Wayne LaPierre is the CEO of the National Rifle Association. He is an absolute quote-generating machine. The crowd of conservatives he spoke to today loved every minute of it.
Wayne showed a clip of him taking CNN to task when he uncovered a phony news piece they ran about "assault" rifles. Watch it here. He nearly brought the house down!
He pointed out that despite attacks on the second amendment by the left, gun sales in America are at record levels. According to LaPierre, people prefer to protect themselves rather than waiting in their homes for the government to show up.
Following up on the security issue, he noted, "The Second Amendment breathes life into liberty." How? "The founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
Wayne noted that is a controversial holding in a nation of laws, but you really can't deny the truth of it when it comes to new nations and nations in the throws of revolution. In a continuing nation, that truth sits quietly in the background, waiting, should the time come for it to assert itself.
Making good use of video, Wayne showed clip after clip of people in the Obama administration taking the position of taking your guns.
So according to Wayne, so long as Obama is President, the fight is on. The crowd was clearly ready to join him.
Here's a start; please hold it for completion, but your comments appreciated.
The Conservative Manifesto
Acknowledgements
To Lucy Ellsworth Hull, commissioned to help a slow Latin student (me), she opened the world of political ideas to me. Few today would embrace her political positions, for she was a strong proponent of the discredited Senator Joe McCarthy. Yet his story is instructive of the exaggeration of a real force, recognition of the threat of the Soviet Union, as we Americans made a transition from the “good old Joe (Stalin)” concept of the USSR to a realization of their goal of world domination.
To the writer, unidentified, of “How to Write a Manifesto” found in the website ASK.com. His rules and definitions were instructive in first assuring me that the document within me straining for articulation was, in fact, a manifesto. This is indeed a subject about which I feel strongly. But he also cautioned humility for which I strive. You will be my judge.
To Franklin J. Reardon, my English “master” at Western Reserve Academy, for his rigorous and demanding teaching of the use of correct English. “Jiggs” was extolled on C-Span a year or two ago by my fellow student, Robert W. “Johnny” Apple jr., who cited him as one of the two persons most responsible for Johnny’s distinguished career at The New York Times. Perhaps the high point of my preparatory years occurred when Jiggs asked me to read aloud one of the daily 1000-word essays he required. As I did so, his Irish blood caused him to dance a bit of a jig. He then pointed out what I had unconsciously created, a rhythm in my writing. My hope is that in this effort you will find rhythm, style, and the other elements which afford pleasure in the experience.
Thomas A. Beebe
St. Louis, Missouri
March 5, 2009
I: A brief history of cooperation
It is an idea older than mankind and familiar, by experience as much as by instruction. We know it as “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts”, or “together we can do more”. Nothing earthshaking meant by reiterating it here, but it is the foundation of all associations. The creatures of the wild formed packs, herds, coveys, schools, associations by whatever name, to pursue a common goal. Along came man with a new set of names for these associations: families, clans, tribes, societies, even the word associations. All these describe groupings into which an individual might freely join to pursue those goals he shared with others like-minded. The record is clear for man and beast alike; associations work.
Among the names given above for “associations”, certain familiar ones are absent. This subset denotes associations whose definition lacks the phrase “freely join” which I used. You know them as cities, states, nations, or by their commonality, as governments. Herein you will find my great divide; the free will of the individual is expressed in the former set; suppressed in the latter. None would gainsay that government must exist for the common good, which includes (or is included in?) government’s purpose. Yet this work will concentrate on the inevitable tension between governments and the freedom of the individual. Justice Holmes’ limitation of the freedom of speech, denying the right to “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, is perhaps the best known example of this tension. The right of the individual is limited by denying to him the right to inflict harm upon others.
Please note the distinction between limiting the rights of the individual to inflict harm upon others, and limiting the rights of the individual for “the common good” (of others). It is a fine distinction indeed. But upon this point rests much of the contemporary conflict over the role of government and the rights of man. In Jefferson’s day, and in Jefferson’s words, man had “certain inalienable rights.. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Some cite those words as life qualities which government must guarantee. Again the distinction must be rigorously examined, for some would hold that government is the greatest threat to these rights. In the words of Reagen, “government is not the solution, government is the problem”. Seek not a compromise between what may appear to be conflicting views of government vs. the individual, but rather a resolution.
It would be presumptuous, paraphrasing Lincoln, for we, the living, to ignore what these honored dead thought before us. This is meant to be a conservative manifesto, and in this thought, honoring the ideas and ideals of those who have gone before, that I find the core of conservatism. A recent election was, at least superficially, about ‘change”. I have heard “change is good’, and like all slogans this has imperfect merit. Test all thoughts for principle, keep the well grounded and discard those merely convenient. In that I find the principle for addressing conflicts of all stripe. Ignoring, or being ignorant of principle is unacceptable. So in this work you will find one constant: pursuit of principle in every construct of policy.
2. In pursuit of principle
Jefferson also wrote that “all men are created equal”, the noblest of statements asserting individual freedom. It reflects an earlier sentiment that “no man shall have dominion over another”. This must be at the core of conservatism for its innate goodness, but also as a practical matter to assure the ascendancy of conservative thought. To me it is strange that the Party of Lincoln, who risked the Union, intentionally or not, to uphold the rights of a minority, is not the recipient of that minority’s support. Is this conundrum is found the weakness in contemporary conservatism that has denied its political dominance. We of all groups, must be as adamant is pursuit of equality of opportunity as we are in pursuit of individual freedom, for they are one and the same. To deny a minority its equal rights is to compromise the rights of every individual.
So if govern we must, in pursuit of the common good, then what form must that governance take? One would think that democracy, the rule of the majority, is the best guarantor of individual freedom and equality. ‘Tis not. Democracy by definition elevates one group above another, merely on the basis of popularity. When asked what had been wrought, another great American statesman, Benjamin Franklin said: “A Republic.. if you can keep it”.
In the concept of a Republic is found a definition of government that may enlighten our pursuit of principle for reconciling individual rights with the common good. Often cited is Plato’s treatise on that subject; less often heard are the same author’s work “Laws”. That the two came from the same mind is no accident. To address the role of government comprehensively we might seek “a truth higher than experience”.
But am I not abandoning Conservatism when I aver there is such a truth? Conservative thought draws from experience, not only our own, but of those who have gone before. Our nemesis, liberalism, believes truth can be found in thoughts sprung wholly formed from our imagination. Here lies the battle over, not the content of principles, but their valid origin. In the resolution of the source of principle lies its legitimacy. Alternative interpretations of experience will produce differences in the understanding of the principles applicable to our quest. But what, we may ask, is a rational alternative to experience as our teacher? One might say divine revelation, but the record of man’s interpretation of this source is not good. In recognition of our imperfect understanding of the divinity is found the origin of separation of church and state. Apparently strange alliances arise, for we find fundamentalists associated with the conservative cause. Yet those fundamentalists derive their principles not from their own imagination, from that “truth higher than experience”, but from the experience of ancients like Budda, Mohammed, Moses and Jesus, passed down through the written Word.
Absent a sound argument that principle can be built on something other than the interpretation of experience, ours or of others who have gone before, I cannot be but a conservative.
3. Equal Justice Under Law
I harbor the conceit that the American Republic is the product of the best of the inherited experiences of the ages. Its durability is evidence of that assertion. Its failings, afflicting us this day, is but testimony of our imperfect stewardship of the wisdom of Jefferson and his contemporaries. The above phrase, written on our high temple of justice, reminds us of principles dimmed but not forgotten. Unlike Jefferson’s assertion that all are created equal, this latter sentiment recognizes that nothing could be farther from the truth; we are all created unique and unequal. But Jefferson’s words were meant to convey a deeper truth. To the believer in a higher being, all are equal in God’s sight. Again, “No man shall hold dominion over another”. While seemingly a greater principle than experience can support, the alternative, unequal status, has such a record of failure as to be justifiably rejected.
Conservatism will fall, or rise again, on its adherence to this most fundamental principle of political thought. We cannot countenance elitism, so obvious in many of our liberal adversaries. True wisdom is not the sole province of those who gathered in but a few institutions of higher learning. It is the property of those who ceaselessly seek it in those records of experience of which I have written. From time to time, our own experiences may cause us to modify ancient truths, but rarely do such modifications endure, for closer examination reveals ‘been there, done that’ is the norm.
Speaking of “our own experiences” of course relates to contemporary conditions. Much is made of changes born of the revolutions since that which gave birth to this republic. The “industrial revolution”, the “green revolution” (not the current ecological movement but the accelerated advance in the production of food which saved the third world), and the “technological or digital revolution” of this moment in time are but passing shadows when measured upon the philosophers’ calendar. To use these revolutions reject or amend the principles enunciated in Philadelphia two centuries ago or in Greece two millennia ago is pure folly. In the course of human history, these revolutions will be seen as mere incidents in mankind’s shaping of his environment.
So let conservatives be the most ardent standard bearers of equality before the law. As has been often noted, and perhaps as often ignored, equality before the law produces not equality of wealth or comfort, but merely equality of opportunity. Our better nature calls us to redress in some manner and to some degree the inequalities of outcome that are the natural product of our inequality of individual economic capability. This is the challenge conservatives face. How can our society address human needs while respecting equality before the law? This is at once a more serious challenge that superficial programs can resolve, and at the same time an important indicator of other principles to which we must adhere.
4. Private Principles Into Public Policies
Am I wrong in holding the idea that my writings, to this point, are non-controversial? Have I held to facts while, largely, withholding my opinions? It would take a better philosopher than me to achieve such a separation. So I humbly ask you to move forward with me into a new and treacherous territory.
The conservative view of government, as “the problem”, would indicate other institutions must be employed to deal with those needs born of naturally occurring inequalities. It seems to be a prevalent assumption that our other institutions, or associations, are not up to the task. This needs to be addressed through open debate. Conservatives will assert that the strength of voluntary associations was pre-empted by the assertions of government into the role of providing succor to the needy. Johnson’s ”Great Society” confused rights with entitlements. Rights, as defined and protected by the power of our Constitution, will not address every human need, but our better nature can readily fill the gap beyond government’s role. Where else arises the force for helping thy neighbor, than love of thy neighbor. Might that force be the product of some guilty conscience? Perhaps we all feel unworthy of our better state when compared to that of the less fortunate. That is a sentiment to be closely examined. We know, and can justifiably take solace, if not pride, in the product of our own labors. Much of the differentiation of our economic state arises from the accident of birth. Yet who does not seek a better life for our children? Better than what? Better than ours, to be sure, but that usually will translate into better than the norm. So the accident of birth will be perpetuated, just as will all other inequities of status or of outcome, but all will be ameliorated by another force.
That “other force” cannot be the force of law. To give some persons more through the force of law, however rationalized, is to deny equality under that law. Law is the province of government; charity, by any name, is a virtue to be voluntarily implemented. As noted in section one, government stands apart from other associations, other constructs to meet human needs through cooperation, in that government is not voluntary. It, government, is the problem, and turning the tide of greater government, by the name of liberalism, socialism, Marxism, or whatever its guise be, is the conservative challenge.
Our task therefore is two fold; to role back the tides of government, however well-intentioned, and to assure the effectiveness of that “other force”, born of the goodness of individual human hearts and made strong as are all human traits through voluntary associations. Can we do it?
Posted by: Tom Beebe, St Louis | Thursday, 05 March 2009 at 01:15 PM