Quite a title, huh? As if I have the answers to break through the right-left political paradigm that now permeates all political discourse in this country right now. But I have had some interesting discussions with a few people lately who don’t necessarily see things from my political perspective, but were willing to listen. The key is mutual respect, in my mind.
But let me back up a little and set the premise a bit. There are those who are of the staunch opinion that people ascribing to liberal political ideology, in reality, are mentally-deranged—a mental disorder. Well, many radical leftists deeply believe their political rivals are mentally-ill—namely, pro-God, pro-American, pro-Constitution loving individuals. Now, with a division between two parties, where both sides view the other as mentally-deranged, it is logical to assume, at least to me, that civil discourse might be somewhat challenging—to state it in a very dry, sarcastic, understated sort of way, as I am wont to do at times. Snicker.
So, naturally, if you really want to sit down with a liberal, or vice versa (in case you’re a liberal), and have, at the very least, a civil discussion or debate, it might behoove both parties to not come out of the gate saying, “You’re mentally ill!” Now, I realize that some people are mentally-ill, but that goes outside the scope of this article, as well as the expertise of the author. But I would recommend anybody interested in researching the subject matter further start by looking into psychological phenomenons such as co-dependence, projection, denial, narcissistic personality disorder, and compulsive-obsessiveness. Of course, it is just a suggestion. I’m not a psychiatrist. (But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night!)
Promptly admitting when one is wrong is a quality that I very much admire in a person. I know I’m not always right. I try to post corrections to this blog if I get things wrong in my articles or posts. I’ve been burned a few times by stories and quotes that weren’t quite right, or just downright wrong. Nobody is perfect. So, to me, I shouldn’t excoriate someone because they might be wrong from time to time. Of course, it depends on what the wrong is. But we’ll get to that.
For example, I’ll start with me. I wrote in an earlier article the fact that over the past couple of years I had started to become increasingly angry at the political landscape in America. The problem was it was starting to turn into pure rants on the blog. Even recently I wrote a couple of rants laced with expletives (one of my personal character defects), that upon further examination were trashed. I guess I was having withdrawals and convulsions.
But, rants just don’t read well and here’s why: anybody can do it. Anybody can put the Caps Lock on and start ranting away. (Hell, use some big fonts and bright, bold colors too … you know, for maximum impact!) Kidding. It just does not read well. Besides, although it is cathartic to “go off” from time-to-time, as a habit, it really turns off a lot of readers. And that’s not just opinion, that is a fact. I’ve analyzed my own site stats and noticed this trend. There is a bit of a fine line here, and depends on your intended audience. But, typically, in the political and cultural realm, if you are attempting to reach as many people as possible, good prose and sound argumentation win the day over coarse discourse.
The problem is I’m pretty rough around the edges at times. I’ve got a salty mouth. I’m one of those types, if you hit me, I’m going to hit you back, both figuratively and literally. I’m more comfortable on the job site than I am at the board meeting; I’m probably more at home at a biker bar than I would be at a ritzy, exclusive Hollywood club. Not to say I hang out at biker bars, or that I haven’t been to a ritzy club; it’s just my preference and what I grew up with. It goes without saying that there are those who are not at all comfortable in “my world,” thus the need by many on the left to trash “flyover country” and the South. Well, naturally, that’s a two-way street.
This is many times where I find the fireworks start between individuals when the topic of right-left politics comes up. I’m of the firm opinion that the left-side of political spectrum attracts different personality types than are attracted to the right-side, and vice versa. I don’t see this as something bad in and of itself, just something that is … much the way I view human emotions—they are neither good nor bad, they just are. Where the personalities and emotions go wrong, to me, is when personality trumps principle … when individuals allow their emotions to rule over their intellect. This is where the trouble starts.
In its ultimate manifestation, it is the point where human conflict and wars start. And like one old WWII veteran told me years ago, and quite intently I might add, that there are no winners or losers in war, only losers when it is all said and done. I never forgot that, because it didn’t take me long to realize what it was that he was trying to impart: bloodshed is bloodshed, suffering is suffering.
One development that has surprised me is the fact that traffic on this blog has more than doubled, on average, since Obama’s reelection. Not too long from now, at current traffic, TRP will have one million pageviews in little over a year. Additionally, TRP has picked up almost 2,000 new followers on Twitter over that past several weeks. Now, I attribute some of that to some new organizing efforts taking place, and a few retweets and replies from conservative rockstars like Michelle Malkin, Dana Loesch, Mark Steyn, Johnathon Hoenig, Ken Wahl, and others (I’ll try and make this the final time I name-drop, but I can’t make any guarantees), but that’s a significant change, considering I was about ready to shut up shop.
I’m reaching a wider audience now and I’m more self-aware and careful in both my prose and research I put into my writing. But, more importantly, I’m more conscious of why am I writing it in the first place. The blog now has both young and old, male and female, left and right, and everything in between, visiting the site; and quite frankly, that’s pretty damn humbling. Pardon my Swedish (remember, character defect, work in progress). I’m no expert on all this stuff, just somewhat knowledgeable. So, when I see a Doug Ross or a Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, or a Trevor Loudon et al., give a hat tip or shoutout to little ole TRP, or I win a Watcher’s Council vote, it is pretty exciting, as well.
It really brings home to me the importance of clearly communicating just what is it that I truly believe in. I love this country, despite some of its failings. One thing I believe in strongly is that whatever I do, do it ultimately out of love, not hate. Although my language and disposition may be aggressive at times, because I’m quite perturbed about the direction the left is taking our nation, I really believe in the importance of love and decency in a society, and that requires individual freedom and liberty. Without love being the basis for what we do, we run the risk of becoming an even brasher and coarser culture devoid of any common civility or thought for the rights of others.
When people only wish to satisfy their own selfish desires at the expense of others, then we have truly created a culture of “self-will run riot.” Envy and hate are now our masters. The only likely outcome from such a scenario is conflict and strife, whose roots are grown from the poisoned soil of anger, resentment and rage. Which, by the way, provides fertile ground for socialist movements to arise and take root.
And let me be perfectly clear here, to steal a line, government is just as greedy as the very corporations and private citizens it chooses to demonize, and vice versa. No one person or group has a monopoly on human greed; it is a uniquely individual human failing that is made intensely more problematic and ominous when coupled with an oligarch of powerful, wealthy, like-minded individuals who pay to play—for power’s sake alone.
But I might more accurately describe what I believe in, regarding the importance of love, as “tough love.” I don’t think you do anybody any favors by sugarcoating and whitewashing the truth. In many ways, it is an insult to do so; it implies, “You can’t handle the truth!” Oh, yes, the truth can be extremely painful. Such is life. Children may not be ready to handle certain harsh realities, but should be raised to do so at some future date, as far as I’m concerned. It is the difference between raising children and raising adults, in my mind. But I witness a lot of adults acting like children these days—even reveling in their foolishness and wearing it like a badge of honor.
Yet, so often, in what passes as political dialog these days, hate, invective and venom rule. Many times, it is like watching a misbehaving child bang their little fists on their high chair demanding attention by their obnoxious behavior. But it is hard to ignore the behavior when we are steeping in it on a daily basis and such behavior is rewarded with votes and an adoring media machine.
The left never, ever tells you what it is they really stand for, despite whatever oratory and sophistry to the contrary, only what it is they stand against. This is reflected in the flowery rhetoric so often employed by the left. When one hears the word “change” repeatedly used by the president and his minions, what does one define “change” to stand for? I’m a big believer in change for change’s sake alone is not necessarily a good thing—possibly even a horrible thing. That’s where platitudes and slogans like “hope and change” become interesting upon further examination. “Hope and change” is neither good or bad, according to those employing the slogan for their own hidden agenda, it is just a useful tool to help bring about a predetermined end—absolute power.
For example, if there are improvements in society, then one can say that “hope and change” helped bring it about; it’s vague and ambiguous enough to apply in some ethereal, general sense. But if, for example, the economy were to collapse and dark times descended upon the unwitting American people, Barack Obama can still say that he promised “change will come”; that it is really just part of the sacrifice that “the struggle” requires in order to bring about equality and fairness. If you’re going to level the proverbial playing field, then you need to level it, period. WINK!
Now, back to this mutual respect thing. Recently, I managed to have a couple of what I would call civil debates via Twitter with people who were on opposite sides of the issue. One was a young Obama supporter who replied to one of my tweets ascribing some history to the Republican Party that was factually incorrect. I corrected him on it, minus any slurs. We had a lengthy back and forth, mainly on his views of the Republican Party, and the Tea Party Movement, which he implied was some sort of fanatical group of extremists.
When I read his Twitter profile, I discovered he was only 17-years-old. So, in one way, I was impressed that such a young man would be so politically engaged, albeit without all the facts, in my opinion. He claimed to have even done some volunteer work for the Obama campaign. Which, if true, does show a certain amount of motivation on his part, considering his age. So, I respect that. Additionally, I decided I wouldn’t let him “have it.” Once again, on account of his age. I believe that you don’t mess with young people or old people. But everybody else is fair game! Snicker.
We really had to agree to disagree on a number of issues. But I did inform our young liberal friend that I do not like fanatics or zealots of any strip, whether they be on the right-side or left-side of the political spectrum. Zealots and fanatics march to no one but their own drummer, and usually endanger and bring ruin to the very cause that they so zealously say they support by their own destructive fanaticism. This is where we found “common ground.” I thanked him for a civil debate and that was that.
Additionally, around the same time, I had a bit of a back and forth with a British national over gun rights that was getting a bit maddening. But I refrained from ad hominem attacks, and in the end was thanked for not engaging in slurs. Not only that, I was thanked for fascinating debate, one they wished to continue in the future. Now, that is a very positive thing, indeed, in my mind. I find this exceedingly rare myself these days. Whether or not our British friend begins to look at defending oneself as an inalienable right endowed by their Creator or not, it left the door open. Besides, just because we may disagree, even vehemently, does not mean we would disagree on all things. So why destroy a relationship over one disagreement? Yet I see a lot of folks do just that: they spoil a future opportunity to spread the message. I have been guilty of this as well.
Right now I believe it is crucial that the GOP leadership understand that Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Party Movement must present a united front, despite internecine struggles. We must work together, regardless. I think the introduction of a third party would prove disastrous and only guarantee a Democrat dictatorship for eons to come. It is what it is. The Republican establishment that insists on losing and fighting from losing positions must simply be swept aside. There is no more time to waste, if it isn’t too late already.
I think it is paramount for the Republicans to find “common ground” with libertarians and other like-minded individuals, as well—there is much in common. This is a collusion that is just starting to bud and I’m all for it. Don’t drive the Ron Paul supporters away, bring ’em on board! At least offer the invite. The same strategy should be applied to other voting blocs, as well–working at the grassroots level. The question should not be what divides us, but what unites us! A lot of people can still get down with freedom and liberty. But, if one cannot, or is not willing, to stand up for what they believe and clearly communicate that belief eye-to-eye, face-to-face with those who may of may not agree with them, then I must question the belief’s foundations and its overall efficacy. If one feels the overwhelming urge to apologize for their beliefs, then they have lost me right then and there. I know I wouldn’t be alone in those sentiments.
This brings me to the most troubling aspect in all of this right-left political warfare: the fact that it has become figurative warfare. To me, the “struggle” that exists between right and left in this country has boiled down to those who believe that our inalienable rights are God-given and endowed by our Creator, versus those who believe in the more collectivist notion of “human rights,” which are arbitrarily granted and revoked by elite councils, as dictated by what they perceive as the “common good.”
The notion of “human rights,” as opposed to inalienable rights, is popular within the circles of the globalists and the International Left, for it disdains the concept of Higher Power—a Creator—and puts the power of granting rights for human beings into the exclusive hands of an elite cabal. The United Nations Charter clearly reflects this worldview.
Back during the first Clinton campaign, I recall listening to an interview with George Stephanopoulos describing the “War Room” that he, Begala, Carvel and crew had set up to serve as a nerve center for their campaign. I remember thinking to myself at the time, “Are we now at war with the American people?” And what’s up with former President Clinton assuming the Commander-in-Chief role on a permanent basis during peacetime, and not at a time of war, as is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution? It’s one of those subtle, extra-constitutional paradigm shifts the left loves to employ on a steady, incremental basis every single chance they get.
It did seem, at the time, that political discourse was becoming downright vicious. Mainstream media collusion with the Democrat Party was starting to peel off its mask. Leftist partisan political strategy started turning more and more to personal destruction and vicious character assassinations as standard fare to be employed against their political foes. It was not enough that their political rivals were rivals. The strategy of demonizing, marginalizing and caricaturing anybody or anything that even so much as expressed tacit support for Republicans and Conservatives became the rule of the day.
Now, it has turned to in-your-face class struggle rhetoric that would make Marx and Lenin proud. It seems the left is only willing to tell us what it hates—religion, faith, authority, capitalism, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, etc.—not what it is for. But, I’m starting to think the only thing the radical left is for is hate itself—for hate’s sake alone.
It is truly disturbing the lengths to which the radical left in our government will go in order to, in effect, upend the inalienable rights of the individual guaranteed in the Bill of Rights by progressively nibbling away at them, nudging us ever closer to their dream of pure democracy. Whether it is the current all-out assault on the Second Amendment following the horrific Newtown massacre, or the direct attacks on the First Amendment via the healthcare bill, or the Obama Administration’s support for the UN’s Blasphemy Law, the left is attempting to dissipate the very law of the land—the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
When I listened to Barack Obama’s inaugural speech, I found it to be one of the most disturbing and audacious speeches by an American president I have ever heard. Our president stated he believed “individualism requires collective action,” and that he wishes to set the nation on a course of change that will “last for decades to come.” It is the quintessential definition of collectivism which states that the “state” represents the greater good, not the individual. The group is the higher power, not the lowly, selfish individual who is not willing to sacrifice for the “greater, common good.”
But people are not a mass! A mass is a group; and a group is comprised of individuals—like corporations and governments, for example. Individuals comprise these institutions and make them what they are, not otherworldly utopian ghosts. You would think that would be a no-brainer. And it is, in reality. But reality does not serve the radical leftist well, since it is diametrically opposed to their vision of collectivist utopia … where all things are one and the same … except for the exclusive political elite and their minions, the ruling class, which rule over all … for they, and only they, are enlightened and illuminated enough to provide the social expertise, matronly guidance and administrative skill required to govern the masses in a so-called post-modern age. That’s what they think, anyway.
All of these machinations by the radical left are attempts to flip our present form of representative government on its head by creating a national, top-down government that demands service and sacrifice from its subjects–the private citizen. Our federal government, as laid out in the U.S. Constitution, was designed from the bottom-up; it is intended to serve the States—meaning: the individual.
As James Madison stated, the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. The president should serve the American people, not the other way around. Yet we see Hollywood stars pledging allegiance to Barack Obama, not their country. We hear Barack Obama prattle endlessly on about “paying your fair share,” shared sacrifice and service to the state. That, my friends, is called tyranny; and it will only get worse if it is not resisted.
All rights contained within the Bill of Rights are equal to all the others; an attack on one is an attack on the others. It is not those who obey the U.S. Constitution who are extremists and represent a possible threat to democracy, for they are the law-abiding; it is they who wish to usurp it who are the radical extremists and represent a clear and present danger to our republic and the freedom and liberty guaranteed to the individual private citizen. No. It is the left who has decided to endeavor toward that which is illegal—attempting to usurp the law of the land and put the freedom and liberty of millions of people at risk.
In conclusion, I know for a fact that there are those who are willing to come back around and get on board for liberty and freedom, if they see that freedom and liberty will win the day. Everybody loves a winner. But, if we have arrived at a point in our nation’s history where the true thugs have the power, and we, as a people, are more than willing to let 545 people in government drag around 300,000,000 on a leash to their inevitable doom, then maybe we don’t deserve freedom or liberty, since we’re not willing to fight for it anymore. I hope and pray that is not the case. But hope is not a strategy. Action is required.