The Remnant and the Reality

A remnant is what is left over after the task has been completed. For today’s discussion the remnant is what is left over after the larger portion of the people becomes dependent on the government for their provision. As accountable individuals, we are each responsible for our own livelihoods, our own safety and our personal security. Each of us bears personal responsibility for our actions, and we must answer for failures and errors in judgment. The remnant, as I see it, in today’s United States is not poised to restore America or to recapture the ideal that was advanced by the Founders. Today’s remnant must rebuild our nation…brick by brick, wall by wall.

Restoration is significantly different from rebuilding. Using antique furniture as an example, when one restores the piece, it may involve stripping the finish, replacing the upholstery, tightening the dowels, and finally putting everything back together with a new finishing. If the piece has rotted, however, or its structure has been compromised, then rebuilding is necessary. The builder reforms the new parts as close to the original as is possible, but the rebuilt unit will have more enduring structural integrity than if the original flawed piece were merely cosmetically refinished. 

It has been 220 years since the ratification of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Since that time only seventeen additional amendments have been approved, but do any of you really believe that the basic structure of our government and nation has been limited to those twenty-seven formal changes? No, throughout our history and especially in the past century, our system of self-government has undergone radical change. In my view the gross distortion of our original concept of a free self determining society has been the product of three major areas: the people, career politicians, and personal perspectives.

Our citizens have become fat, happy, stupid and lazy. They are willing to allow others to make critical decisions for them, but willingly moan and whine if they find those decisions unsatisfactory. As long as the vast majority of the people lean on government and others, restoration is unlikely if not impossible. The bright spot is that if the people prefer to remain relatively unengaged, then an eager and committed remnant can rebuild the social structure when they ignore the moaning, whining, and teeth-gnashing of their fellows.

Career politicians are a serious barrier for those who wish to rebuild the nation. Their self interest and their instincts for self preservation would drive them to give lip service to a true rebuilding process…but only if they can foresee their holding on to the power and the perks. In many of my speaking engagements I have remarked that career politicians are particularly adept at jumping to the front of a parade. A rebuilding movement would attract the most opportunistic of the political class as they scrambled to provide their bona fides as true defenders of the Constitution and the people. In other words, they would lie….again. Their lack of principle and shortage of honor would drive them to become the face, the voice and the beneficiaries of the movement.  For a rebuilding effort to succeed the careerists must not be allowed to participate in any meaningful fashion.

Perspective is probably the most difficult element to identify and to overcome. What are our attitudes about the role of government in our lives? Some of the most vociferous supporters of rebuilding will clamor for the restoration of their Social Security payments, or their agricultural subsidies…or their home mortgage deduction. Policies that have developed over the years as vote-purchasing mechanisms have been ingrained as “rights” by many of the citizenry. Many of the most ardent supporters for restoration or rebuilding will, nevertheless, expect and insist that their favored programs be continued. “I’ve earned it” will become the dominant cry in the rebuilding process. Their pampered self-interest will propel them toward “getting theirs,” even as they commend the Founders for pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Every recruit for a restoration or rebuilding movement must be willing to forfeit everything.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Check out our Facebook site:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

   

One for All

For a community or a government to protect individual freedom it must be based on moral behavior. There are some schools of thought that morality is strictly an individual consideration (e.g. relativism), but in order for a community of individuals to flourish, there should be a consensus regarding what constitutes moral behavior. Any other paradigm leads to anarchy and chaos. It seems apparent to me that in the United States today the moral foundations have crumbled, and we are balancing on the edge of mayhem. Although I believe the culture has become depraved, it is the moral structure of the body politic that I address today.


It is vital for a democratic republic that the citizens and the elected representatives share a moral vision that defines the public good while, at the same time, provides for maximum personal freedom. Clearly, there are elements of national existence that require collective action…national defense, foreign affairs, adjudication of contract disputes plus fair and just criminal codes…to name a few. If a democratically-based society is to survive and thrive, then the individual citizens must embrace a moral code that encourages maximum self expression while allowing for the coalescence of the nation to morally address issues of national concern. The Founders recognized the importance of the two-pronged approach and drafted a document (The Constitution) that provided the framework for its implementation. Sadly, over time the Founders’ vision has become distorted, and the Constitution has been twisted and perverted. Individual freedom, once shouted from the rooftops of the Republic, has been transformed into whimpering pleas from the cellars of the nation.

The Constitution and, theoretically, subsequent laws, rules and regulations represent a body of law that is anchored to a moral basis of individual liberty. Unfortunately, many of the laws (especially those expanding government power) have abandoned the anchor, and the country is adrift. Individual freedom has become a minor consideration in the governance of the Republic. It’s time for citizens who cherish their liberty to rise up and recapture the reins of power. How can this be achieved? By definition ..organizing individualists is akin to herding cats.

Please have patience as I identify those citizens most likely to successfully band together to seize the power and reassert the principles of personal liberty in the United States. First, let me state that I believe that people who cherish liberty are people of faith. In my view they represent three distinct points-of-view who share a burning passion for liberty. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define them as believers, non-believers and anti-believers. Although these descriptions appear to be overly broad, I place them all in the context of faith…they’ve thought about faith, they’ve considered faith, and they’ve made decisions regarding faith. The believers have embraced supernatural faith. The non-believers have rationally chosen to ignore supernatural faith, and the anti-believers have determined that human capacity and human intellect are the sole determinants of human existence. In other words we have the believers, the rationalists and the humanists. Next I will describe how these various constituencies for freedom can successfully interact to restore individual liberty in the United States.

Because I am most familiar with the community of believers, I’ll begin with them. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of a personal relationship with G_d. Although the Lord identified the Nation of Israel as His chosen people, He communicated through the Patriarchs and the prophets. Tradition Christian doctrine has emphasized the personal relationship via the act of salvation. The individual, recognizing that he/she is lost and depraved, accepts Christ (the Messiah) as Savior and is restored through Christ to a personal relationship with God. There have been some strains of thought within the church that have suggested universal salvation (everyone goes to heaven), but most traditional systematic theologies emphasize the personal nature of salvation and redemption. Anecdotally, one can note that in many societies across the globe, Christians are often persecuted or executed. The personal, individualistic elements of the faith make their allegiance and independence a threat to an autocratic society. In the United States today committed Christians are alarmed by governmental restrictions on the practicing of their faith. They see themselves as increasingly constrained. With good reason, many recognize that the Founders relied upon a Judeo-Christian foundation in the formation of the nation. It is understandable, therefore, that they equate the loss of personal liberty with the possibility of encroaching religious persecution. Because of their tragic history, the Jews have generally been apprehensive even to the point of fearing the motives of the Christians.

The non-believing rationalists just want to be left alone. They don’t want government dictating every little facet of their lives, and they don’t want the “church people” telling them how to live. They understand that there are instances that demand cooperation but do not want to be forced into unceasing alliances. Whether they know it or not, their guiding principle is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” They examine the state of the nation and their personal position within it through the prism of ‘what makes sense.’ Rationalists are wary of believers…suspecting that their ultimate goal is the establishment of a theocratic state. Sometimes Rationalists suspect that believers are so heavenly focused that they’re no earthly good. To a lesser degree Rationalists view the humanists with some skepticism. Rationalists are aware of a universe beyond them. They choose to approach it rationally. The humanists, in their, view are too inner-directed…relying on feelings and perceptions.

True humanists as suggested above believe that all reality is based on the perception of the observer. The reason that anti-believing humanists would struggle to preserve individual freedom is that they resent any effort, by government or any ecclesiastical authority, to impose a definition of reality. They subscribe to the “to each his own” point of view. They yearn for …and demand that they have the freedom to maneuver within reality as they find it. An anecdotal example (an extreme one, I concede) of a dedicated humanist would be Cindy Sheehan. Her perception of the nation and its leadership seems extreme to many, but she endures…seeking to be heard.

So, how can we forge these disparate approaches into a coherent and effective force for freedom. Clearly, there is mistrust and distrust among them. Obviously, their goals and ends are at odds with one another. They share one overwhelming attribute: they have a burning passion for personal freedom. Each must yield some biases and reservations in order to achieve a common goal. The Believers, the community of faith, must be willing to forgo judgment, condemnation and proselytizing and allow the “fruits of the spirit” to be the evidence of faith while working in unity towards personal political freedom. The rationalists and humanists must refrain from minimizing and belittling the validity of faith-based commitment. Rationalists and people of faith must recognize that each human is either: a) created from the breath of God, or; b) rationality is projected from the internal to the other. Humanists must accept that recognition of a reality and source of Truth outside of the individual is not wild-eyed and bizarre, but is a means for understanding the unknowable. Total agreement and acceptance is not likely, but if these liberty loving individuals can put aside their vast differences, then perhaps this coalition can succeed.

None of these can restore freedom in the United States alone. For example, if evangelical Christians assume the mantle of restoration by themselves, the society-at-large fearing a movement to theocracy would vigorously fight them. The same is true for the other types of liberty restorers. Everyone, whatever the theological or philosophical justification, who cherishes personal freedom must shed their biases and fight together…or individual liberty will ultimately perish in the United States of America.

If you have comments on this post or the series, they're encouraged.

cnpearl@woh.rr.com

I: alone in the crowd   II: All for One  III: One for All