Written 7 July
Through all the difficulties and achievements in Iraq, there have been those who never wavered in their resolve for a successful outcome. Victory may not yet be in hand, but you can see it from here.
Iraq is now a much different country because some Americans held firmly to accomplishing what others said could not be done.
The conditions are now indisputably better, and have remained so as the “Surge” troops come home.
Progressing from Anbar province through the rest of the country, with consecutive operations and triumphs, most recently in Mosul, coalition and Iraqi forces have implemented a successful counterinsurgency strategy.
Reports of violence are down by 80%. Civilian and military deaths are at all time lows. All reports are that Al Qaeda is decimated. Bottom up reconciliation and cooperation at higher and higher levels continues to occur. Iraqi forces and government agencies are continuously more effective. 15 of 18 benchmarks are met. There are consistent reports of life being or returning to normal.
Iraq is on its way to peace, and hopefully our troops are on their way home soon.
Many of the surge forces have already been withdrawn, and all indications are that more are likely on the way out. The progress and positive trends have continued while we’ve reduced forces indicating lasting conditions suitable for further reductions.
Many Democrats no longer demand cutting and running as they once did. The latest Iraq war spending bill passed through Congress nearly unopposed.
Most American press organizations have pulled their bureaus and many of their reporters from Iraq. Good news is not news. Most of the news from Iraq now comes via military and foreign, especially British, sources.
Liberals are increasingly quiet on the subject. It’s hard to scream for defeat when likely victory is blatantly staring America right smack in the face.
We’ve reached a point where the bloviating by politicians about Iraq through this election cycle may be pointless. If conditions continue to improve as they have, our troops will be proudly returning home because they’ve succeeded, regardless of what happens in November.
And through it all, there have been those who have stood firm in a commitment to victory.
Why?
First is an unwavering belief in our troops.
They truly are incredible and unflappable. There has never been a reason to lose hope in their ability to implement the tactics necessary to one of the most difficult strategies known in warfare (counterinsurgency), as we asked them to do. Their enlisted leadership is outstanding, capable of carrying them through even the most daunting challenges. Our career officer corps has committed themselves to the art of warfare. It is the profession for which they study, train, and execute remarkably well. I’ve seen all three groups in action first-hand and thus never doubted their capacity for developing a winning plan and employing it.
There was an inherent trust that senior military members would develop a sound strategy and lead our troops through it. There was confidence that the troops would get the job done.
Some have never lost faith in our troops’ ability to win.
Second is a belief in the Iraqi people. Having had the opportunity to work with them and get to personally know so many, I grasped that they longed for a better life than had been offered by Saddam and was being presented by Al Qaeda. They understood freedom, but achieving it through a democratic state was not a clear path. After a generation of brutality and oppression they’d had no experience in self rule. But they never lacked the capacity for success, or the dreams to realize it.
Enough Americans never lost the intuitive concept of people’s desire to live free from the oppression of a tyrant or the brutality of terrorists, nor the suffering they would endure to achieve such a state.
Some doubted the Iraqi people. Some did not.
Lastly is the American penchant for victory and the leadership possessed within our society to achieve it. From small town America to Washington D.C., ordinary citizens to soldiers to political leaders, enough Americans understand and embrace the bounty of success, are repulsed by the consequences of defeat, and optimistically hold fast to that which brings the positive outcome.
Still alive in America today are the unconquerable souls General Patton once said were necessary to insuring victory, as are the echoes of his words, “America loves a winner…”
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wesley Clark Wrong About McCain's Service
Written 1 July
On Sunday, retired General Wesley Clark demeaned and dismissed John McCain’s service to our nation. He threw out the far, far left’s talking point about McCain’s military service not being relevant to his run for the Presidency.
He couldn’t be more wrong.
In trying to make the absurd connection/description, Clark said McCain hadn’t “held executive responsibility,” was “untested and untried,” and fell short “because in the matters of national security policy-making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” He went on to say that McCain “hasn’t made the calls.”
General Clark seems to have already forgotten the high standards of responsibility to which we have always held military officers.
There is very little or no room for error or tolerance for mistakes with multi-million dollar aircraft, or any other equipment. The same holds true with an officer’s actions and employment of the resources at his or her disposal. 100% accountability is demanded.
As an officer in combat, on the ground or in the air, you have to be cognizant of risk. One makes innumerable, often rapid-fire decisions, each one gauging risks and the likely outcomes.
You also have to consider your opponent with every decision. The enemy’s capabilities and tactics are a required part of every operations order and the execution of those operations. You don’t step off without knowing them.
Therefore, to say McCain wouldn’t understand risk, gauging the opponent, or accountability is absolutely ludicrous.
Senator McCain experienced those very things each and every second of his Navy life.
On those criteria Clark isn’t just off base, he’s in deep left field.
But the worst of Clark’s statements is that McCain “hasn’t made the calls” or “held executive responsibility.”
He has forgotten that McCain flew an aircraft that was designed to destroy things and worst of all, kill people. Before being shot down, McCain did those very things.
Each and every time he got in the cockpit, he had to bear that burden to his soul.
He, like so many that serve, had to make the decision each and every day to not only go into harms way, but to decide that by his actions people would not live to see another day.
It’s not an easy thing to deal with, knowing full well that by your hand, by your deeds, by your endeavors, people will die.
It’s even harder to live with.
Even though you face an enemy that must be killed for various reasons, as Clint Eastwood’s character in “Unforgiven” poignantly observed, “It’s a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.”
Thus, those decisions to “pull the trigger” during the course of legal warfare in service to your nation are very much executive decisions and making the call.
In fact, it epitomizes having to make the call, and it absolutely does count as a criterion toward being President.
Although the impact upon ones self may vary with dropping bombs from far off, exposing terrorists for termination, calling in air strikes, or fighting hand to hand in a dark room, the decisions and actions have the same result: people die.
Having experienced and gained full comprehension of the consequences of your decisions and your actions (for your own troops, the enemy, and the unfortunates caught in the middle) certainly qualifies a candidate who has over one who has not.
It’s also a leadership skill for the nation’s Commander-in-Chief.
So those experiences do give McCain much more real world leadership experience than Obama. For that matter, most commissioned, non-commissioned, and staff non-commissioned officers with a combat tour have more leadership skills than Obama. I know some Corporals that would put him to shame when it comes to leadership experience.
General Clark needs to clear his mind of the far left smoke and spend some time remembering what it is we ask of our service men and women. He himself had to make those decisions, but so did many others who worked for him, including, and especially the pilots who fought the air war under his command.
He needs to remember the skill sets that arise from the high standards of accountability, risk assessment, opponent awareness, and decision making that have always been asked of our military leaders, even in John McCain’s day.
On Sunday, retired General Wesley Clark demeaned and dismissed John McCain’s service to our nation. He threw out the far, far left’s talking point about McCain’s military service not being relevant to his run for the Presidency.
He couldn’t be more wrong.
In trying to make the absurd connection/description, Clark said McCain hadn’t “held executive responsibility,” was “untested and untried,” and fell short “because in the matters of national security policy-making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” He went on to say that McCain “hasn’t made the calls.”
General Clark seems to have already forgotten the high standards of responsibility to which we have always held military officers.
There is very little or no room for error or tolerance for mistakes with multi-million dollar aircraft, or any other equipment. The same holds true with an officer’s actions and employment of the resources at his or her disposal. 100% accountability is demanded.
As an officer in combat, on the ground or in the air, you have to be cognizant of risk. One makes innumerable, often rapid-fire decisions, each one gauging risks and the likely outcomes.
You also have to consider your opponent with every decision. The enemy’s capabilities and tactics are a required part of every operations order and the execution of those operations. You don’t step off without knowing them.
Therefore, to say McCain wouldn’t understand risk, gauging the opponent, or accountability is absolutely ludicrous.
Senator McCain experienced those very things each and every second of his Navy life.
On those criteria Clark isn’t just off base, he’s in deep left field.
But the worst of Clark’s statements is that McCain “hasn’t made the calls” or “held executive responsibility.”
He has forgotten that McCain flew an aircraft that was designed to destroy things and worst of all, kill people. Before being shot down, McCain did those very things.
Each and every time he got in the cockpit, he had to bear that burden to his soul.
He, like so many that serve, had to make the decision each and every day to not only go into harms way, but to decide that by his actions people would not live to see another day.
It’s not an easy thing to deal with, knowing full well that by your hand, by your deeds, by your endeavors, people will die.
It’s even harder to live with.
Even though you face an enemy that must be killed for various reasons, as Clint Eastwood’s character in “Unforgiven” poignantly observed, “It’s a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.”
Thus, those decisions to “pull the trigger” during the course of legal warfare in service to your nation are very much executive decisions and making the call.
In fact, it epitomizes having to make the call, and it absolutely does count as a criterion toward being President.
Although the impact upon ones self may vary with dropping bombs from far off, exposing terrorists for termination, calling in air strikes, or fighting hand to hand in a dark room, the decisions and actions have the same result: people die.
Having experienced and gained full comprehension of the consequences of your decisions and your actions (for your own troops, the enemy, and the unfortunates caught in the middle) certainly qualifies a candidate who has over one who has not.
It’s also a leadership skill for the nation’s Commander-in-Chief.
So those experiences do give McCain much more real world leadership experience than Obama. For that matter, most commissioned, non-commissioned, and staff non-commissioned officers with a combat tour have more leadership skills than Obama. I know some Corporals that would put him to shame when it comes to leadership experience.
General Clark needs to clear his mind of the far left smoke and spend some time remembering what it is we ask of our service men and women. He himself had to make those decisions, but so did many others who worked for him, including, and especially the pilots who fought the air war under his command.
He needs to remember the skill sets that arise from the high standards of accountability, risk assessment, opponent awareness, and decision making that have always been asked of our military leaders, even in John McCain’s day.
Congressman Murtha Needs to Apologize
Written June 24
It’s time for John Murtha to make a very public apology.
In May of 2006, Congressman Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, accused Marines operating in Haditha, Iraq of killing innocent civilians in cold blood.
Murtha, a whole gang of liberals, lawmakers, and many news agencies rushed to judgment against our Marines, publicly held their own kangaroo courts, tried, and convicted them of murder.
Murtha’s public rant and press conference on the subject were held to mark the six month anniversary of his very first call to surrender in Iraq. As if that in itself wasn’t a despicable enough event for a Marine Corps combat veteran, he had to “one up” himself by publicly convicting our Marines of atrocities long before the facts of the investigation were even known. Heck, the investigation had barely gotten started.
But Murtha didn’t care because this fit nicely into his template for surrender. For that matter, it fit perfectly in the puzzle for the whole gang of defeatists in Washington. A chorus of liberal lawmakers and much of the national press echoed his words and cheered him on.
The whole group took as gospel the word of a few questionable Iraqis and press stringers. They took their side and ran with the story. It turned out they were running with scissors.
It was a sad time when so many Americans were willing to unjustly treat the best among us as the worst.
The event was (and still is) representative of much of the war in Iraq. Liberals grasping at anything which might finally sink our chances for victory, including the public humiliation and conviction of our troops for crimes they hadn’t yet been fully investigated, charged with, or convicted of.
Murtha tried to disguise his motives, our forced withdrawal, as concern for our troops. He acted as if he cared about the pressure put on them from months of combat. But he had already played his cut and run cards, so we knew his game. This was just another part of it.
Sadly he was convicting fellow Marines without a trial as the means by which he could demand our defeat.
Two years later the facts have proven Murtha wrong.
None of the Marines involved were charged with murder, as he, and so many others, insisted they were guilty of.
Of the seven charged with crimes at Haditha, only one remains, and he is not on trial for murder.
Six of the Marines have had their cases dismissed or been acquitted, the sixth just last week. It turns out none of them were guilty of cold blooded murder or anything else.
So now it is time for Congressman Murtha to apologize.
He was wrong about the actions of the Marines in Haditha that day. He was wrong on what he thought the facts of the case were. He was wrong to jump to the worst conclusion about our Marines. He was wrong to publicly pronounce them guilty of “cold blooded murder.” He was wrong to let himself be used as such a willing pawn of the worst among us. He was wrong to forsake his fellow Marines.
For all those things, he needs to publicly apologize, and to do so with all the passion he displayed during that press conference two years ago. He needs to rant on and on as he did that day, about what an idiot he was, and how sorry he is.
In addition, all the others who used Murtha as their reason, as their cover, for doing likewise, also need to make similar apologies. They’re no better than he.
Lastly, Murtha’s retention of the title “Marine” has come into question during the public discussion among those infuriated with him. There has been no absence of those insisting he be stripped of the honor for attacking fellow Marines the way he did.
I disagree with them, as that is a title hard earned. A title not stripped away because of disagreements or because of astonishingly foolish behavior, no matter how disgusting we might find it.
A public apology from Murtha to those seven, their families, and then to all Marines will suffice. And now is the time for that apology.
It’s time for John Murtha to make a very public apology.
In May of 2006, Congressman Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, accused Marines operating in Haditha, Iraq of killing innocent civilians in cold blood.
Murtha, a whole gang of liberals, lawmakers, and many news agencies rushed to judgment against our Marines, publicly held their own kangaroo courts, tried, and convicted them of murder.
Murtha’s public rant and press conference on the subject were held to mark the six month anniversary of his very first call to surrender in Iraq. As if that in itself wasn’t a despicable enough event for a Marine Corps combat veteran, he had to “one up” himself by publicly convicting our Marines of atrocities long before the facts of the investigation were even known. Heck, the investigation had barely gotten started.
But Murtha didn’t care because this fit nicely into his template for surrender. For that matter, it fit perfectly in the puzzle for the whole gang of defeatists in Washington. A chorus of liberal lawmakers and much of the national press echoed his words and cheered him on.
The whole group took as gospel the word of a few questionable Iraqis and press stringers. They took their side and ran with the story. It turned out they were running with scissors.
It was a sad time when so many Americans were willing to unjustly treat the best among us as the worst.
The event was (and still is) representative of much of the war in Iraq. Liberals grasping at anything which might finally sink our chances for victory, including the public humiliation and conviction of our troops for crimes they hadn’t yet been fully investigated, charged with, or convicted of.
Murtha tried to disguise his motives, our forced withdrawal, as concern for our troops. He acted as if he cared about the pressure put on them from months of combat. But he had already played his cut and run cards, so we knew his game. This was just another part of it.
Sadly he was convicting fellow Marines without a trial as the means by which he could demand our defeat.
Two years later the facts have proven Murtha wrong.
None of the Marines involved were charged with murder, as he, and so many others, insisted they were guilty of.
Of the seven charged with crimes at Haditha, only one remains, and he is not on trial for murder.
Six of the Marines have had their cases dismissed or been acquitted, the sixth just last week. It turns out none of them were guilty of cold blooded murder or anything else.
So now it is time for Congressman Murtha to apologize.
He was wrong about the actions of the Marines in Haditha that day. He was wrong on what he thought the facts of the case were. He was wrong to jump to the worst conclusion about our Marines. He was wrong to publicly pronounce them guilty of “cold blooded murder.” He was wrong to let himself be used as such a willing pawn of the worst among us. He was wrong to forsake his fellow Marines.
For all those things, he needs to publicly apologize, and to do so with all the passion he displayed during that press conference two years ago. He needs to rant on and on as he did that day, about what an idiot he was, and how sorry he is.
In addition, all the others who used Murtha as their reason, as their cover, for doing likewise, also need to make similar apologies. They’re no better than he.
Lastly, Murtha’s retention of the title “Marine” has come into question during the public discussion among those infuriated with him. There has been no absence of those insisting he be stripped of the honor for attacking fellow Marines the way he did.
I disagree with them, as that is a title hard earned. A title not stripped away because of disagreements or because of astonishingly foolish behavior, no matter how disgusting we might find it.
A public apology from Murtha to those seven, their families, and then to all Marines will suffice. And now is the time for that apology.
Energy Security Impacts National Security
Written 17 June
Energy security is part of our national security posture. It has direct ties to our nation’s capacity to fight an expanded conflict should the need arise. If petroleum is going to be held hostage, it is in our national security interests to develop alternative sources of energy with which we can power the machine that defends us.
There are also security consequences to the billions of oil dollars pouring out of our nation to strengthen the economies of others, some of whom work actively against us.
Additionally, if the economy falters or fails as part of a domino chain started with our being held financially hostage by those who control the world’s energy and because we refused to develop our own, we could become incapable of funding our military.
It may be hard to imagine, but it could get much worse if we continue to wander aimlessly down the energy policy road and allow ourselves to be turned away by the many obstacles artificially placed in our path that prevent us from utilizing every source of available energy.
The current “pain at the pump” we feel, the shock we endure when opening our electric bills, and the blast received with the propane bill could realistically just be the tip of the iceberg.
But we have only ourselves to blame. We’ve painted ourselves into this corner.
So how do we find our way out?
We have to develop a comprehensive, common sense energy policy which removes the obstacles to energy production. We also need to sweep away those who imagine every reason to block potential energy sources, such as:
We can’t develop wind energy because some people don’t want industrial windmills in their area. Evidently, they’re unsightly. Besides, bird enthusiasts are concerned they might kill birds.
We can’t develop hydro-electric power because fish might suffer, as would other species dependent upon specific flows within a waterway.
We can’t drill off our own coasts because we’re worried about beaches, fish, and seals. But of course, China can drill off our shores.
We can’t extract shale oil from the Rocky Mountains because the machinery is inconsistent with the panoramic views.
We can’t convert coal to oil because of air quality and anti-mining advocates.
We can’t drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because those few acres would be missed by the caribou and polar bears.
We can’t use corn for ethanol because hunger advocates are concerned with its impact on the price of food. They’re probably also some of the same people crying the loudest about greenhouse gases from petroleum combustion. Ironic, isn’t it?
We can’t pursue large-scale solar power networks because they’re unsightly and they confuse birds.
We can’t pursue nuclear energy because at least a hundred different groups stand frothing at the mouth to attack and block it for an endless list of reasons.
If we pursue wood chips for ethanol, tree-huggers will cry out for the trees, switch grass will be demonized for animals harmed when it’s cut, and oil from bacterial excretions is already being assaulted for creating huge reservoirs of bacteria which might contaminate everything under the sun.
Thousands of people stand in the way of progress for the millions, telling them “why not,” yet none of them offers a single “here’s how” solution.
And the best solution Congress can come up with is to propose more pain by taking more out of our pockets through raising taxes on currently available energy, and to charge windfall profit taxes on those companies which supply our energy. It is a plan that failed when implemented under President Carter, one that financially harmed Americans and accelerated an energy shortage, one that will fail again if tried.
Something’s got to give. Something will give, but the longer we delay the more catastrophic the result may be.
Common sense and prioritizing people ahead of special interests need injected into how we function as a nation in this arena, and many others for that matter.
Sure, I too dream of an energy panacea with a clean, renewable, unobtrusive form of energy upon which we can all depend one day. But that’s the dream.
In the mean time, the dream will not fill my tank, light, heat, or cool my house, decrease my bills, or fuel the machines which help preserve our freedom.
It is a perfect example of what my Grandpa Sharp always said, "You can dream in one hand and crap in another. See which one fills up first."
Although significant effort should be made to achieve the dream, until then, we need to be able to pursue and develop every currently available source of energy for personal use, public consumption, and national security.
Energy security is part of our national security posture. It has direct ties to our nation’s capacity to fight an expanded conflict should the need arise. If petroleum is going to be held hostage, it is in our national security interests to develop alternative sources of energy with which we can power the machine that defends us.
There are also security consequences to the billions of oil dollars pouring out of our nation to strengthen the economies of others, some of whom work actively against us.
Additionally, if the economy falters or fails as part of a domino chain started with our being held financially hostage by those who control the world’s energy and because we refused to develop our own, we could become incapable of funding our military.
It may be hard to imagine, but it could get much worse if we continue to wander aimlessly down the energy policy road and allow ourselves to be turned away by the many obstacles artificially placed in our path that prevent us from utilizing every source of available energy.
The current “pain at the pump” we feel, the shock we endure when opening our electric bills, and the blast received with the propane bill could realistically just be the tip of the iceberg.
But we have only ourselves to blame. We’ve painted ourselves into this corner.
So how do we find our way out?
We have to develop a comprehensive, common sense energy policy which removes the obstacles to energy production. We also need to sweep away those who imagine every reason to block potential energy sources, such as:
We can’t develop wind energy because some people don’t want industrial windmills in their area. Evidently, they’re unsightly. Besides, bird enthusiasts are concerned they might kill birds.
We can’t develop hydro-electric power because fish might suffer, as would other species dependent upon specific flows within a waterway.
We can’t drill off our own coasts because we’re worried about beaches, fish, and seals. But of course, China can drill off our shores.
We can’t extract shale oil from the Rocky Mountains because the machinery is inconsistent with the panoramic views.
We can’t convert coal to oil because of air quality and anti-mining advocates.
We can’t drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because those few acres would be missed by the caribou and polar bears.
We can’t use corn for ethanol because hunger advocates are concerned with its impact on the price of food. They’re probably also some of the same people crying the loudest about greenhouse gases from petroleum combustion. Ironic, isn’t it?
We can’t pursue large-scale solar power networks because they’re unsightly and they confuse birds.
We can’t pursue nuclear energy because at least a hundred different groups stand frothing at the mouth to attack and block it for an endless list of reasons.
If we pursue wood chips for ethanol, tree-huggers will cry out for the trees, switch grass will be demonized for animals harmed when it’s cut, and oil from bacterial excretions is already being assaulted for creating huge reservoirs of bacteria which might contaminate everything under the sun.
Thousands of people stand in the way of progress for the millions, telling them “why not,” yet none of them offers a single “here’s how” solution.
And the best solution Congress can come up with is to propose more pain by taking more out of our pockets through raising taxes on currently available energy, and to charge windfall profit taxes on those companies which supply our energy. It is a plan that failed when implemented under President Carter, one that financially harmed Americans and accelerated an energy shortage, one that will fail again if tried.
Something’s got to give. Something will give, but the longer we delay the more catastrophic the result may be.
Common sense and prioritizing people ahead of special interests need injected into how we function as a nation in this arena, and many others for that matter.
Sure, I too dream of an energy panacea with a clean, renewable, unobtrusive form of energy upon which we can all depend one day. But that’s the dream.
In the mean time, the dream will not fill my tank, light, heat, or cool my house, decrease my bills, or fuel the machines which help preserve our freedom.
It is a perfect example of what my Grandpa Sharp always said, "You can dream in one hand and crap in another. See which one fills up first."
Although significant effort should be made to achieve the dream, until then, we need to be able to pursue and develop every currently available source of energy for personal use, public consumption, and national security.
Fighting For Freedom With Our Choices
Written June 10
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “nothing is more fertile in wondrous effect than the art of being free but nothing is harder than freedom’s apprenticeship. The same is not true of tyranny, which often advertises itself as the cure of all sufferings, the supporter of just rights, the upholder of the oppressed and the founder of order.”
As Americans, we regularly face choices about our government, its reach, and its effect upon our lives. No more so than during election years.
Through those we elect, we ultimately choose how much power our government will have over our lives, and in doing so, we decide how much more freedom we aspire to or how much less freedom we are willing to accept. We decide how much freedom we will or will not let the government take from us.
Only by our choices can we let the hard work of freedom be replaced by what superficially appears to be the easy route of government caring for our needs. In reality, that choice is government controlling our lives and requires surrendering the power of individual freedom to empower government instead.
Each time we opt for the government over our own hard work, we lose yet another degree of freedom. A choice to let the size and reach of government grow so that it can care for us is choosing freedom to be taken from us. We have chosen to let government, with its inevitable quagmire of regulations and bureaucracy, make another set of decisions for us. We have elected to let the behemoth dictate to us the parameters within which we will live.
With each allowance we make to government for controlling yet another aspect of our lives, we scurry away from the difficulties Tocqueville saw in “freedom’s apprenticeship.” Instead we select what appears to be the easy route of letting someone else become responsible for us, rather than being responsible for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors.
At best and at minimum that someone else is a benevolent democracy representative of the people with powers checked by the people. At worst it’s a tyrannical leader or group who promises all that Tocqueville said they would, but who in fact have taken power from the people in order to gain the power necessary to appear as the provider of all needs.
Between those two rests a government which is designed to empower the people, but through concessions by the people of their power, grows and grows until it takes on a power of its own. This government becomes increasingly difficult and finally impossible for the people to keep in check.
It gains strength enough to dictate to the people the parameters of their freedom rather than having free people decide the parameters of institutional power.
In today’s context such a government would determine the limits of, or simply eliminate, free speech or freedom of religion, and make its own interpretations of rights. It might use as its basis for doing so allowances of the people in one area to intrude upon others.
Such a government would control commerce more than less, view the fruits of individual’s hard work as its own to take at any percentage deemed necessary for redistribution or its own devices. It views all solutions as needing produced from within rather than by those who must live with the solutions.
Such governments eventually encompass enough power to even dictate where you live, the temperature of your home, what you will or won’t drive, how much food you’re allowed, and rations out substandard mandatory government health services. It may even decide what job is best for you and how you will educate or raise your own children.
Getting to such a cataclysmic point does not happen by accident. It happens by the design of some to garner power unto themselves, their affiliates, others unwilling to work hard for freedom, and gains momentum through those whose daily lives are so difficult or busy they unwittingly follow the path being lit. Eventually, enough people have to choose to shift their own power to the government.
As Americans we constantly have to be aware of the likely consequences of our choices. Do we opt for the path of hard work and maintenance or reacquisition of freedoms, or do we surrender them to those who, as Tocqueville warned they would, advertise themselves “as the cure of all sufferings, the supporter of just rights, the upholder of the oppressed and the founder of order?”
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “nothing is more fertile in wondrous effect than the art of being free but nothing is harder than freedom’s apprenticeship. The same is not true of tyranny, which often advertises itself as the cure of all sufferings, the supporter of just rights, the upholder of the oppressed and the founder of order.”
As Americans, we regularly face choices about our government, its reach, and its effect upon our lives. No more so than during election years.
Through those we elect, we ultimately choose how much power our government will have over our lives, and in doing so, we decide how much more freedom we aspire to or how much less freedom we are willing to accept. We decide how much freedom we will or will not let the government take from us.
Only by our choices can we let the hard work of freedom be replaced by what superficially appears to be the easy route of government caring for our needs. In reality, that choice is government controlling our lives and requires surrendering the power of individual freedom to empower government instead.
Each time we opt for the government over our own hard work, we lose yet another degree of freedom. A choice to let the size and reach of government grow so that it can care for us is choosing freedom to be taken from us. We have chosen to let government, with its inevitable quagmire of regulations and bureaucracy, make another set of decisions for us. We have elected to let the behemoth dictate to us the parameters within which we will live.
With each allowance we make to government for controlling yet another aspect of our lives, we scurry away from the difficulties Tocqueville saw in “freedom’s apprenticeship.” Instead we select what appears to be the easy route of letting someone else become responsible for us, rather than being responsible for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors.
At best and at minimum that someone else is a benevolent democracy representative of the people with powers checked by the people. At worst it’s a tyrannical leader or group who promises all that Tocqueville said they would, but who in fact have taken power from the people in order to gain the power necessary to appear as the provider of all needs.
Between those two rests a government which is designed to empower the people, but through concessions by the people of their power, grows and grows until it takes on a power of its own. This government becomes increasingly difficult and finally impossible for the people to keep in check.
It gains strength enough to dictate to the people the parameters of their freedom rather than having free people decide the parameters of institutional power.
In today’s context such a government would determine the limits of, or simply eliminate, free speech or freedom of religion, and make its own interpretations of rights. It might use as its basis for doing so allowances of the people in one area to intrude upon others.
Such a government would control commerce more than less, view the fruits of individual’s hard work as its own to take at any percentage deemed necessary for redistribution or its own devices. It views all solutions as needing produced from within rather than by those who must live with the solutions.
Such governments eventually encompass enough power to even dictate where you live, the temperature of your home, what you will or won’t drive, how much food you’re allowed, and rations out substandard mandatory government health services. It may even decide what job is best for you and how you will educate or raise your own children.
Getting to such a cataclysmic point does not happen by accident. It happens by the design of some to garner power unto themselves, their affiliates, others unwilling to work hard for freedom, and gains momentum through those whose daily lives are so difficult or busy they unwittingly follow the path being lit. Eventually, enough people have to choose to shift their own power to the government.
As Americans we constantly have to be aware of the likely consequences of our choices. Do we opt for the path of hard work and maintenance or reacquisition of freedoms, or do we surrender them to those who, as Tocqueville warned they would, advertise themselves “as the cure of all sufferings, the supporter of just rights, the upholder of the oppressed and the founder of order?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
