Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Not an Obamaphile

I cannot guarantee how long or how faithfully I will be able to sample the blogosphere, but in this latest bout of web surfing I found a bleak analysis of the American election over at Whippleshire.

He is not an Obamaphile, clearly. For that matter, neither am I.

Throughout the latter part of this election I have felt the enervation that comes from true pointlessness. What is the point in cheering for a McCain over an Obama? Or vice versa? Neither would have been good for America, and now we will find out exactly how bad it can be with the guy that won.

America's greatness lay in being a republic, not a democracy, not an empire. The republic died years ago, perhaps before the Second World War? Her greatness lay in her constitution, a constitution which has been completely abrogated, dismissed, and otherwise sloughed off. In watching Election 2008 I met and was smitten by the figure of Ron Paul. A Republican, but not a Republican like the imperialists Reagan, Bush, Bush, and McCain. A constitutionalist, and that is something that reaches beyond partisan lines. A man who desired a return to the republic.

But there is little point in crying for what-might-have-been. Instead we need to live with what is and what will be. ... What will be?

From Whippleshire:
It has also been said that peoples go from slavery to great faith, from great faith to freedom, from freedom to prosperity, from prosperity to apathy, from apathy to chaos, from chaos to tyranny, and back to slavery once more. America right now is on the fast track from apathy to chaos and into tyranny.
Let us hope he is wrong.

- V.


Anonymous said...

Thanks, v for your comments re: my post on the election results Whippleshire). Having time to step back and reflect I would not change the post.

You are right that we cannot live in a state of denial of reality. I think it is appropriate to mourn, however briefly. What struck me about Obama was not so much the specific plans in the campaign. Indeed, he ran on a pseudo-conservative platform with respect to taxes. But there was an interview he had done as a State Senator for a left leaning radio program in which he was quite open and honest about his view of the Constitution.
I am paraphrasing but he said that the framers had a blind spot such that they wrote a "negative" document, saying only what the government could not do to the citizens, but not saying what it would do for them.
Technically he is wrong. There is a list of responsibilities laid out for the federal government such as defense, providing a currency, etc. but a very short list.
But his real point was that he disagreed with the entire concept of the federal government as envisioned by the founders. They quite deliberately were pointing out that human dignity and freedom came from God, not the government, and the only thing a government can do is truncate human freedom. Therefore, their goal was to limit that truncation through limited government.

The heart of a leftist in particular and also way too many neo-cons and Rinos wants a government that grants rights and freedoms to people. So many on the left are essentially godless to begin with, so unless they can accept some basic natural law, outside of man and not mutable by men, then the very concept of free men by nature has no foundation. They want the granter of liberty to be the government, as well as ultimately the owner and distributor of all property, contrary to that other constitutional pillar of freedom, private property.

Anonymous said...

As to when the Constitution was left behind, many suggest it was FDR and the New Deal. Some can give specific legal cases and precedents as markers. But in the end, I agree, this process started a long time ago.

The recent election was, for me at least, like watching a crew in the middle of a flood, trying to patch a particularly bad hole in the levee so that when the rain stops they can get back to the real work of fixing the entire levee system. That was what McCain was, and they failed to patch the hole.

The core of the conservatives hated John McCain as the political traitor he had been, and only Palin could convince them to hold their noses and vote for him. He was and is not a conservative, nor was he a the "maverick" that he styled himself to be. And Palin should have realized, despite orders from the McCain crew, that calling yourself a "maverick" doesn't make you one and in fact if you really are one, everyone will know. It was painful to watch at times.

All in all, there are few true conservatives left in the Republican party. Ron Paul is one.

Frankly, for many reasons, I don't see America ever returning to her roots. That's just the fact, and we have to live with that reality and how it will affect us here.

V & E said...

It doesn't surprise me to hear that Obama was so public in his dismissal of the Constitution. Neither the Left nor the Socialist Right (read: Neocon) like to see their delusions of grandeur abrogated... and the Constitution is a marvelous document in that it so clearly limits the role of government.

Ironic that the U.S. today looks a lot like the tyranny that forged it.

- V.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the voluminous posts here but your post raises a number of issues.

As to the final comment that you quoted on the progression of human societies from slavery and back; two things.
I think it is a clear description (not my own, by the way and I am not sure of its origin) of the way that human beings, in their concupiscent state, tend to cycle. If we want an example, the Old Testament account of the Israelites and their cycle of freedom and slavery is very instructive.

But, the whole point of the Old Testament is that it is not necessary to follow this cycle. It is not set in stone. We now have a Redeemer. We can break the cycle that our wounded natures tend to lead us into. It is possible to avoid the suffering that we cause ourselves, simply by not causing it.

And therein lies the real sadness of the end of the American dream. Not the popular meaning of that expression, ie. money, money, money. No, the real meaning of the American dream was liberty and all that it means, prosperity being only a part.

I have been studying what has been called "Catholic social doctrine" which is the summary of much teaching throughout the centuries including a lot of writing on the part of John Paul the Great. Contrary to current thought among large numbers of Catholic Democrats and soft socialists, the system of government most closely aligned with Catholic teaching is actually the original American limited constitutional government as envisioned by the founders, run by moral God loving people.

V & E said...

"... [The founders] quite deliberately were pointing out that human dignity and freedom came from God, not the government, and the only thing a government can do is truncate human freedom. Therefore, their goal was to limit that truncation through limited government..." [emphasis mine]

The logical conclusion to this is that the reformers (like Obama and his ilk, and here I include McCain and the rest of the neoCons) wish to be god.

A frightening thought ... but what is more frightening is that Obama et al. thought it first.

- V.

V & E said...

The problem with breaking cycles is that our Redeemer asks our participation. He is not a bully.

And the simple fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans (and most Westerners for that matter) do not want to break the cycle, for their passions and their pride are the only god they will acknowledge.

He seeks them with an ardent love, the gentle Healer and the Deliverer from bondage, but the West wants none of His yoke, light though it be.

- V.