Whether or not human nature could be so restrained has always been a matter of legitimate debate; and the implication distinguishing Anarchy from Government may be more an article of faith than of fact.
It was the formal recognition of the inevitable and inescapable nature of such a conflict between government and people that was perhaps the Founders’ crowning achievement. They legitimized and made sacred a formal and obligatory paranoia regarding all actions of all governments, and went so far as to depict these failings as germane to human nature as such. What is crucial to bear in mind here is that it was not mankind that was under indictment. It was human nature masquerading in a Godly fashion as government.
Let us now return to our current situation:
Many people regard government as either sacrosanct or as diabolic. This statement includes most of the people and groups I defined initially. The “pro-government” folks and the liberals differ not in the evaluation of the purpose of government but only in whether they believe government is achieving that purpose. Both groups see government’s function as a human benefactor, when historically it has been understood to be the exact opposite but a necessary antidote to Anarchy, as I have described.**
Neither group sees the inherent conflict between government and people that I described as the unmasked root of our current predicament. They do not see it because they do not see things in broad political philosophical and historical terms. To them, the dispute is about more benefits or less, about more privilege to interfere in our affairs so as to provide these benefits. Worst case, the current malfeasances of government are due either to unintended consequences (e.g. Rumsfeld’s “you-go-to-war-with-the-intelligence-you’ve-got” principle) or even due to the wrong-guys-in-office principle.
Neither group sees that what is occurring is a progressive statement of new principles by new Founders, who see as their Manifest Destiny to be a “Light Unto the Nations,” who met in convention in 1997 at the founding for “The Project for The New American Century,” and who put forth their Preamble in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."
They truly and deeply believe this, and that is why they appear to suffer no embarrassment when the details of individual actions are exposed, but truly and deeply believe that they are to be Instruments of His Peace. To these people, you and I are not the Loyal Opposition but are insensate impediments.
When seen in broad historic context, it is not difficult to see how this group’s founders not only truly see nothing wrong with their actions but also have an apocalyptic vision of their place in history. The only difference is the substitution of form over substance: they, being the form, and you and I being the substance. That is why Mr. Bush responds to each new revelation not with fear or defiance but with indulgent impatience. That is why they make no attempt to hide or justify their actions but regard such actions as moral and legal precisely because they have defined them as such.
They regard their corporations and their largesse not as payment but as the very environment in which they live. Our existence to them is biology run amok, as is its wont. In fact, they regard the Founding Fathers as superfluous sentimentalists, and trust as a legacy of the romantically inclined.
With these ideas in mind, it is easy to see how our Constitution is “just a Goddamned scrap of paper” and the Geneva Convention as “quaint.” In using such terms, Bush is being neither sarcastic nor derogatory; he is simply musing publicly. The Patriot Act in their eyes is just that, and is a way of removing redundant constitutional clutter.
What is truly revealing is the response of Congress and the Supreme Court, in that these institutions have shown an appalling lack of character and integrity, and in so doing, have exposed the public to the concomitant depravity of these institutions, a state which has been evolving for years, but which now is seen in bas relief. If there is any grim consolation, it is the very truth of this statement.
Our Constitution’s greatest strength is its greatest vulnerability--freedom. We cannot rely on the courts, on Congress, or on anyone but ourselves. Yet there is hope:
More and more, I see articles appearing--not in the mainstream press, which has totally abdicated its function and mission--but in weblogs, the internet’s heir to seditious publications. I see the issues--of necessity--defined and discussed in broad and incisive historical and moral terms.
In a previous article I referred to our Republic having incredible resiliency as well as vulnerability. I said:
“In his play, "The Skin of our Teeth," Thornton Wilder, through the use of a metaphor, brings the issue into sharp focus: Time and time again civilization itself has been brought to brink of destruction, and each time we have been saved, by the skin of our teeth. Once again, civilization itself has been brought to a critical pass. Only a free America can save us now. Will we win the war against the people?”
As it says in the Talmud, “From my lips to God’s ears.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
