"Unless someone like you

Cares a whole awful lot

Nothing is going to get better

It's not"

-Dr. Seuss

The Lorax¹

By way of prologue please note that

1. even though I think that "tradition" is an important component of consideration of "change"  I am not a racist;

2. even though I am opposed to gay "marriage" I am neither a bigot nor homophobic;

3. even though I believe abortion on demand is wrong I am neither a misogynist nor sexist;

4. I'm a Roman Catholic but I'm not a religious fanatic or evangelical fundamentalist.

5. I'm confident that America's desire to promote its philosophy of government is not "cultural imperialism".

6. I'm convinced that there are things that are absolute and not subject to human interpretation or "deeper understanding".

7. I am firmly convinced that mutual tolerance is the key to civilized discourse and relationship and that

8. diversity is a good thing, especially intellectual diversity.

Further, I have provided a more comprehensive discourse on my underlying assumptions and definitions elsewhere on this site.

With these fundamentals established..........

I have always had an insatiable curiosity about "how things worked" and, I guess, because of that I've naturally developed an unconscious habit of observing and categorizing phenomena. I also seem to have an unconscious habit of trying to understand the underlying causes of the phenomena I observe.

One of the phenomena I've observed has been well described by Henry Lamb. Why our country is drifting from one where individual action was preferred and government interference abhorred remains a mystery to me. I suspect it has something to do with the complexity of and insecurity engendered by our country's rapid growth since the scare of the Great Depression of the 1930's and WW II.

And, one of the more fascinating phenomena that I've observed is the behavior of people in a seemingly irrational manner when faced with clear evidence that their beliefs or actions are in direct contravention to what they've observed or experienced. I've simplistically characterized these observations as belonging to the category of "Don't confuse me with the facts because my mind is made up." I find it particularly fascinating, (and troubling), that I find this behavior among those who by their evident accomplishments seem to be above average in inherited or acquired intellectual capacity. The underlying cause of this phenomenon in matters large and small plagued me for a long time. I believe I found an answer of sorts in the description of a neurosis called the Fourier Complex.

In trying to understand the phenomenon I've developed some assumptions that seem to be sound:

1. Individual humans are "hard-wired" to need to be differentiated from other individuals. An example: An individual might declare, "I'm poor but honest" thus differentiating himself from those who are "poor but abject". Obviously, he is assuming that those others actually exist and will resist vigorously any attempts to offer evidence to the contrary lest his differentiating characteristic, "honest", be taken away.

2. Individual humans are "hard-wired" to need to "belong".

3. Individuals with similar differentiating characteristics, either inherent or developed, tend to form groups with other individuals with similar characteristics. In some instances these groups are formalized and structured and in others they are merely "recognized". In some cases the groups have formal names and in others they are merely "labeled" for the sake of being able to recognize their existence.

4. Just as there is a spectrum from invisible infra-red through visible to invisible ultra-violet so, too, there's a spectrum of the degree to which individuals and groups need to be aggressive in demonstrating their differentiation. Some are almost invisible except to themselves and others require aggressive behavior as fundamental to their differentiating characteristic(s). Sometimes the "aggressive" behavior is merely, for example, wearing a particular style of clothing. However, at the other end of the spectrum the aggressive behavior manifests itself in working to impact the lives of others.

One particularly troubling manifestation of this latter aggressive behavior has been described by Thomas Sowell². He calls those whose behavior is aggressive in societal or political matters "The Anointed".  I've noted some of his writing elsewhere on this site. I note also that he writes from the  perspective that the phenomenon of the Anointed poses a danger to the continued existence of The United States of America as it was originally conceived. I agree with him. Further, I believe that The Anointed know that the continued existence of the philosophy of The United States as envisioned by its founders is the single greatest impediment to their implementing their vision. The Anointed are today's locus of collectivism and the struggle between collectivists and individualists is as old as the existence of humankind itself.

I've asked myself repeatedly why I care about such things as the phenomenon of the Anointed and do I think I can do anything about it. I know I care about the effects of the phenomenon because I believe that a when a society's government exists at the pleasure of the governed all the members of that society will derive for themselves greatest benefits, material and spiritual, over time. Any other relationship between a government and its governed is sub-optimal to a greater or lesser degree. I firmly believe that society cannot be made to fit some abstract scheme dreamed up by this or that thinker, and attempts to make it do so have resulted and will in the future always result in disaster. Human history is replete with evidence validating my assertion. I believe that comparison  with our society now of most aspects of life in America in the 1950s, our last non-ideological decade, will show that life then, while far from perfect, was much better for more of us then than it is now. My wish would be to return to that base and to fix the societal problems we had then without going to the extremes of intolerance and relativism we suffer now.

To the question as to whether or not I think I can actually do anything about the phenomenon of the Vision of the Anointed I must answer "no". Throughout history there have been many who have been seduced by the compulsive, destructive fantasy that they could effect change to create an earthly paradise. In spite of their repeated failed attempts, many of which have led to inconceivable horror, pain and suffering, not only for those subjected to those attempts but also for the world they inhabited, the Anointed continue unchastened to hold fast to their illusions. They emerge from the ashes of their failures with renewed faith in their Vision. Why? All I can do is to come to the conclusion that the Anointed's belief in socialism is as much a faith in a 'higher power' as is any religion's faith. As such it is not amenable to logic or reason. It is grounded in a human condition too powerful to refute or destroy. At best, its effects can only be mitigated by the continued struggle of those of us who do not wish to be subjugated. To cease to struggle is to be defeated and subjugated into slavery to the state, or as Edmund Burke wrote, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".  I choose to continue to struggle in hope that things will "get better".

There is, however, a way that Americans can reverse the seemingly inevitable trend toward the demise of the 'great experiment' initiated by and bought with the blood of our ancestors on this continent should they wish to do so. It would require years of struggle against almost impossible odds, yet it is possible. To succeed will require that three objectives be achieved:

1.  Reversal of the 1937 United States v Butler  and  Helvering v. Davis decisions of the Supreme Court. in order to restore some semblance of the Constitution's framers' original intent to the so called 'general welfare clause'.

2. Imposition of term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court. The need for this change has been thoroughly researched and discussed by George F. Will in his book "Restoration, Congress, Term Limits and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy", The Free Press, New York, NY, 1992. ISBN 0-02-934713-0

3.  Elimination of the "substantive due process" doctrine currently practiced by the Supreme Court. The rights protected by fiat of the Court within this doctrine are more properly dealt with in the legislative branch of our Government. To do otherwise diminishes the role of the people  in its own governance via the deliberative processes of its representatives and enhances the oligarchical nature of the court foreseen by Thomas Jefferson.

Were these three objectives to be achieved, the ongoing struggle between those who value individual rights and those who wish to supplant those rights with their 'Vision' would be over. The "originalists", those who adhere to the Founders' political philosophy (conservatives?) would have won more than just an election. Personal responsibility and accountability would regain their central place in the American character.