OF SOLICITATION for notions: what should we do with this thing — this groundswell of protest metonymized by the Tea Party movement?
And obvious warning is the old salesman’s axionomic acronym…
Acrylic acronym? Doncha mean acronymic axiom?
…Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).
Here’s mine: Make it an overarching principle of the movement that our goal is the recision of power from Washington.
I’m pretty sure that this as a primary goal will answer almost any concern that is in the least oriented toward liberty, as there is a well-demonstrated continuum of oppression (if you will), that shows the more power Washington wields, the less of our liberty (and money and property and opportunity) We the Little People retain. It would seem the equation is commutable, and that therefor, the less power there is to be found in DC, the more liberty, etc., WTLP can count on.
And, as a corollary, one might observe that the less power there is in DC, the less money, and therefor fewer opportunities for corruption to take root.
But I should point out that we (the liberty-oriented folk) on the Right have a dispositive argument on our side. WE. ARE. RIGHT. That is to say that the Constitution supports our brief and the Left’s program is in direct contravention of said document. What they want to do is forbidden by the rules.
Now, leftists will say — they think with some justification — that all that doesn’t matter. Exigencies are such that we must act now and to hell with the rules. There’s a name for that: situation ethics. Meanwhile, we of the Right understand that a principle that is hewed to only when convenient is no principle. Leftists love to quote the axiom that hard cases make bad law, but they really do ignore it at will.
This would make a water balloon of the law and man’s relations with society and the state. You fill a water balloon to less-than-rigid and you can squeeze it in your fingers. And the water will squeeze out everywhere you don’t squeeze. Push here, it comes out over there. Apply this to the law and the law makes no sense. There is nothing to rely upon, and all is chaos and madness.
Leftists will poo-poo this, saying we’re just sticks-in-the-mud, afraid of change. But they should be rocked back on their heels by this:
How do you know?
How do you know that a politician who makes a promise in a campaign will keep it? Not, will he deliver that chicken to your pot, or the car to your garage, but will he even act as though he’s trying?
What hold do you have on a politician that keeps him from treating you like a good girl who won’t put out twenty miles from town? What’s to stop him from throwing you out in the rain to make your way home as best you can, mascara streaming your cheeks half from rain, half from tears, your broken high-heeled dancing shoes dangling from slack hands by their straps, your dress torn, your bra half off under it?
He will, you know. They always do.
And, if a politician is so easy with the truth, how can you trust that the reason you support him will even come up in conversation? How do you know that YOUR pet project is on his radar screen?
You don’t, of course.
So why would you support a politician who not only lies to YOU, but it’s pretty well assured he’ll try to abridge yours and your neighbor’s liberty with no cause?
And, when you realize that pretty much every Democrat on the national stage fits the description just laid out, why would you ever vote Democrat again in your life?
And it all comes down to: Democrats despise the Constitution, see it as an obstacle on the field of play, rather than the field itself. Republicans, at least, pay lip-service to constitutional principles and can be held to account (most of the time) when they fail. Specter, Collins, Snow notwithstanding. They come from Democrat strongholds. Blame that on the poison of leftism, not on true republican virtue.
So, if you want to peel away support from a Democrat, ask his supporters — “How do you know?”
I invite those thoughtier and wordier than I to refine this concept. Please. We need it.
Cross-posted at Eternity Road