.

I have also noticed, however, that there seem always to be Republican politicians close at hand at the protests.  I’m not suggesting that the GOP has funded or organized any or all of these protests, but they’re always there.  And it occurs to me that it’s the perfect opportunity for them to campaign for 2010.  By participating in the protest rallies, Republican politicians can appear to be taking a stand against some of the very taxes that their own party has been instrumental in helping to raise.  And further, they can do their best to make the 2010 elections a one-issue affair—effectively ignoring the many evils that have been perpetrated by Republicans in office.  (Now in case you don’t know it yet, I believe that both parties have severely undermined the Constitution.)

Remember, all that has to happen for Republican success in 2010 is for the majority of people to consider that the 2010 Republican platform is “the lesser of two evils”.  What a low “bar” to jump, indeed!  Yet, in a time of economic crisis, when the people are hurting in the pocket book, the obvious knee-jerk reaction is to go with the group that has been calling for lower taxes.

Never mind that the Republicans are not willing to operate under the Rule of Law, obeying the very Constitution that established the Congress in which they serve.  No, we don’t care about that.  And frankly, the restoration of the rule of law is simply too high an aspiration for the American voter.  No, we’d much rather have the simple “lesser of two evils”.  Who cares that the government grew bigger under the last Republican majority than it ever had in history before that time.

So if we’re thinking that by these tax protests, we’d like to bring about some sort of significant reform in 2010, perhaps we should refocus the topic of the protests, shifting it from taxation to the Rule of Law.  This would make it much harder for the typical Republican politician to take the podium, as most of them have very clear track records as violators of the Constitution.

Who cares if you want lower taxes, buddy? You’ve already proved yourself an enemy of the very Constitution you swore to uphold!

If it were up to me, everybody in the country would quit their political parties altogether.  I, for one, think that the parties are incorrigible—beyond reform.  But for those who are still hoping like crazy that I’m wrong about that, a shift in focus from taxation to the Rule of Law would be a great help in determining which of the politicians in their parties are really serious about foundational things, and which simply want to be re-elected.

Jack Pelham