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.
Our founding fathers did not seek independence from their English overlords because they viewed themselves as radicals intent on destroying an unjust system of English oppression. No, our founding fathers viewed themselves as Englishmen, who were not being treated as true Englishmen, with property rights, a say in their governance, a system of laws and not men, and other English principles going back to the Magna Carta. And they had a point.
Martin Luther King Jr. was not a radical seeking to destroy an unjust system of American oppressive culture. No, he viewed American blacks as an important part of American culture, who were not being treated as the true American citizens that they are. And he had a point.
Modern American conservatives do not see themselves as radicals who seek to destroy the increasing control of leftism over centralized control structures in American government. No, they admire the American system of government, and seek only to return it to its underlying principles. And they have a point.
I’m mystified by my leftist friends who fear conservatives in positions of power. I wonder what they think might happen? What do they consider to be the motivations of American conservatives? Think of the evil conservative thoughts that must control their evil conservative minds: “Ha Ha! Once you allow us to get into power, we will … leave you alone!!! Ha Ha Haaaa!” * evil music plays in the background *
The recent viciousness of the politics of the Democrat party have led even the traditionally, and understandably, polite and laisse-faire Republican party to elect an aggressive firebrand like Donald Trump to the presidency over the more typical Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.
But still, the underlying ideology of the Republican party is based on the founding concepts of America – the rule of law, property rights, individual liberty, limited government, and so on. You may not agree with that ideology, but there is an ideology there. And when Republicans gain power, they make an effort (usually, pretty much) to work toward their ideological goals.
Because of this, when Republicans run for office, they are somewhat constrained by their ultimate goals. Their voters are voting for an idea, not necessarily that particular officeholder. So Republican politicians are typically more restrained in their rhetoric, and less dependent on a cult of personality than their Democrat counterparts.
It makes no sense to use violence or deception to give people more of their rights back to them, thus limiting the power of the politician that just won the election. So Republican politicians are naturally more restrained in their approach to politics. Ben Sasse is different from AOC. Makes sense.
Here is the part that bothers me:
I look at various representatives of the Democrat party. Such as CNN, gay/transsexual activists, The New York Times, Black Lives Matter, unions, Antifa, environmentalists, Marxists, the educational establishment, the Democrat party itself, and so on and so forth. I attempt to discern an overriding ideology to their various messages.
The only overriding ideology I can find is the quest for power. Cold, bloody, power. Help us achieve control, and you’ll get a seat at the table of power. Unionized Harley-riding deer hunters don’t have to agree with lesbian environmentalists. Their ultimate goals are irrelevant. This is not about ideology. It’s about power. They can work together, to achieve control.
They’ll work out the details later.
The reason this bothers me so much, is that without an underlying ideology, what limits are there on your behavior? If your only motivation is power, and your only ethic is the destruction of your enemies, that what will you not do to achieve power?
You attack your enemy at their weak points. You attack their families. Chase them out of restaurants. Publicly ridicule their children. Kick them out of colleges.
Meanwhile, you protect your flanks from attacks by hiding behind helpless children as your representatives. Or using slogans that cannot be questioned, like “Black Lives Matter,” or “Antifa” (Anti-fascism).
You have no interest in treating your opposition with respect and dignity. You have no interest in representing your point of view honestly and openly. You have no interest in debating policy or ideology.
You have no interest in anything but power.
So what will you not do? And when will you stop doing it? Where are your limits? Robespierre and residents of Portland are unsure.
And once you achieve power, what will you not do then? What are the limits on your behavior? What ideology or ethic must you consider when conducting your day to day business?
There is a big difference between Martin Luther King’s civil rights protests of the 1960s and the Black Lives Matter protests today. And that difference is ideology. Rev. King believed in something. He believed in his God, and he believed in his country. And thus, there were limits on his behavior.
The Black Lives Matter movement seems to believe in nothing, other than taking whatever they can get from whoever they can steal from. Thus, their behavior is less restrained. It’s all about power. Their symbol is the raised fist. They mean it. And that’s all they mean. It’s about power.
How can the more ideological, and thus more restrained, Republican party effectively combat the advances of less restrained leftists?
I never thought I’d say this, but thank God for Donald Trump.
These are strange times.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
“Don’t just do something – stand there.” – Calvin Coolidge and others
“We’re screwed.” – Dr. Bastiat