Author Topic: The Alinsky Republicans  (Read 212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 242,826
The Alinsky Republicans
« on: November 01, 2013, 08:42:29 AM »

November 1, 2013
The Alinsky Republicans
By Fisher Adams

Fisher Ames was a great man. He also had a great name (I couldn't resist). But this original, almost completely forgotten Conservative philosopher said something hundreds of years ago that is as relevant in the world today as wigs and horses were back when he said it.

Ames said, "Society is the substratum of government."

By that he meant that culture, in many ways, steers the ship of state. As the values of the culture change, voters will elect people who embody and represent those changing values. It doesn't matter if those changes in morals were brought on by the media, the church, a partisan and biased educational system, or all of the above; the people eventually get what they want. If their wants shift in a certain direction, regardless of the cause, in a representative republic the government will eventually change with it.

The establishment Republicans -- who have shown a far more robust proclivity to attack Tea Party conservatives than attacking the socialist left -- have been living at odds with this sentiment. They seem to believe in the culture of money and Democrat-Light government that plays dog to the societal tail.

Take for example the GOP establishment's efforts to turn the course of the party on gay marriage. Wealthy GOP donors claim to want to open
the floodgates of campaign cash to Republican candidates; but they're worried about the party brand being tainted by those crazy Conservatives and their anti-gay marriage proselytizing.

What's revealing about this mentality is that the issue of gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with gays or marriage. On the contrary, gay marriage laws have everything to do with the left's continuing effort to push religion out of the public space and get biblical teachings branded as hate speech.

We've seen the proof of this in places like Massachusetts, where one of the oldest, longest-serving Catholic Charities adoption centers decided to close its doors rather than violate their religious principles and comply with state law that mandates they give children to gay couples.

In short, the Church was forced to retreat from the public sphere.

In England, a country that can give us a preview of what's in store for us when government assumes the role of activist, a Los Angeles-based minister was heard speaking out against homosexuality on a street corner. A bystander actually called the police, and the minister was arrested for hate speech.

Again, religious teachings are criminalized and driven from the public square, literally.

In Canada, a man had an arrest conviction upheld against him for distributing religious pamphlets that spoke out against gay marriage.

Noticing a pattern here? It should be clear to anyone with the sense God gave the everyday farm-animal that gay marriage laws have a ton more to do with taking religion out of the public square than they do in granting "equality" to same sex couples.

And yet, there are establishment Republicans and their big-business donors who are apparently willing to see the 1st Amendment flushed down the drain in order to do... what? Keep the markets functioning normally? Keep their 401K's intact? Keep a diversified portfolio?

Is that what our party has become? There wasn't a soldier in the starving cold of Valley Forge, a Billy Yank at Seminary Ridge, nor a single Rough Rider at San Juan Hill who risked life and limb so that some millionaire centuries years hence could play golf at noon on a Wednesday, or install a car elevator in his home.

He fought so that he and his progeny would be able to live in freedom, in a country that recognized God as the highest source of power.

The fight between the Conservative base and its establishment overseers isn't about which side is more Conservative, and anyone who couches it that way is doing a tremendous disservice to how serious the fight we're in truly is. This fight is about the very same thing this country was fought for well over 200 years ago.
And it was fought for, not so that we would have the highest GDP, or the lowest corporate taxes, or the highest per capita income. No sharecropper or shoemaker ever would have risked the sweat of his brow, much less the life-blood of himself and his family, for that.

No, people fought a war and launched a revolution to secure freedom.

They fought so they could live in a society where the government was restrained, because it ranked the power of God above its own. The freedoms of speech and worship, the right to bear arms, as well as the right to freely practice religion, all served as bulwarks for whenever government encroachment reared its ugly head.

The wealth that establishment Republicans and others haveacquired under this system is the byproduct of this freedom. Not the purpose of it.

We as Conservatives are not willing to flush those hard-won freedoms down the drain for the sake of a diversified stock portfolio, or to land some big government contract. Our "party leadership" in Washington clearly is. That's the difference. That's what this fight is about.

Saul Alinsky once said, "I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday."

Does this not accurately describe the establishment Republicans? Boehner and McConnell would have gladly rubber-stamped ObamaCare -- almost immediately -- had it not been for Ted Cruz and his insurgent brethren in the House; knowing full well the ramifications that bill has for religious freedom and the power of the state.

ObamaCare was a potential noose around the neck of economic freedom in this country, and most country-club Republicans seemed to be more than willing to kick the chair out from under us; even though the hang man will inevitably one day soon be at their own door.

Now, am I saying that the wealth and largesse that many of the blue-blood Republicans have acquired is somehow evil? Or wrong? Absolutely not; but what is the point of having power or wealth without freedom, and maintaining the society and culture that preserves and procures it?

Ronald Reagan's dream of American prosperity was not a patronage system where our wealthy paid off the government alligator, "hoping it ate us last." It was a dream where wealth grew in direct relation to the growth and preservation of freedom. Not in spite of it.

I don't know about you, but I would rather live the lifestyle of a Yemeni goat herder in a country with the GDP hovering somewhere below sea level, living in complete political, personal, and religious freedom, than live in the world's largest economy while it is taken over by tyrants and secularists.

The fact that our country is more Conservative now than it has been since 1952, while we continue to lose national elections with establishment candidates, shows that our country suffers not from want of Conservatism, but from want of Conservative leadership.

Put in language that our upper-crust Republican elites are sure to understand... they have failed to supply the demands of the people. It's time to put the Alinsky Republicans out of business.

Support the USO
#NeverHillary  Not#NeverTrump

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,516
Re: The Alinsky Republicans
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2013, 09:55:31 AM »
Excellent commentary, thank you for posting!!

In the words of the great philosopher Paul John Weller: "... and the public wants what the public gets.  But I don't get what this society wants..."

Reading through this brought to mind a bit of a "theory" that I've been mulling around a bit in the back of my head, really only spoke to one other person about it so far, wondering what anyone here may think of it.

This "theory" is this:  Has what we have seen happen to this Republic over the past 100+ years been inevitable from the onset??  (And I use 100 or so years as a milestone of sorts, considering the two ruinous Amendments that were passed in 1913 (16th & 17th) and the backdoor establishment of the Fed.  But in fact, Congress had already started to veer off onto a path that ignored its Constitutionally imposed limits within a few decades of ratification, particularly in terms of spending money that they had no business doing.)

Would our Constitution's structure of Freedom and Individual Liberty (essentially a paean to the best that the philosophers of Natural Law had developed up to that point in time), combined with Free Market Capitalism, inevitably <d,>evolve to the point that we are at now, based solely on human nature and mankind's fallen state?  Would the constant and substantive rise in the overall standard of living and wide reaching prosperity eventually always lead to the kind of complacency of the vast majority of the populace that essentially turns over the keys to the self anointed "ruling class" in DC?  Did the fact that a people that participated in the greatest model of self governance ever devised by mankind (and some say with divine inspiration, and I have no quarrel with that), that watched their overall comfort and comparative "wealth" increase by leaps and bounds across almost every generation, inevitably lead to such a wide swath of our overall population becoming "fat and happy," which results in a level of self indulgence and self centered world views, that we have witnessed over the past decades, prior to the past two.

Of course, we all remember this little vignette:

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.

It also brings to mind the famous John Adams quote: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

This is where I begin to wonder about the inevitability of it all....  Does the fallen nature of man dictate that overall societal morality would almost certainly lead to a crumbling and tattered condition as wealth and prosperity increased in great numbers??

In other words, was the stunning Beauty and adherence to Natural Law that were embodied in our form of self governance always destined to reach this state of decline, owing to the fact that a fallen mankind could never hold up our end of the bargain???

Like I said above, I've just started to mull some of this over in my head.  I'd appreciate any thoughts that others here may have on the topic, or references to the thoughts of far greater minds than mine on the question!!!

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo