Saturday, April 17, 2010

Which is really the third party?

On the whole, the present spectacle of GOP floundering confirms the view that the two parties are simply two legs of the same body. As one steps forward, the other steps back. But both are moving toward the same end, which is to overturn the sovereignty of the people. For the moment the people still retain what appears to be the decisive role in deciding what individuals actually occupy the seats of government power. So both parties must clothe themselves in language that appeals to the overriding passion of the people, which is the passion for equality.

At one time, both professed to accept the premise of the American founding that equality is the imperative of natural justice, as determined by the will of the Creator God. This translates the passion for equality into a reasonable demand for equal justice.  Obviously, equal justice cannot be achieved by disregarding the requirements of justice, which include respect for both the God given rights of individuals and the right of the people to government based on the consent of the governed. Therefore neither political party openly advocated the notion, commonly associated with socialist regimes and communist party dictatorships, that the ends justify the means. But the Democrats tended to define equal justice in terms of material goods and outcomes. The Republicans defined it in terms of equal rights and opportunity.

Unfortunately, throughout the twentieth century forces worked in the United States to destroy allegiance to the basic tenets of the American founding. They aimed especially to invalidate the idea that the authority of God is the basis for individual rights as well as the right of the people to self-government. The Democrat leadership first and most openly committed itself to this work. Over time they advanced it far enough to cow or convert key elements of the GOP leadership, until both acted with the tacit understanding that politics should be redefined to exclude any and all references to moral standards derived from what the American founders recognized as "the laws of nature and of nature's God." This meant first neglecting and then openly rejecting the premises of the American Declaration of Independence. But without these premises, concern for doing things justly gives way to an obsession with material outcomes. Political issues are redefined in terms of the standard measure of material outcomes, which is money. All that matters is how much or how little the government spends.

But this effectively means that the Republicans have simply surrendered to the Democrats' materialistic understanding of equality. After all, once the authority of the Creator has been discarded the goods defined in terms of that authority (like unalienable rights and political liberty) no longer make sense. Material goods are left as the only measure of equality. But the measurement can only be taken after the fact.  It provides no basis for making judgments about the means employed to produce the facts. In the absence of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" outcomes are all that matters.

Since justice is simply an outcome (not a standard or principle) there is no basis for the demand that the use of government power be limited by respect for rights as an element of justice. What's right is whatever contributes to the "right" outcome. But there's no way of deciding the right outcome except the command of superior power or force. However rhetorically disguised, this allows the reemergence of the age-old excuse for political injustice: "might makes right."

In every respect, from its premises to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution meant to implement the decent sovereignty of the people, America's democratic republic was intended to reject and decisively banish this excuse for evil. Yet now we have two entrenched political parties that embrace an understanding of politics that effectively contradicts this intention.

What can the American people do to defend their sovereignty? What are they willing to do? The Tea Party movement suggests that there is in fact a third party, a party of right and rights and liberty. In the sentiments and aspirations of the people, it is the majority party. But though it fights for and represents the assertion of the sovereignty of the people, the operation of the present entrenched two-party party system works to assure that the political position it ought to occupy is in the hands of a usurper that wears the label but no longer serves the purposes of the republican cause.

Given this situation, there is an ironic and almost mocking ambiguity in the name given to the grassroots movement that now embodies citizen protest against the so far successful elite drive to overturn the sovereignty of the people. In the historical context the Tea Party label harkens back to the Boston Tea Party and the colonial protest against Great Britain's refusal to work with and through the institutions of representative government Americans established for themselves during the colonial era. But today the NEA dominated government schools routinely give short shrift to the founding period. Apart from the ugly sexual innuendo the Obama faction puppet media has used to denigrate the movement, all the tea party appellation brings to mind for some people are Alice-in-Wonderland images of characters gathered for a diverting but otherwise purposeless ritual: all form and little if any substance.

This suggests that somewhere behind the original impulse that stirred the Tea Party gatherings there may have been a tactical ploy, intended (probably by Republican operatives) to rouse feeling for political purposes, but not as an authentic focus for truly representative political action. But the failure of the entrenched political duopoly has been egregious. Everyday new facts and episodes confirm that it is painfully at odds with the feelings and expectations of a large number of Americans. It is also responsible for the most precipitous overall decline in the nation's well being and prestige in our history. This has led to great grief and concern among the American people which in turn has fueled intense citizen activity that includes many people never before moved to be so politically active. They sense the passing of government of, by and for the people. They are not content to let it die without a fight.

America's constitutional system was set up precisely in order to provide them with effective means of restoring real representation to their legislatures and other political institutions. But the extra constitutional party duopoly has subverted the constitutional system.  In its stead there emerges a system of elite control that uses specious laws and regulations to hobble the citizens' free associations and organizations, destroy their funding mechanisms, and altogether to suppress their independence. In effect it reestablishes the regime of elite tyranny that dominated human societies until the United States became the first nation truly to implement the sovereignty of the whole people.

America's democratic republic came about because, by God's providence, people who were highly influential American leaders at the time followed the discipline of faith and reason to conclusions about justice that recognized the right of the people to govern themselves. What leaders will do so now? Whoever they are, they represent the leaders the Tea Party movement needs to lift up as its representatives if, as its name implies, it is to be a faithful reiteration of the fabled spirit of 1776.  Where will they be found?  One thing is certain: not among those touted by the "Great Mentioners" in the puppet media, or in any way served up by the "God is unmentionable" crowd in control of the present party system.

15 comments:

Geketa Holman said...

I agree with you Dr. Keyes but I also see a lot divison among those that are involved in the Tea Party movements across the country, so how can they become a third party when so many in this movement are divided and the diverseness of the individuals are so vast the only thing they all agree on is they are angry at the government. How does one bring them together ? I doubt anger would be a very good platform to form a third party.

Chiu said...

"The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

Dawg_em said...

I haven't done a comprehensive poll of Tea Party participants but one thing is certain. While recognizing our rights as having their origins in the Creator God Christians are the most tolerant of the politically active. Willing to accept those who profess no particular faith, the "live and let live" approach is not reciprocated. The 'faithless' view a religious awakening akin to a theocracy and those who espouse an active faith-life should somehow sit down and be quiet.

One has to wonder whether these folks are usurpers on the left the same way Palin and Dick Armey are on the right. While I can move forward to liberty alongside the non-religious it seems the tares want to eliminate the wheat whereas the wheat is willing to abide differences of opinion. The questions the extreme libertarians need to ask themselves is this: is the goal a return to a democratic republic based on the constitution, or is it more important to spar with the most tolerant and trusted members of our society?

They should not expect people of faith to hide their lamps under a bushel basket. If so, then they are no better than any other corrupt (ignorant?) citizen who does not respect the "free exercise" clause of our Bill of Rights. If that be the case then their claim to want the Constitution respected is bogus.

No two people will agree 100% of the time. Since I am asking no one to compromise their core beliefs in order to achieve political victory I certainly will not compromise when it comes to witnessing to the faith. An extreme form of compromise is what has brought Michael Steele to his 80-20 philosophy. Problem is, the 20% contains the core issues that form the basis for civilized society.

As a member of the so-called "religious right" I have compromized to the extent that I will not require anyone to be a professed Christian in order to work with them. If child sacrifice and sodomy are so very important to you that it is a "deal breaker" then good riddance. On the other hand, what small compromise (acceptance) will you make to stand stand side by side with me to return our country back to where we respect the separation of powers and the sovereignty of the American people?

Dawg_em said...

By the way Dr. Keyes, great speech at the Dayton Tea Party rally. I anticipated fire and was not disappointed.

IONU said...

How can the Tea Party rid itself of the "faux conservative" virus that infects it? Yes, we can foil RINO's such as Romney and Palin, but influential "conservative" commentators such as Limbaugh and Beck (RINO shills who deny any political affiliation) will be able to fool their target audience, the same rank and file silent American majority that populates the Tea Party, into supporting other, not so well-known RINO's.

We are battling much more than a political duopoly, we are battling an "Invisible Empire" (the title of Alex Jones' latest video)

see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E

WildReaganite said...

Now Beck and Limbaugh are RINOs because they do not affiliate with a political party? Both have gone on record saying they are conservative. So, they would not be Republican to begin with.

I know they do not focus on Pro-Life enough (Beck not at all, Rush does) but that makes them no less a Republican than Reagan; and none are in name only.

If it weren't for these two hosts, there would be no tea party at all. Think about that. Without Becks 9/12 Project and Protest that he organized, these tea parties would have fizzled. 1.6 million people excisted the nation. I was there & have not missed one since.

Without these two, Stimulus I and II, Omnibus and HCR would have been a lot worse than they already are.

"Divided we fall," Lincoln--another conservative.

I believe Dr Keyes is the TOP conservative in America and have thought so for 15 years. My comment is not directed at him in any way. But in response to some of the reader comments.

politicalape.com said...

Our Lord used parables for understanding, Our Lord would speak with pure simplicity. This simplicity was related in parables which defined innocence in the spoken word of human behavior.

"The tree is known by its fruit"

Patronization excluded, the words that are elucidated by you serve as a two edge sword imo. The words that are elucidated serve as legalese and cannot be refuted in prime mover.

In my perspective, I would suggest the parable/analogy method of motivating our brethren to reflection upon 'good deeds'. There is no doubt in mind that your analysis of thought is cogent with the will of Our Father and irrepressible by ID.

Thankyou for Upholding The Church!

Geketa Holman said...

Beck has become a libertarian in his views .. must have hung out with the Rand/Ron Paul crowd way too long. Here were I live in Kentucky the Tea party events have been completely over taken by the Rand Paul cult oh, I mean supporters .. every one looks like a Rand Paul rally.

IONU said...

Limbaugh and Beck (and many more, like Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin, Ingraham) are muzzled by their media bosses. Here is the litmus test: do they openly discuss Obama's eligibility, or do they make tangential references to it? Even SCOTUS, who could depose the imposter tomorrow, is part of the "Invisible Empire."

RINO, SchmINO I don't care what you call them or what they say they are, they are Tea Party interlopers, not progenitors.

IONU said...

hy·poc·ri·sy

From the Rush Limbaugh show:

RUSH: Next time you hear the tea party impugned, never forget this from 2003.

HILLARY (screeching ): I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, “WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”

Dawg_em said...

IONU, Good points, especially in your first post. Even Michael Savage is recognizing the policy of "agents provoceteur". Or 'false flag' criminal acts designed to elicit an emotional response from the masses. I once thought Limbaugh was a lost cause. May be, but he sometimes uses reason in his prognostications. Perhaps with some prodding (callers) he will come to recognize a powerful government is a criminal government.

I still maintain his 'litmus test' is his willingness to "dis" the establishment and support a true alternative to the status quo. If he refuses, it's confirmation he is bought and paid for. Like Hannity and Beck. (O'Reilly is a non-entity.)

BTW, I have not seen "Invisible Empire" but it doesn't take a genius to know there are forces outside of the US that manipulate and control the agenda. Exibit A: open borders. Exibit B: National Socialist deathcare; to name but 2.

Dawg_em said...

Geketa Holman,
Rand and Ron Paul would not have such a following if the "religious right" would quit being so lazy and self-absorbed. This radical shift to the "right" would not be possible if the GOP weren't so leftist. I call it the "Pendulum Effect". Dem and Dem-lite are destroying this country and so-called conservatives are compromisers. You know, the 'lesser of two evils' nonsense.

I don't see America becoming so libertarian that we will witness legalized prostitution in the streets. However, the path we are on now leads to national socialism. And I hate Nazis. If you must choose between the "lesser", choose between these two.

Dawg_em said...

Oh, Geketa Holman, I forgot to mention every Tea Party rally I attend looks like the GOP has usurped the cause. Not the attendees, mind you. Just the "leadership". The attendees want a return to constitutional government, something the GOP is ill-equipped to handle. I suspect you know what "to usurp" means, but if you have any doubt look up Obama in the New (Reconstituted) American Dictionary. I believe it's next to "unsavory"; 'those who would sell out their country for personal gain by ignoring the will of the people.'

Dawg_em said...

Glenn Beck did NOT start the Tea Party movement. He co-opted it with his 9/12 Project. Much like he co-opts other ideas so he can dismantle them. He is a CIA shill. Don't forget, he supports the bankster bailout. He supports higher taxes (to the banksters). The MSM, including Fox, are owned by corporatists. Fox is nominally different from the rest. They've found a niche. Or should I say a gullible segment of society. They can be trusted no more than you can trust MSNBC.

Chiu said...

"Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

I am aware that various commentators have said that the other way round might make more sense. I do not disagree, I have made the observation myself before. But the Lord of the Harvest is wiser than man. The tares shall be gathered first.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.