Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Remember Who the Real Enemy Is” — D.C. McAllister
Anyone familiar with the Hunger Games series knows this quote. Katniss Everdeen is about to enter the arena to fight for her life, but behind the scenes another fight is catching fire—a revolution against the authoritarian Capitol and its malevolent President Snow.
The tributes, chosen by the 12 districts to represent them in the arena, have one goal: Kill or be killed. Twenty-four go in, and only one comes out. Every year, there is only one victor.
This time, however, the games are different. Alliances are being formed, as tributes who should be enemies are banding together to thwart the Capitol. Knowing who to trust is difficult, so when it comes time for Katniss to enter the arena, her mentor gives her this advice: “Remember who the real enemy is.”
The real enemy isn’t the people fighting with Katniss in the arena; it’s the bloated and wasteful Capitol, led by a power-hungry president who lords over the poverty-stricken districts according to his will.
Our enemy is quite similar. Too strong a comparison, you think? When it comes to our liberty, I don’t think so.
Some people might not like terms such as “fight” or “enemy” when it comes to politics; they prefer a more civil discourse as we seek to “work with our friends across the aisle.” The problem is that our friends across the aisle have been waging a war against the American people for years, shifting the role of the federal government from that of defender of individual liberty to manager of the economy, definer of morality, equalizer of disparity, and provider of security—something it was never meant to be. We have failed to see that this shift undermines the very foundation of our liberty, as government has become less about protecting people and more about protecting its own power.
Too often, Republicans think the enemy—or the “problem”—is bad policies, overspending, high taxes, or a lack of efficient planning. If we can just get the right people to manage the government, everything will be fine. But the problem isn’t management or policies or even the right people. The problem is more foundational than that.
Overspending, high taxes, and inefficiency are mere symptoms of an underlying condition. The real problem is a federal government that has stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution, transforming into something it was never meant to be—something that cannot coexist with liberty.
Our fight, therefore, is not to get rid of government (because it has its proper place), but to reconstruct it so it fits within the parameters set by our Founders. In a sense, we are fighting for government. Good government. The kind of government that promotes liberty instead of undermining it in the name of equality or security.
Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Our fight is for liberty, not economic equality, not opportunity, not security, not even prosperity. Our fight is for freedom—first and foremost. Why? Because equality, opportunity, security, and prosperity are meaningless without it. They’re leaves blowing in the wind. They’re only meaningful—and lasting—when they grow on the tree of liberty.
Those who seek to increase the power and scope the federal government or maintain its size might have the best intentions for the greater good, but motivations are irrelevant when it comes to liberty. As Daniel Webster said, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
We can learn something from Katniss Everdeen: As we enter the political arena, remember what we’re fighting against and remember what we’re fighting for. Remember who the real enemy is. It’s not libertarians. It’s not social conservatives. It’s not the Tea Party. It’s not Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or Mike Lee. It’s those who wish to be our masters. It’s centralized government and anyone who refuses to diminish its size and its scope and who cowers at doing the hard work of returning power to the states and to the people.
“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. “Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.”
Corruption. Plunder. Waste.
Yes, that is something to fight against, don’t you think? And what are we fighting for? Local governance. Civil communities. Free people.
Progressives believe we need the federal government to provide for our retirement; regulate our businesses; run our schools; dictate to the states about marriage, immigration, and drugs; choose our doctors; gather our personal data; waste our money on pet projects (like shrimp on treadmills); and put our children into debt before they’re even born.
Conservatives believe we need the federal government to provide for our defense, protect our borders, and regulate interstate commerce. Everything else belongs at the local level—closer to the people, where liberty and virtue are nurtured.
The main goal for the GOP should be putting the federal government back in its constitutional place. Whatever the issue, whatever the policy, whatever the program—that should be the goal and that should be what unites us. The tactics might vary, but decentralization has got to be what we’re ultimately fighting for.
For decades, progressives fought for and united around a common goal, and they succeeded: Grow the federal government. Now is our time, if only we seize it: Grow state and local governments by reducing the size of the federal government. That is our common goal. If we unite and refuse to give up, we will succeed just as they did.
In our struggle to save our nation and to restore liberty and the prosperity that comes with it, we need to remember who the real enemy is—anyone who wants to keep the powers of the federal government numerous and indefinite, and the powers of the states few and defined. If we lose sight of that, we will lose our country. We will lose our freedom.
Published in General
I’m sorry, but you refute your claim here. Kirk split with conservatives on one trivial race (no one thinks that Durbin’s seat is at risk right now), but supports us on most of them. He campaigns for some Republicans, and for no Democrats. Reid supports, so far as I know, no Republicans and campaigns and raises money for many democrats.
On issues, Kirk is the fifth most liberal Republican on Heritage Action’s scorecard, at 44%, although one of the more liberal Republicans has been canned (Chiesa). For context, the most liberal Republican, Collins, is at 26%, and the most conservative Democrats, Manchin and Pryor, are at 12%, and Durbin is at 2%. He’s also 44% on the American Conservative Union scorecard.
Heritage gives Reid 7%. Not only does Reid vote differently, his votes matter; I don’t think that Kirk has cast a single consequential bad vote in the Senate, whereas Reid passed Obamacare and has many other consequential votes to his name. You note Reid’s character yourself. Can you imagine Kirk pulling something like the Koch crusade, or the “Romney hasn’t paid taxes in 10 years” stunt?
Kirk is pretty terrible, but he’s nothing like as bad as Reid.
Broken windows are one thing, but the city does that already. No private organization should have the power to put a lien on my property over a mailbox.
Donald, I understand what you mean. How I see it, the real enemies are progressives, no matter what party they’re in or what faith they hold to.
The piece is exceptional, the negativity and pessimism of the comments to be expected.
When I was a boy Kennedy was elected. He came to the Twin Cities. My friend and I rode bikes out to the airport, riding along the edge of the roadway. A state trooper saw us and had us ride in the ditch and out of the way of the cars, but did not make us go back. We wanted to see Kennedy, and at a distance we were able to do so.
Then we rode back, in the ditch, going the opposite way, until we were in the city and could ride the sidewalks and stay out of the way of the cars.
If conservatives are my friends, we should be gripped to go and to see the right person, the person we agree on, the person we perceive will help us get to our political goal. We are not riding in the same direction, which is a very sad state of affairs.
Last election cycle, I watched Newt Gingrich take interviewers apart, with humor, common sense, and real public courage. He got my vote.
That is what I am looking for.
Donald—I’m tired of focusing on a single man or woman. While I am looking for a leader who will actually toss the ring of power in to the fires of Mount Doom (we definitely need that person–as well as some Sam Gamgees to help him along the way), I look forward to the day when the election of the president is not our central concern when it comes to politics. He only really matters when it comes to foreign policy; otherwise, he’s not that important in the day-to-day of American life. I dream of a day when North Carolinas focus on NC when it comes to elections and Texans focus on Texas, and New York is concerned about NY. If California wants to live like commies in its own state, that’s fine. We can go to Texas or Florida or SC or anywhere else. We’re not trapped from coast to coast under the heavy hand of Washington and a single president be he like Kennedy or Reagan. That’s what I look forward to and that’s what I want to be working toward. I hope all like-minded people will join together around that cause.
From what little I know of Charles Murray, I think he is persuasive in his recommendations.
To paraphrase…
We need to make moral arguments and connect them to policy.
We make fiscal arguments and lose because we don’t connect them to moral and human arguments.
Welfare, for example:
The opposition makes the moral argument that people fall on hard times and gee wouldn’t it be nice to have a safety net for them.
We typicaly argue only the fiscal realites, that welfare disincentivizes work and requires more taxes.
I think Charles Murray posed a simple moral argument that human beings are less happy when they feel they are not earning their own way. It eats away a them to be unproductive.
The most important vote ANY Republican makes (even Collins and Kirk) is their first one of the new session: majority leader (speaker in the House). Even the squishiest RINO will never vote for a Dem. That means Republican chairmanships and OUR agenda. (I relish making Dear Leader veto all kinds of common sense legislation over the next two years. He doesn’t care that he will screw over the 2016 Donk nominee.) Will all of our agenda get passed in Congress? Of course not. But you don’t get ANY of it without that majority. Which is why I would support even the supposed Tea Party-hating McConnell over Bevins. Bevins can’t win the battles that a problematic but shrewd McConnell can. Let’s get the majority first; there will be plenty of time to cull the weaklings from the herd once you have a stronger young Turk to replace them with (Cruz is a case in point, but Red Texas was never going to be a place for a Dem pickup; KY is not as solid)
Captainpower–you are very right. Tie policy to a moral cause. I think we should make the connection over and over again that limited government is all about compassionate communities.
Charles Murray is brilliant on subsidiarity
It is true that people are less happy when they’re unproductive. But the left has convinced many that the the cause of their angst and their unproductivity is the free market and that they need government to make them happy. We now have many people caught in a dependency cycle that is reminiscent of Stockholm Syndrone. We need to help people see that the source of their unhappiness is big government which is holding them captive with its progressive policies.
D.C. McAllister: #37 “I’m tired of focusing on a single man or woman.”
Unfortunately we look for leadership, and that is usually embodied in an individual. I noted both Kennedy and Gingrich. I find it difficult to believe that a tabula rosa will be available to conservatives. Barry certainly appeared to be a tabula rosa to a lot of people but that was because a compliant mainstream media avoided all mention of who he really is.
As a Marine there were officers which were worthy of being followed. We weren’t following an idea or an ideal but a man who lived up to the ideal of what a Marine officer should be.
If you don’t find a man or woman who lives up to your ideal (or at least somewhere close to that position), what happens? If you are like me, you bite your tongue and look for any flimsy reason to vote. My reasons for voting are getting flimsier and flimsier as sometimes it is difficult to tell their liberals apart from our liberals.
That has gotten old. Ideal is not on the ballot.
Is ideal possible? When have you ever had the chance to vote for an ideal Presidental candidate?
Ronaldus Maximus (Ronald Reagan) had opposition from conservatives.Maybe you’ve had a chance to vote for an ideal candidate at the local level?