While I Don’t

NECESSARILY DISAGREE with this notion from Eric Voegelin (Found On the Right at American Digest)…

“If a government is nothing but representative in the constitutional sense, a representative ruler in the existential sense will sooner or later make an end of it; and quite possibly the new existential ruler will not be too representative in the constitutional sense.”

— Eric Voegelin

…I have long believed that a flaw — possibly a fatal flaw — in our system of government is that it leaves a power vacuum at the top. Not that the power is not there — I’m not sure you can entirely eliminate the potential of a vast governmental entity — but that (in theory, at least) nobody is allowed to use it.

But, if you know anything about human beings, that’s never stopped us before, I’m not sure it ever will.

Now, it appears that the corruption this vacuum works on the government is progressive (pun intended). That is, it doesn’t start out with a value of CORRUPT(.GOV)=11, but rather at a level of 1 or 2. But, as time goes on, the corruption sort of acts like glycosilation, or the accretion of calcium on a stalactite. You may get rid of one corrupt individual, who abused his office to get his hands on the forbidden power and to exercise it, but the thin film of tarnish he put there remains, to be increased by the next one, and so-forth.

So, while, no, the men in Federal office haven’t gotten more or less corrupt over the decades than they were at the Founding, the system has been progressively corrupted over time.

Until today, when the disconnect between the government and the governed observed by Voegelin seems almost complete.

And the citizens are faced with the prospect of ever-increasing encroachments on liberty, ever-more outrageous, coming faster and more furiously than ever before. And we throw up our hands and ask, “What can we do?”

I might suggest that, when we are electing new Representatives and Senators next fall, we make sure to let them know in no uncertain terms that we not only want this juggernaut stopped dead in its tracks, we want its predecessors rolled back. Not just “No more!”, but “REPEAL!”

When Hillary Clinton shrilled that the Right wants to “roll back a century of progress,” my response was, “Damned right we do! Only: you’ve mis-identified the culprit. It’s not just the Right, it’s the whole American people!”


This realization makes me dubious when I hear the “Do you really want to die on this hill?” advice from the Pick Your Fights crowds (as ably voiced here by Og). I’m not sufficiently confident to deny outright the concept of a strategic withdrawal, but there is something in me that wants to — at the very least — give the enemy so big a bloody nose as to A) make him reluctant to try that again anytime soon, and 2) make it easier (one hopes) to roll back whatever gains he may have made at a later date to be announced …
er… later.

When the enemy lives and dies by incrementalism, giving him incremental victories gives him, well, victories.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *