By Shelli Dawdy
In my most recent post, “Don’t Count on a Republican Congress to Save the Day“, I made the case that a majority Republican Congress is not likely to result in either an overall reversal of the disastrous direction of our government or a repeal of such things as the historically bad healthcare law. In fact, I express the concern that what is more likely is a continuation of politics as usual.
The Republicans are still playing the political game. But we can’t afford games – it’s how we started down the disastrous path we’re now traveling on and how our speed has been exponentially increased. We may not know what lies at the end of that path, but many of us fear it may well be a catapult off the edge of a cliff.
I haven’t drawn my conclusion about results from a majority GOP Congress because of predetermination. I base my assessment and expressions of concern on patterns in history, very well thought out and fact-supported writings such as found in the article “America’s Ruling Class — And The Perils of Revolution”, recent events, first hand experiences in my local efforts, and from direct participation in the GOP.
I don’t even like the conclusions I’ve drawn. I don’t like the solutions that keep presenting themselves at every turn. They are not popular, not easy, and are likely to be very difficult to implement.
In my last piece, I pledged to address the results of the conclusion that the a Republican majority Congress will not significantly reverse the direction of government, referencing “America’s Ruling Class” author Codevilla’s head scratching that results from this realization. The details about these solutions are a matter for my next article. I realized precisely because they are not being widely discussed and are likely difficult to implement, there were some additional gaps that required explanation.
The solutions that present themselves to me over and over again are simple.
I must be very clear – while I do not believe a Republican majority in Congress is likely to reverse the current direction of government much, I am not advocating for a third party, total disengagement with the voting process, or – God help us all – voting for the current slate of Democratic candidates. I am simply stating we are not going to find solutions on the Federal scene.
For now, very simply put, we must choose to look to ourselves and to solutions available at the state level. Real exercise of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments – individual and state sovereignty are the primary solutions.
As I said: The solutions are simple. Not easy, but simple.
They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
Who is “they”? At the time Reagan gave his speech “they” was the establishment that was perfectly comfortable with the idea of the collectivist nanny state and desired a policy of appeasement in the face of the spread of international communism. And “they” was not necessarily confined solely to the Democratic Party.
Who is the “we”? In 1964 the “we” was the peaceful anti-establishment of its day. It was comprised of people who saw over the horizon. “We” recognized the insidious cancer that was collectivism both in terms of the nanny state and the spread of Communism. “We” were not entirely confined to the Republican Party.
In 1964, “they” managed to marginalize “we”, “we” were war mongers, uncaring about our fellow man, and, some even attempted to prove – insane.
It is very important to understand that the “they” and the “we” haven’t substantively changed since Reagan’s 1964. In fact, since collectivist thinking began firmly taking hold in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, “they” and “we” have been virtually the same. The only difference is the level of penetration throughout society.
“They” essentially controlled government and both political parties until the 1980 Presidential election. Reagan and his supporters directly collided with the now larger “they” contingent in the Republican Party, which was represented by George H.W. Bush, his supporters, and the GOP infrastructure.
By 1980, “they” had managed to move far beyond their initial enclaves in higher education into the mechanisms of government, the media, and the public education systems. “They” had made significant strides in fundamentally transforming our system, moving us away from the Constitution, and had managed to maneuver a significant number of Americans into being their beneficiaries / clients.
For many, it appeared “we” had finally won the day for the first time in decades. In the documentary In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed, “We” is referred to as the “silent majority”. But “we” only appeared to win a victory, really. Reagan made what now appears to be a fatal mistake – he either believed or was convinced by those who surrounded him, the only way to win the Presidential nomination was to compromise with the establishment GOPers and take on Bush as his running mate. As a result “we” only managed a temporary victory, “we” only provided a speed bump on the path to collectivism.
Reagan’s “Time for Choosing” is a timeless speech because it is the age old fight between those who are only interested in conglomerating power and those who are interested in preserving freedom. It is the uphill battle between those who want to do less for people in hopes of letting them be more, determine for themselves their own destinies and between those who sound and seem more concerned because they say they want to do more for people.
For Reagan’s time, but for all time, the speech was a drawing of clear lines, a declaration of war on the collectivists and appeasers. It was not only timeless, but prophetic:
If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.”
Because “we” only managed to provide a speed bump on the path to collectivism and today’s America is near to arriving at the moment predicted by Kruschev for the reasons stated by Reagan.
In an effort to prevent that outcome, the above statement was immediately followed by:
And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.
Now is OUR time for choosing. There are many more voices today than there were in 1964, singing the song of collectivism. In reality, the collectivism that was mostly found only across seemingly vast oceans at the time, is now embedded among us.
As Reagan attempted to draw stark lines, to declare war on collectivism and the appeasers, it is our time to do so.
Instead of, as in Reagan’s time, when the Democratic Party largely contained appeasers, it is now the equivalent of Soviet Communism and the Republican Party, the appeasers.
Reagan called upon those listening to embrace what he called “a rendezvous with destiny”. We must do so now.
More to come on how…