In many respects the internet has made our lives much easier. Information from numerous sources can be instantaneously retrieved and analyzed. The flip side is that some of the material is untrustworthy, large portions of it is opinion, and fantastic mythic themes become part of the mainstream because of massive circulation throughout the web. The discerning reader must approach the reams of information with caution as he-she seeks to separate truth from fiction. The internet has provided a forum for ordinary people who are not well-connected politically to join in the national conversation. The “net” empowers common citizens to challenge the narratives of the governing elites and their lackeys, the main stream media. The digital highway, though, is not a one-way street. Government and big-government advocacy groups are frenzied participants in the digital information age.
Back in my days as a GOP activist and committed small-government conservative, I was usually dismayed by how ineffective limited government proponents were when it came to “messaging.” In my view the big spenders always controlled the narrative. It fell upon constitutionalists to disprove negatives time after time. We are not heartless. We do not want granny to die…many of us are grannies and grampies. For example the public monopoly in education has been a dismal failure, and has largely been controlled by the teachers’ unions and the leftist agenda for half a century. Yet whenever a small government constitutionalist would remind the people that education is not an enumerated power for the federal government, she or he would be ostracized as “anti-children” or as one in favor of ignorance. Although the data supported the notion that many schools were under performing and college entrance exam scores were sinking, the discussion would be targeted on conservative’s lack of concern for children rather than on the abysmal performance of many, particularly urban, schools.
Even when writing my daily columns, I fall into the trap of pessimism and defensive negativity. As a former college teacher, I envision my mission as one of education. My desire to inform my audience of issues and the underlying principles is my motivation. I do, however, slip into the critical mode rather frequently because of my long experience with politicians of all stripes and both parties who believe that constitutional government, individual freedom, and personal property rights are old fashioned concepts. I have been mystified for a long time about politicians’ failure to understand the basic appeal of limited government and personal freedom. Having served in the political realm, I can attest that many politicians are not intellectually gifted, nor are they conversant with principle. My sense is that most politicians prefer to roll with the flow, and while big government acolytes control the messages and the narratives, most political types lack the will or wisdom to change the dialogue of debate.
Thus, it is the patriot citizens who must change the discussion. When we become involved in the nuance of policies and programs, we lose because we will be arguing on the leftist and RINO turf. We must emphasize individual liberty and responsible, effective constitutional government at every opportunity. Merely speaking of smaller, less expensive government in the generic sense will not win the day. Our message, our approach should focus on the positive aspects of constitutional government and more individual liberty. Policies, programs, agencies, bureaus and laws do not matter if they do not conform to and respect the Constitution. When we are challenged by someone who states that we are woefully out of touch and behind the times, we should encourage our opponents to offer constitutional amendments and “let the people decide.” This turns their argument from our ‘regressive” attitudes toward their infatuation with democracy. We should never ask for “more freedom.” Our unalienable rights are absolute and dare not be doled out in tiny increments. If we firmly and graciously stand our ground for freedom, constitutional government and property rights, the challengers will be forced to defend their denial of those principles.
Property rights will be the most problematic because the moderate/lefty approach is to brand us as greedy people who seek to cling to our acquisitions. Perhaps the most effective counter measure may be to cite the “Kelo” decision whereby the Supreme Court ruled that people’s homes could be taken by eminent domain for corporate development. Whether big corporations or big government are guilty, the violation of property rights is harmful and hurtful…particularly when the damaged party is poor or a member of the “working class.” A positive defense may help us to turn the conversation from a defensive one to a logical offensive action
No comments:
Post a Comment