Copied from Jonathan Puglia: The Constitution’s Singular Flaw .January 12, 2010 at 2:33pm A moment of thought for all of my Conservative, politically conscious friends and family. I cannot say enough about the success of the Constitution of the United States. That list continues on ad infinitum. Instead, I want to go straight for the throat. I want to know what went wrong. What brought us here, to the End of the Great American Experiment? How did our government become so corrupt? Why are we on the verge of selling what is left of our Liberties for the impotent security of socialized healthcare? There was a hole in that document. That hole was not hypothetical, but allowed within the actualization of it’s structure a steady stream of corruption that eroded our government and our great State. We owe our current state of affairs to many things, and to the decisions of many men. But if this hole had not been, we would not be standing here now wondering why or how we could have fallen this far from grace this quickly. Perhaps the precipice of failure would have been a millennium down the line, instead of only two centuries… if they had only noticed this one small fracture in the Framework. That small crack was the Motivation of Good Men. The Constitution of the United States gives no motivation for Good Men to seek a government position. Instead, a Good Man must be self-motivated to make a candidate of himself. A good idea, it seems, under what should be a meritocracy, where men are rewarded for what they achieve in any field they choose. However, consider what was missed. Good Men are indeed naturally self-motivated. They are motivated to raise healthy families. They are motivated to work at or build a business. They are motivated to participate in their church, at social events and to maintain the welfare of their neighborhood. They are motivated to accumulate and sustain wealth for themselves, their futures, and for their heirs. What is lost is that participation in state or federal government precludes most of these things by sheer logistics if not by law. A Good Man is a busy man. He is working at the things that he is talented at. He works maintaining the responsibilities that Family, God and Conscience require of him. He works at what makes him happy. He feels he has a place in life and a calling, and has found a community in which he pursues that calling. Why would this Good Man leave these things to work as a government agent? What responsibility sends him there? Is it his duty to go there, to leave his family and friends and business, to work for what can be described as, “at it’s best, a necessary evil.” To be sent there, this Good Man must be elected. To be elected, this Good Man must run a campaign. To run this campaign, this Good Man must fight his very nature and practice self-aggrandizement. The Good Man is humble, he does not wish to boast about how much he knows or what he has done. The Good Man’s reward has been the unspoken appreciation of his family. He doesn’t seek the attention of the masses. The Good Man is much more comfortable working locally, toward the good of his community. He does not want to leave to go join the bureaucrats and politicians in their work, and for good reason. The Good Man is more often a home man, not a world man. He is well-known in his community for being just and fair. The neighbors recognize he is practical and judicious. The local police respect him. His children are well-behaved, and their teachers appreciate them. His town silently honors him, but he is not known in the next state. Shouldn’t this man regularly make appearances in our government? Wouldn’t you vote for him? And yet we see that there is nothing pulling the Good Man into the place he may be most needed. He does not become a representative. He was never a candidate. So in the absence of the Good Man Candidate we have these three instead: Covetous Man, Vainglorious Man and Tyrant. Covetous. Men who covet money are naturally attracted to government. Although the Constitution did not initially project government positions as particularly lucrative, Those Covetous only saw an opportunity. “But capitalism is a good thing!” Indeed, capitalism and free market enterprise is a very good thing, and the benefits thereof need not be debated by sensible folk. But men infiltrating government to deform and corrupt it, recreating it in their own image, is not capitalism. Profit should not be a motivator for candidates: it should be understood that they will not be the ones profiting from their potential legislation. They are not special. They receive no privileges. They are compensated meagerly and sufficiently, but only gain as the people gain. So Covetous Man ran for office and won. After all, only those who run can be elected. Having been elected, Covetous Man swayed legislation his own way. Congress gives itself pay raises. Their Cadillac health insurance is paid for by the tax payer. Private jets, helicopters and fleets of automobiles. Pet projects and earmarks. Friends in high places, donators. Special interest groups. And yet for all of this, they still ask money from us so they can afford to campaign. “Yes, we will foot the bill,” we say. Good Men do not seek to fill their pockets. Good Men would be afflicted by their consciences to press their constituents for cash from behind the bullet-proof and shadow-blacked windows of a Suburban. Good Men would not legislate to accommodate big donators or special interests: they would vote for what is right. Good Men would not only reject bribes, they would prosecute the one who suggested it. If only those Good Men would run for office. Why is “Big Business” a problem today? Not because men make a lot of money. Men who privately and legally build a business to greatness receive the benefits of their work. Big Business is a problem today when it has received the benefits of legislation. The incestuous relationship with it and Big Government is immoral, unsustainable and unconstitutional. The culmination of decades of such a relationship has resulted in companies deemed, “too big to fail.“ TARP, bailouts and stimulus money support the addiction at the expense of Good Men everywhere who pay their taxes. They would not be in the position of financier, however, if they had run against Covetous Man half a century ago. Vainglory. Like those who seek fortune, those who seek fame are an equal cancer in our government. Is it not natural for those who seek the admiration and attention of men to join the world of politics? The entirety of the process is winning approval and manipulating opinions with the occasional vote on life-changing matters. Who else would love to roam around the country, shaking hands and giving speeches? The electoral process lends itself to those who tend towards vainglory. And this so appalls The Good Man that he could not stomach the action for himself. So Vainglorious men run for office, unopposed to be sure, and are rewarded with the ability to vote for or against your liberties. Did Vainglorious Men ever have another’s welfare in their interests? Those Vainglorious are concerned only with their own self-interests. “But self-preservation is a good thing!” Undoubtedly, our nation was founded by men capable of self-preservation. Assuredly, the most productive citizen engaged in a Social Contract, the one who benefits that Contract best, is he who practices self-preservation. But a conflict of interests arises at the elected level. A citizen elected is not a citizen promoted. A citizen elected is a citizen now tied to and imprisoned by the interests of his constituency: a public servant, a slave who should be committed to his masters’ biddings. Vainglorious Men do not make good servants. They never saw themselves in the proper light. And surrounded by other Vainglorious Men - for they were the only kind available to be elected - they fed on each other’s lies. Finding themselves with the ability to manipulate Tax money, they concocted the perfect contingency plan: the hand-out. Cast now in the light of the Benefactor, The Vainglorious Man went about redistributing wealth. What better way to win the affection of the masses could be imagined than to take from the rich and give to the poor? Even better, what better way to win the affections of the “poor masses” than - not to give to them, but - to force someone else to give to them what they want or need, and then tell them it was from you, the Beneficent Politician. It was never about the people, it was always about the votes: a simple icon of approval. An icon Vainglorious Politicians can not do without. The election of The Vainglorious Man meant that the rights of one section of the population could be ignored in favor of the approval of another section, based on votes. A block with more voting power gets more consideration. A block with less voting power gets less consideration. A block with no voting power, the unborn, gets nothing. The Good Man, if he had been there, would not have stood for this. Good Men do not need men’s approval for gratification. Motivated by morals, he would have struck down these electoral bribes. Hard work and property management have their rewards. Redistribution hand-outs have their consequences. The death of the innocent cries out to God, as per Genesis. History, experience and conscience should be enough for any average intellect to understand this. The Good Man would have taken a side, not that of the rich, but of the Inalienable Rights, given by God: Life, Liberty and Property. And if that good and just decision would have cost him an election, The Good Man would not be offended. After all, he did not really want to be there anyway. He wanted to be at home with his family and friends and business. And that was a good thing. But that’s where he was. Why is “Welfare” and programs like it a problem today? Not because people give to the needy. In fact, that is a healthy and necessary attribute of the Civil Society. Today, Welfare is no longer the hand of charity from one neighbor to the next. The idea of charity has been co-opted by the government for a vile and malicious reason: to propagate the lie that these Vainglorious Men are your Benefactor. They lead you to believe that your needs - and your vote - are best placed in their capable hands. “I scratch your back, you scratch mine.” That’s not community. Worse yet, “I will force someone else to scratch your back, but you still scratch mine.” Again, Good Men are at home, footing the bill and scratching everyone’s back, unreciprocated. Only now they are wondering if they should change their course, for their children’s sakes. One man’s story will suffice to tell the story of The Tyrant and his antithesis, The Good Man. Having from experience and philosophy seen the danger of The Tyrant, the states and the Anti-Federalists in particular feared what was drafted in the Constitution, Article II, about the Executive Branch. One man holding the reigns of an entire section of the government seemed like too much - and it was only a third of the system! Nevertheless, certain leaders among the several states made an agreement before ratifying the Constitution: we will accept having a one-man Presidency, but only if it’s George Washington. Why George Washington? Because he was a Good Man. He was the opposite of a Tyrant. He loved his people, he loved his country, and he loved Liberty. He believed so strongly in Liberty, that he was one of the strongest promoters of small government even when he was the nation’s most powerful individual. His writings, speeches and policies exemplified this. George even left office while the people pleaded for him to stay. He did so because he believed that if the President were to accept more than two terms in office, he would begin to accumulate too much power and become abusive: a Tyrant. Every President of the United States had been honorable and wise enough to follow his precedent until Franklin Roosevelt, and we found out that President Washington was absolutely right. Why is Congress constantly in session? How have they and the other branches of our Federal Government become daily staples of our news? When did we abdicate our lives for them to micro-manage? Tyrant, above all others, sought out the seats of our political system. Why do they consider legislation without thought of the ramifications it may have on our Liberty, but rather how it will effect their poll numbers? Is it any surprise that they have amassed so much power to themselves? That’s why they ran. In the absence of the Good Man, bill after bill was passed, almost without exception, with the intention of increasing their role in our lives. Name a bill, read it, and see if it does not, somewhere and somehow, take a decision of some type away from a citizen, and put it in the hands of someone who receives their salary from the U.S. Treasury. Then multiply. However innocuous, these little steps, over time, made up a mile. And now we are here, looking around trying to find places where their eyes are not. And so we find that one of our nation’s greatest strengths may have been it’s downfall. The production of Good Men, the assurance of Liberty, the American Dream were all on our side. They revolved around and focused on the home, where they could be safe from the influences or persecution of an oppressive government. Fostered in the security of the civil community with local and justified laws, families raised up many Good Men from boyhood. These new Good Men followed in their father’s footsteps and raised their boys. But they went no further then those footsteps. They tread the path familiar, reliable and proud. It’s just that we needed them to take a detour. Not being one to pose questions without seeking answers, my next will be one of possible solutions. I ask for opinions, insights and solutions, if you have any. Thanks, JP “I’ve seen all-good people turn their heads each day so satisfied…
Posted on: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 05:42:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015