Charlie Kirk, MLK, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act

 

The renowned conservative leader, Charlie Kirk (may he rest in peace), said a lot of things during his all too short life. Much of what he said and argued was brilliant, but sometimes he said things that were unnecessarily controversial. One of those was when he discussed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was not that his thinking was completely wrong on this subject, but the way he brought it up clouded the issue and prevented the kind of mutual understanding the Mr. Kirk so often achieved. I would address it differently and probably get to a deeper understanding than he did.

When Charlie brought up the 1964 Civil Rights Act he started by saying it was a mistake, and then justified that stance by focusing on the essential wrongness of affirmative action. I would instead start by saying the Act was long overdue, and addressed some historical errors that had to be corrected, but that some other parts of the Act were wrongheaded.

First among those historical errors was the establishment of equal justice and rights before the law for Black Americans. Most folks don't realize or remember that prior to that Act, in many states, Black people were often denied not just the right to vote, but in addition, they could not serve on juries, could not testify in court against a White person, or bring suit against a White person. Those, and other, legal injustices had to be ended, and were rendered illegal by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Charlie Kirk was, however, partially correct about the second part of that act, what is called Affirmative Action, but then he didn't even mention what, in this writer's opinion, was the worst aspect of it, which was the accommodations mandates.

Going back to the 1960's, I was a young teenager when I first learned about affirmative action being proposed. I had never been involved in politics up until then, but I will always wish that I had gotten involved on that issue. From the first, I was uncomfortable with affirmative action, which was going to give preference in hiring to Black folks in an attempt to make up for discrimination in hiring in years gone by.

While I was uncomfortable with, as I termed it, wading into the waters of the judgment day, I could see that making an exception in this case made good moral sense. Black folks had been denied opportunities which, in a truly free market, they would have had. So while starting into the process of conducting some kind of judgment day was, as I saw it, fraught with all kinds of pitfalls (which have come to pass), doing something to make up for past injustices to Black folks was too important to ignore.

So I came to the conclusion, back in '65 or so, that what we should do is to make it to where affirmative action lasted only one generation or so, just long enough to allow some Black professionals and workers to get a toe hold and a presence in many fields formerly closed to them. I figured a definite sunset on the programs, after twenty, or even thirty years would be fair, and prevent us going down the path of the judgment day.

Like I said, I wish I would have spoken up about this back then, because now we are more that sixty years into this mess, and lots more groups are involved than just Black folks. It HAS become a kind of secular judgment day, and the only group left out, the only group assigned the permanent role of scapegoat is White, heterosexual, conservative, Christian males. This dynamic promises to continue until the unfairness is undeniable, and then we will probably be fooled into another round of the same wrong headed policies. It seems we must allow the pendulum of injustice to swing to one extreme or the other, and no one has the sense to stop it in the fair middle.

The other wrongheaded aspect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, something that Charlie Kirk, to my knowledge, never addressed, was the accommodations mandates. These mandated that restaurants, motels and other public accommodations could no longer refuse to serve anyone, Black, White, or whatever. While, once again, this was dealing with a real problem, it did so by slyly taking an important aspect of a free society from us, which was the freedom of association. Over time, this squashing of the freedom of association has led to cake makers and florists being prosecuted for not wanting to create works honoring actions they find repugnant.

While the denial of public accommodations was a real problem, the way to deal with that was not by using government, but rather by employing the free market guided by moral vision. Denying the right of free association to the American people has served to divide us, to inflame old social wounds, and has not brought about the peaceful unity we all desire. As Martin Luther King once said, “”They can't make a law forcing you to love me, but they can make a law preventing you from lynching me.”. The accommodations aspect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was an attempt to force folks to love each other, and it DID NOT WORK.

We should have used a different method to deal with the problem. Something that has been forgotten about the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's is that the freedom riders, and other activist groups, did not operate only in the South. In the South they sat in at lunch counters and on buses as a way to change local and state Jim Crow laws. In the North there were no Jim Crow laws, but there were corporate and business policies enforcing segregation. In the North, activists sat in at lunch counters and the like, and worked successfully to change those corporate policies.

After Dr. Kings “I have a dream” speech, which started turning the hearts of White Americans toward racial justice, a national campaign to change corporate policy would have almost undoubtedly succeeded. I have long imagined some nice little motel, with picket fence and all, in 1965, with a “Whites Only” sign proudly displayed in the front of the parking lot. After some well run national campaigns calling all good hearted people to boycott one major motel chain after another, until they all, one by one, changed to accommodate Black folks, I can see in my mind that same little motel, in 1975, now run down, few customers and barely in business, going out and taking that “Whites Only” sign down.

In other words, that aspect of the Civil Rights act was deeply wrong headed, because it not only deprived we, the people, of our natural right of free association, but it prevented the cultural coming together that would, and should, have resulted from the change in heart that the Civil Rights Movement affected.

With freedom of association intact, White business owners would have been under soft but unrelenting social pressure to offer accommodations. Black folks would have been under similar pressure to be on their best behavior so as to confirm the sentiment that it was time to come together as a people. Instead, with freedom of association nullified, White business owners operated under resented legal demands, and Black folks often abused the situation, angrily threatening lawsuits anytime their eggs were not properly cooked, It might have felt like a moment of satisfying comeuppance, but it made things worse, not better.

In conclusion, I wish Charlie Kirk were still alive, so I could talk to him about this subject. Instead of starting off a conversation about the 1964 Civil Rights Act by saying it was a mistake (which he did), I would advise a different approach. Admit that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was long overdue, and that it restored some rights to Black people that had long been denied. However, parts of that Act were misconceived, and worked against the noble goals of the Act. Both the Affirmative Action, and the accommodations portions should have been rethought, and done in a better way. If we had done that, we would probably be much closer to MLK”s dream of the “beloved community” than we are today.

National Divorce Anyone ?

 

A national divorce, in some form or fashion, is once again burbling up in our national dialogue. Some talk of a blue state/ red state division, or more specifically, the coastal states and the interior states going their separate ways. Others present a breakdown by regions, with the plains, the mountains, Cascadia, Appalachia, the Great Lakes, and such divisions being proposed in some kind of national divorce.

This latest iteration of the idea, the regional divorce, caused me to remember something from years ago, which brought up this question. When considering how to divide the states, what makes people think that the individual states, once the division has taken place, will hold together as coherent political entities? They, or rather we, have not really done much governing of ourselves in our states for many decades. It is not like the world of 1787, when each state was well practiced in the art of self government.

These days, certainly since the 1960's, and more accurately going back to the 1930's (or earlier), most of the meaningful decisions about government have been made in Washington DC. Federal mandates and subsidies determine or greatly influence almost all policies. Without that guiding hand in DC, are we sure we will cohere as states?

Will the Valley in California want to be ruled by the coastal cities? The same or similar questions would come up in other states, such as Illinois, Colorado, or even such stalwarts as Kansas, Arizona, or Pennsylvania. Once we were each independent and sovereign nations, our trade, military, and foreign policies would be up for grabs, and who knows where they would end up, and who would be in charge.

We should be very careful here, because that spirit of succession, once it is loosed, can get completely out of hand, and what would there be to stop it? Even the old Confederacy was starting to break down before their defeat. Eastern Tennessee was moving to succeed from the Confederacy, as were parts of Louisiana.

No, before setting out on a course of national divorce, we should stop and think about where it might end, In fact, where it would probably end. It is unlikely to resemble the Velvet Revolution that marked the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, but rather it promises to be as bad, or worse, than the violent, war ravaged breakup of Yugoslavia.

Most importantly, some kind of national divorce is completely unnecessary. Those who call for one complain that we have become a nation that doesn't agree with itself on too many issues, especially the moral and cultural issues. We seem to exist in two (or more) different realities, red state and blue state.

The thing is, instead of divorce, the solution to these differences of opinions would be the simple and obvious move to return to our original plan of government. Return to having the level of state and local self government we previously enjoyed. In that way of doing things, going back at least to prior to the 1930's, or even all the way back to before corporations were declared to be persons in 1886, the states (and localities) had widely divergent moral and cultural styles.

That structure of government could handle all our cultural and moral differences without breaking a sweat. Accommodating and assimilating differences is exactly what it was designed to do. E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one; remember that?

Consider, as an analogy, the American flag. Those favoring a national divorce of some form or fashion imagine that they will be able to cut out a star or two from the flag, and hold on to it as their new nation. That, however, is not is what is likely to happen. If that flag starts unraveling, the unraveling will probably not stop with the stars still intact. Rather, the unraveling will likely continue until none of us has more that a single bare thread to hold onto, and that will be under constant threat from others. Or, what is also very likely, we would at some point suffer military invasion and conquest. Do you reckon that some international despot will suffer the continued healthy existence of a freedom loving people?

So before we blithely trip down the primrose path toward some kind of national divorce, we ought first to take a long hard look at where that path will lead us. That path will most likely lead us to destruction, despair, and much worse problems than we have now. What's more, if we would honestly look around, ridding ourselves of our blinding mutual hatred, we can see that a national breakup is not needed at all. The only thing we need is to revive our original way of doing things, return to the Constitution as written and amended, and we can then absorb all our cultural differences and remain a united, free and strong nation.

Are the Democrats Unfit to Govern?

 

Just prior to the '24 election, a friend asked my advice on who to vote for. I told her that the Republicans were the safer choice, because, as was shown in the Watergate scandal, they, or at least some of them, will break ranks when a vital principle is at stake. The Democrats never do that, and they wear it as a badge of honor. That is what makes them unfit to govern.

The latest kerfuffle around Jimmy Kimmel proves the point. Kimmel was suspended from his show for remarks that seemed to besmirch the memory of the recently murdered Charlie Kirk (RIP). What's more, it seemed like the Trump administration had exerted pressure to cause that suspension to happen.

Some Republican leaders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz among them, loudly objected to that kind of censorious pressure being applied by government. That old saying from Voltaire, that, “I might not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it?” It seems some Republicans actually mean that. Mr. Kimmel was shortly reinstated to his show.

The contrast with the Democrats could not be starker. Even though it has now come to light that many of the COVID restrictions, such as social distancing, and mask wearing, were of little to no use, the Democrats can still not find the voice to say so. More importantly, during the crisis, when it really could have counted, nary a whimper of objection was heard from that quarter.

It is not just about COVID or the latest crisis either. The Democrats seem to be under the mistaken impression that moving in lock step with each other at all times is a sign of political strength. So much so that during the last state of the union speech, they could not bring themselves to applaud a young man courageously facing terminal cancer. Not going to clap for that, not if a Republican, especially not if a MAGA Trump guy, brings it up.

This lock step mentality disqualifies the Democrats from governing for two reasons. First of all, at times like these, when they are in the minority, it causes them to unthinkingly scuttle any and every thing the Republicans try to do, even if it is a good and compassionate thing that is proposed.

For instance, with the rapidly changing situation regarding tariffs, some farmers are getting caught in the squeeze. Specifically, many farmers planted soybeans, but because of the tariff battle with China, the Chinese market for soybeans has collapsed. This is going to really hurt some farmers this year. Next year, if they are still in business, they can plant some other crop, or the Chinese market for soybeans might recover. Nonetheless, this year they could use some relief.

Given all that, it is likely that the Republican run congress will propose some short term relief for the affected farmers. Any such legislation will, however, be dead on arrival because the lock step Democrats will filibuster it in the Senate in the same way they lock step filibuster everything the Republicans propose. They remain in lock step, opposed to any Republican initiative, no matter how important, timely and compassionate it may be. That is why the Republicans had to go with the one big beautiful bill, since the extraordinary path of reconciliation was the only way to get anything past the automatic lock step filibuster the Democrats are dedicated to.

Secondly, when, and if, the Democrats ever get back in control, the situation will be much worse. It has come to light, via testimony from Mark Zuckerburg, that some agents from the FBI, (deep state operatives, since Trump was nominally in charge at that moment) pressured him to have Facebook censor any information about Hunter Biden's laptop just prior to the election in 2020. This is horrendous, 1984 kind of stuff, and yet the Democrats are remarkably silent about it. As though the threat of a king or dictator is serious only if it comes from the political right.

This has to be seen as in addition to them ignoring, at the time, the possibility that COVID grew out of our own (or at least Dr. Fauci's) misbegotten research in to gain of function. Likewise, it seems to have escaped the notice of the Democrats that the so called COVID vaccine might have caused more medical problems than it solved.

In all of that, the lock step mindset of the Democrats looms, in the minds of thinking people, as a great threat. Some will respond that we were in a crisis, so some excess in the name of unity can be forgiven. But “crisis” is always the battle cry of emerging dictators. It is at the moment of crisis that clear thinking, truth guided leadership is most needed.

It is in moments of crisis that the cries to censor “disinformation” will be the loudest. It is in times of crisis that the demands grow that the populace, for their own good, must obey the dictates of government without thinking. It is in times of dire crisis that marching in lock step (which the Democrats pretend is such a strength) becomes the most likely path to tyranny and dictatorship.

That is why this current generation of Democrats, with their lock step mode of thinking, are unfit to govern. We should keep them from real power unless and until they change their thinking.

Liberate Hemp to Revive Small Farms

 

I recently had an epiphany about all the anti marijuana hysteria we are being bombarded with lately. We have all heard the arguments. The smell permeating the air in legal states, the dangerous potency of modern strains, and all that. There might be some validity to those points, but it mostly smells like phony hysteria. Try living downwind from a feed lot, or a sewer works, or a freeway, or just on a typical downtown street. Lots of objectionable smells and fumes there, and yet no one wants to hear about it, or base policies on it..

I bought my first hemp t-shirt the other day and, unexpectedly, it launched an episode of eye opening revelations. I was surprised at what a superior cloth it is compared to the cotton or polyester shirts I am used to. It just feels better. More solid, less sweaty, and all the other things it was advertised to be. So much so that I have started to consider investing in small scale hemp cloth production.

As I consider investing in hemp cloth, some real social benefits of hemp come to mind. First of all, it could produce a lot of jobs, whether in cloth production, paper production, or a myriad of other products. That is in addition to the jobs on the farms that grow it. Most of the jobs, and money, would stay in the local region, and certainly stay in the national economy.

Another benefit would be that it could be grown in small batches by small farmers. That is if hemp were not so tightly regulated (which makes it both risky to grow, and prohibitively expensive). However, with those severe regulations, and the high cost of getting a federal license to grow it, that happy dynamic of small farm cultivation is not likely to get traction. With all the federal regulation it is rendered into just another crop that will be economically viable only when grown in large plots on mono culture agri business “farms.” So the dream of a small scale hemp facility operating in close cooperation with local small farmers will remain just that; a dream, until the reefer madness hysteria around cannabis is overcome.

The big ramification of the anti cannabis hysteria is the THC content allowed in hemp plants. It has to be no more than .3%, and that has to be measured by dry weight, with the tested sample coming from the flowering top of the plant.

To put this in context, top shelf cannabis, sold out of dispensaries in states where it is legal, tests out at between 25-30%. Low end flowers and what is known as popcorn tests out at 10-15%. There is almost no market for anything less than 5%. So .3% is a ridiculously minuscule standard, far less than just one tenth the potency of anything of marketable quality.

What's more, farmers who have tried to raise a compliant hemp crop find that the THC level peaks just at the end of the season. If, just before harvest, (when it must be tested) it goes over that standard, the crop must be destroyed in an expensive process. The upshot is that few farmers will take the risk. So those who would set up hemp processing plants are likewise put under an artificially risky government regimen, with undependable supply lines, and thus are also not likely to enter into the business.

Over the years, “deep thinking” pot heads have conjectured that it was the tobacco and alcohol industries that worked so hard to keep pot illegal, to eliminate that form of competition. Other, even “deeper” thinkers speculated that it was the cotton and lumber interests who were using anti cannabis hysteria to keep hemp from competing with their products.

All of that thinking seems conspiratorial and suspect, because those concerns are run by hard headed business people. Business will, if there is profit to be made in some alternative to their product, usually put some of their eggs in that competitive basket. Tobacco and alcohol producers could, and probably do, buy marijuana farms. Lumber and cotton growers could also invest in hemp production, and would be hyper-aware of any emerging stream of profit.

Leaving those pot induced brain storms behind, there still must be some reason behind the reefer madness hysteria, and that reason does seem to be directly tied to preventing a free market for hemp. It is asserted here the reason is that the quasi prohibition of hemp is a wicked, long term attack on the small, self sufficient family farm.

For someone with a small, self sufficient, farm the traditional practice was to grow most, if not all, of the food for your own consumption, and then sell any excess. It is a feasible plan in most places, but what is needed to make the plan work is a dependable cash crop so that cash needs of the otherwise self sufficient farm can be met.

Hemp was always that dependable cash crop. It is extremely drought resistant, and when it was legal, there was always a ready market for the crop, because paper gets used up, and clothes wear out. In many ways, legal hemp was an economic pillar of the small family farm. It truly appears that ginning up this anti marijuana hysteria has always had the nefarious purpose of making small, self sufficient, sustainable family farms not economically viable.

Which contributes to making healthy rural communities not viable. Combine that with federal farm price subsidies, which drive up the cost of land by making farming less risky for corporations, and the decline of the family farm and rural communities seems inevitable, if not intentional.

All of this seems to have had the goal, long since accomplished, of literally changing the American landscape. The mass of the people have been driven into the cities, making almost everyone dependent on corporate controlled food supplies. Much of that food is artificially unhealthy, which also drives the people into dependence on the dubious blessings of the petroleum based medicines produced by the big pharmaceutical companies. All of this is very bad for the health, of both the people and the natural environment.

We need to rethink this whole system, and we should start by rethinking hemp. Stop allowing the truly hysterical voices opposing marijuana to bamboozle us into effectively prohibiting the cultivation of hemp. Liberating hemp can be a vital first step in re-invigorating the small family farms and rural communities of America.

MAGA Red Wave in '26 and Housing

 

My last post explored the possibility of, instead of just eking out a win, or more probably eking out a loss, in the 26 midterms, MAGA riding a red wave to a permanent cultural shift if we handle the illegal immigration mess with a hard headed, justice tempered with mercy, approach. Similarly, housing is another challenging issue which MAGA could convert into a culture shifting red wave if we could rid ourselves of the fear the establishment Republicans use to blind us to our own best interests.

Wall Street is basically bamboozling Main Street on this because the middle class concern about the housing market is all about preserving property values. That middle class obsession with property values is not only misplaced, but it puts many of the good people of this country on the side of wickedness.

Many of the working people, the middle class, have a large share of their wealth tied up in the value of their property. Because of that, many are scared that if truly low cost housing was allowed, via a truly free market, that the equity in their house might decline, and therefore their wealth,(their old age savings) might be lost, or diminished. So the middle class can be counted on to defend strict, value enhancing, zoning laws. This, even though such laws create homelessness by preventing low cost housing from being built. The moral blindness that drives this thinking doesn't make these middle class folks exactly wicked, but it does make them complicit in wickedness.

The thing these “good” people don't see, their blind spot, is that the real value of their house won't be diminished by allowing more low cost housing to be built. Just as in the case of a growing economy, when it is said a rising tide lifts all boats, so a lowering tide will lower all boats. What that means, in this context, is that the real wealth, not the monetary wealth, of middle class housing won't really decline if more low cost housing is built.

By way of explanation, let's be real here. Most of us will live in our house until we either die, or we move into a nursing home. If, when we die and pass that property on to our heirs, it will be worth just as much housing as it is today, even if the monetary value of all housing has declined. So the heirs will be able to use it as housing, or transfer the equity to other housing, at just about the same rates as today.

The same holds true if one must convert that wealth into x number of months in a nursing home (with the government taking over the costs when that equity is expired). The folks working in those nursing homes will be living in housing that is less expensive if the market has declined, and so the number of months (x) that old house will pay for in a nursing home will be about the same.

Ont the other hand, the real bad actors in this scenario, the investors, the developers, and the bankers might lose a great deal of real wealth if the housing market was more free and fair. Since they expect to convert their property wealth in to monetary wealth, a free and fair housing market, with declining monetary value, will probably cut into their vast wealth. Stop and consider the depth of wickedness they are engaged in here, and that they scare the middle class into supporting.

In the name of propping up property values, they move heaven and earth (and zoning boards) to prevent the building of almost all low cost housing. To do so, they enlist the previously mentioned middle class, who happily carry this wicked water. Then we have a situation more cruel and barbaric than the most barbarous cultures in history. The poorest of the poor are denied the God given right to erect the most basic structure to get out of the elements.

“Oh no,” we are pompously informed ,”we can't allow people to live like that.” Meaning, we can't let them build the most efficient housing they can with the materials nature and God provide. Instead, we force them to live in tents, or sleep on urine and feces encrusted sidewalks in the most crime ridden areas of our major cities. How terribly compassionate of us.

If any low cost housing is built, it is way overpriced, owned by the government, and rented out to only the depressed and despairing. Then it is used to micro manage their lives for as long as they will put up with the micro management.

What's more, this greed driven squelching of a free housing market has profoundly negative effects on the morality of our nation. The nearly impossible price of home ownership has driven most young people out of the market. That has resulted in a steeply declining marriage and birth rate as responsible young people put off starting a family until it is affordable. This situation is a dire long term threat to our civilization.

Even further, since young people still have the same sexual drives as previous generations, the seeming impossibility of achieving a stable family life has caused the dubious allure of various forms of sexual deviance, from heterosexual fornication on down, seem reasonable. Thus much, if not most, of the sexual deviance afflicting modern American society can be traced to the greed of property developers, and the middle class dupes that help them.

These days, a lot of well meaning people hoping for a moral revival will quote II Chronicles 7:14

“if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

While some few do take this sincerely to heart and try to refrain from some abiding sin, most are more focused on the wicked ways of the other fellow, including the aforementioned sexual deviance. Certainly, the wickedness of their own obsession with property values escapes their notice, and yet that, on closer inspection, is probably the very thing God is referring to, and wants us to turn from.

It would be relatively easy to change things (God willing), and it wouldn't take any big government subsidies. Just lighten up on some zoning laws, and maybe make some long needed modifications to how we allow land to be owned.

What I am referring to here is a concept I have long advocated, called micro incremental housing. Allow people, usually young people, to buy, not rent, micro plots of land, as small as 5' x8'. And then allow them to build, or have built, extremely small, but expandable domiciles on the plot of land.

With this concept, the house, and land could start very small, but by design be expandable in micro increments, as the probably low paid worker could afford it. That way, a person just getting out of school, even high school, could afford to get started in a house, which they would own and be secure in. In the course of just a few years of regular work and frugal living, they could own a small, two bedroom, two story house.

Any number of building technologies could be used for this, from hay bales, to used tires, to (as I read about) a guy in South America designed a system of adult sized lego style building blocks made from recycled plastic grocery bags. Human ingenuity is the only limit to what new uses of our high tech capabilities (3d printing) could be creatively used in this effort. The only real barrier to overcome is the wicked fear that prevents us from allowing the poor to be free economically.

As said, it won't take government involvement. No socialism needed. Just some good hearted land owners, or some visionary churches or civic organizations, offering the land for sale, by the square foot, for what it typically costs to buy agricultural land. And the original sellers will get that money back when the new owners buy the plots reserved for them.

Yes, in the name of sanitation and health, there will be some zoning required, and some water needed. While that might be a problem, in the face of agri-business use of that water for irrigation at the rate of thousands of gallons an hour, it is reasonable to assert that humans in houses should be a somewhat higher priority..

As in the case of solving the illegal immigration mess, I don't want this blog to sound like a dire warning about what will happen if folks don't listen to my ideas. Rather, think about how much this will benefit us if we would actually do it. Think of the benefits that might accrue to our society if we could do this good thing.

The young could plan on owning their own homes, at a young enough age that they can start families at a young age, as God intended. Marriage and child bearing (family formation) would increase, probably accompanied by a proportional decrease in sexual deviance. On a different note, since low paid workers could live, in these low cost houses, on a much lower wage, we would probably be able to attract manufacturing jobs back to these shores. Our workers could live on a wage that would be competitive on the world market.

Combined with tariff and immigration reforms, our economy might get to humming so well that we would want to attenuate it so as to not drive other nations into bankruptcy. That would be a nice problem to have.

All of which brings us full circle back to the mid term elections of 2026. If MAGA could do this, break the thrall that the establishment, country club Republicans have over the party by freeing the housing market, it would benefit us greatly at the ballot box. Sincerely working to break the logjam in low cost housing will attract young voters (MAGA's worst demographic) in droves. Doing it without resort to big government socialism will keep the economic conservatives on board. The only losers would be the ultra wealthy establishment, and who will they turn to? Communists like Mamdani?

To sum up, solving the housing crisis with freedom, like solving the immigration mess with compassion, could both be factors in a MAGA red wave in 26.

Happy (Constitutional) 4th of July

 

With the 4^th of July once again upon us, it is time to put some finishing touches to the reasons to support and revive our Constitution. Coherent thought is long overdue on this subject. In fact, much of our current social breakdown is a result of many folks gravitating toward the numerous half thought out alternatives to our constitutional republic that are being advocated these days.

First of all, many say that our Constitution should be dismissed out of hand; that it was written by a bunch of White male plutocrats to entrench themselves in power. Like all effective lies, there is some truth to this charge, but it is just a half truth. Yes, the founders were White men, and many, but not all, of them were wealthy. In fact though, many of them died penniless.

More importantly, this particular group of plutocrats were caught in a unique set of historical circumstances. This unique set of circumstances impelled them to produce a system of government which served the people far better than any previous system of government ever had. In fact it probably ended up being better for the masses, especially with the addition of the Bill of Rights, than many of the plutocrats probably wanted. Certainly, within ten years, one of the founders, John Adams, was working to defy First Amendment limitations.

In 1787 the Articles of Confederation were falling apart. That was our original constitution, our original basis of government, that had been slapped together during the crisis of war,. That system of government was failing, and we looked likely to slip into 13 different nations, or at best two or three competing nations. It looked as though the newly born nation was going to fall into disunity, and thereby be easy pickings for the powers of Europe (especially Great Britain) to swoop back in and, one by one, dominate the states,. If that happened, those “plutocrats”, our founders, knew that their lives would be shortened, and probably end swinging on a hangman's noose.

So this group of well educated men knew that their only real hope for survival lay in establishing a system of government that could hold all the states together as the United States. Their problem was further complicated because they knew that the people of this new nation were restive, skeptical of bad government, and that they were the most well read and politically astute populace in the world.

So the founders were motivated to apply all their learning and creativity about government, and put together a structure that appealed to the masses, and yet could last over time. They gave us republic, if we can keep it, which has sustained for nearly 250 years.

While our republic has sustained for a couple centuries, it isn't really thriving today. To most of us, it appears to be circling the drain, showing the classic symptoms of the last stages of a declining republic with widespread corruption, forever wars, and poisonous bread and circuses for the apathetic masses.

To fix this mess some propose a new constitutional convention, or at least an Article Five convention to fix this one. Such folks neglect to notice that this is not the same political moment the founders faced in 1787. Those involved in said convention will not have the same motivations as those men did. Sadly, the most likely outcome of some convention for enacting new amendments will probably resemble the latest Democrat or Republican conventions, loaded with corruption and producing the sly tools of entrenched oligarchs.

Most of the utopian schemes of government that are currently advocated by many folks fall to pieces when they come up against those same rocks of real world political opposition. Any scheme or plan will have to be implemented in defiance of a world wide oligarchy that seems intent on controlling everyone.

Socialism (or communism) anyone? That perennially sounds good, with the idea of “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” The unsolvable problem with communism is that in the real world the bureaucracy empowered to determine who should give and receive becomes the seat of elitist power. It is then indistinguishable from fascism and folds easily into the control of that same international oligarchy.

Libertarianism sounds good, with the idea that total economic freedom will bring about socially meaningful freedom for all. However, for that to work we must have a much higher level of social consciousness than is in evidence today. Without that heightened moral thinking, a libertarian society is likely to quickly devolve into a neo-feudal corporatism, which would also, in our modern world, be indistinguishable from fascism, and be easily folded into the international oligarchy.

Anarchy, the idea that we should live without any government, has herds of fans in this era. Mostly though, we should notice that the biggest fans are the kind of strong armed thugs, and their henchmen, who would just love to not have any organized resistance to their having free rein over everyone else. Another strong constituency of anarchy seems to be elderly folks with government pensions. More on that in a bit.

Once again, a much more elevated moral thinking, on the part of the vast majority of people, would be necessary for anarchy to not fall into chaos. When it does inevitably fall into chaos it will in turn result in the masses clamoring for the international oligarchy to come in and save them.

Another approach, advocated by some very well meaning folks, is the call to a community based society. This idea actually underlies all the other ideas. It arouses strong emotion because the diminishment of community, of the spirit of community, is the leading cause and symptom of our declining republic.

Almost all of us have long yearned for a more sincere and nurturing connection with community. Unfortunately, it seems that the oligarchy knows this about us, and is constantly abusing our striving for community, monetizing it through entertainments, and weaponizing it via religious and political movements. Can you say “cult?” Jonestown and the Branch Davidians are two prominent examples of historic cults and their risks. There are thousands of others.

Even where modern informal community seems to work, where nominal anarchy is observed, it is often facilitated by elderly or disabled members who receive government funding. Without that subsidy, one wonders if such communities will sustain for long, and if they do; if they will continue to have absolutely no government. Frankly, I doubt it but wish them well, and plan on copying them to the degree they discover an approach that works.

Make no mistake, a lot of these ideas actually make some sense, and should be given a fair chance to work. But of course, no matter the idea it stands little chance of making it past our oligarchic masters. That is a truth we simply must acknowledge. Anything that might be done along any of those lines will in reality only be “allowed” by them, so participants will never be more than kept pets. Kind of museum pieces, like some of those “off limits” islands in the Indian Ocean.

If anything starts growing that might actually threaten the ruling status of the oligarchy, it will be systematically eradicated like weeds in a modern corn field. The oligarchy is into mono-cultural agribusiness, and is allergic to self sufficient small farms. Consequently, it is obviously certain that that is the mode in which they intend to farm the human race.

The upshot is that the only way any of our modern revolutionary ideas will be truly established is if we regain control of our own government first. That is the reason the only real play that we, the people, have is to first revive our original Constitution.

It is just as feasible a concept of government as any of the others currently on offer, and it has the advantage that we might actually, if courageous and creative enough, establish it over the opposition of the oligarchy. . This form of political revolution is uniquely achievable because it is based on a conservative return to our liberal Constitution. Kind of going back to the future. That happy coincidence of social forces has historically been America's bedrock advantage, and has always proven to be an unbeatable combination.

The ultimate point to consider, when talking with hopeful revolutionaries, is that when we revive a true use of our Constitution, we will have a form of government within which all the other ideas about government can be tried and proved. We could all organize ourselves, and move to communities of agreement, and freely live out the utopian vision we each believe in. We will be able to learn from our own experiences, and the experiences of other communities as we all struggle to once again take on the powers and duties of free self government.

When we are free, in our own communities, to live out our idealistic visions, we will still be enveloped by a system of checks and balances, preventing the worst of extremist thinking from becoming oppressive on the local (or state) level. As I read it, our national system is idealistically supposed to be a germination bed for LCMSG. Instead of ignoring and squandering that glorious heritage, we should embrace and improve on it. Especially so since, with a long view of our history, we can see that the original American experiment was a raging success.

Where local community was truly empowered, a republican spirit thrived in the hearts of the American people. Regrettably, that didn't really happen in some places, but the aroused citizenry that grew in many communities nationwide is the only true greatness America ever displayed. That citizenry, remaining aroused for generations, grew enterprise and innovation like mushrooms after a rainstorm, and lived out a spirit of political reform the world has never before known. Eighty years after our experiment began, we had become a nation with millions of people who were willing to fight, die, and even kill to abolish legal slavery. Quite the elevation of morality in a very short time.

LCMSG is an architecture of government that tends to produce a citizenry infused with a reform minded republican spirit, and very importantly, no other system of government does that. But let it be quickly added that the United States of America is not the only place with that form of government. A number of other countries have it. Such as Finland, Switzerland, and etc., and in some of them it is working quite well because the people are working their system as designed. Which is what we should do.

The abiding blessing of Local Community Moral Self Government (LCMSG) is that in that structure human beings tend to develop an elevating moral consciousness. Being compelled to wrestle with real decisions about how we govern ourselves tends to motivate individuals to become better people. That is because they then witness how socially harmful immoral behavior is.

Even if that experience doesn't cause folks to change religions, it will tend to impel them to initiate laws and customs designed to get their ideals functioning. Individuals will then tend to be sincere about trying to make their local system work effectively, because they will have a voice in forming that system. They will all (for the most part), that is to say, we will all, become much more morally minded, at least in the light of local moral thinking. That effect, in the long term, will tend to transform us, as a people, into a nation which can make those utopian ideals work. This is the way to evolve toward that enlightened universal mindset our spiritual instincts call us to.

That is why we should all commit to reviving the Constitution of the United States of America..

Happy 4^th of July.

Respect or Consideration

 

There was recently a well publicized case where one high school student stabbed another student to death in Frisco, TX. The stabber let it be known that the victim had “dis-respected” him, and therefore, in the stabber's mind, the victim had it coming. The sickening tragedy of this case sheds light on a much deeper problem afflicting our culture, which can be boiled down to love versus pride.

Pride is a mind set the world encourages us to have. We are told to be proud of our nation, our state, our sports teams, our community, and above all ourselves. With pride in our hearts, the next thing is to demand respect, the kind of respect that confirms our pride in ourselves. Then anyone who disrespects us must be forced to pay the price; to in some way acknowledge that our pride is justified.

Love, on the other hand, (at least the kind of love the bible defines) is something that is not focused on ourselves, but is instead focused on uplifting others. With love, at least in Christ, our own identity is grounded in God, so we can give of ourselves to others. Instead of demanding respect from others, or even just respecting those we consider deserve it, we can love even those we don't respect. In that perspective, the opposite of respect is the long neglected virtue of consideration. Actually considering the status and situation of the other person.

Jesus gave an unexpected response along these lines when the lawyer (Luke 10:29) asked him (as a way to dodge the obligation to love his neighbor) “Who is my neighbor?” It is clear the man was looking for ways to eliminate people who did not qualify to be loved, people he did not have to respect.

Jesus ignored the baiting question, and instead told the parable of the good Samaritan, which ended with him asking, “Who was a neighbor to the victim?” The obvious answer is that it was the good Samaritan, the one who showed loving consideration to the victim. With that parable Jesus flipped the script, revealing that, at least for those who claim to follow God, it is not a question of how we can rationalize our selfish pride, but do we see the wonderful opportunity we have to live out the will of our heavenly Father?

So it seems we must somehow renounce the worldly values, the two sided coin of pride and respect. If we want, that is, to grow out of the ongoing near riot and mayhem our culture is drifting into. We must instead pick up the two sided spiritual coin of love and consideration, and by wielding it effectively, we might slowly bring our culture back to sanity.

One word should be added about the long neglected virtue of consideration. Most folks will agree that we should love one another, and that consideration is part of that. But it must be emphasized that it is not just being sincere about offering loving consideration to others that is key. Consideration becomes truly alive, and a divine tool, when it is done in a thorough, deeply thoughtful and prayerful way. You know, like the deep and intense way we each consider our own needs. When we make that kind of considerate effort toward others, we are truly loving our neighbor as ourselves. Which is not just a good idea, it is the law.

2 B Honestly Constitutional

 

The mind boggling thing about our vicious national division is that people on both sides claim total devotion to our national Constitution, but that nearly unanimous (supposed) devotion has not, so far, led us to national unity. The fact that this nation of 350 million people can be split because we can't agree about what a six page document means is, indeed, mind boggling and hard to understand. In trying to understand it, we are driven to the conclusion that one side, or the other (or likely both) is not reading our founding document in an honest way.

By identifying one or two of the mistakes folks make in their reading of it, we might hope to move toward uniting America. Further, by conducting an honest examination of our misuse of our founding document, we will undoubtedly help educate ourselves, as a people, in how to properly embrace and use the Constitution we all claim to love.

One of the biggest issues we disagree with each other about is the functions and activities of the federal government. Many argue that the federal government has, over the decades, taken (usurped is the word) many of the powers and responsibilities of government from our state and local governments. Things like education, medical care, welfare, elderly care, drug laws, farm policy, and even such sacred cows as national forests and parks don't seem to have any proper constitutional basis to exist as federal agencies.

Folks on that side of the debate will point to the Tenth Amendment, with it's language that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the federal government is limited to engaging in things the Constitution empowers it to engage in. Since those listed issues, and many other powers now exercised by the federal government, were never properly delegated to it (which would require a new constitutional amendment to affect), those programs are unconstitutional. It is assumed in their argument that our Constitution was always intended to give us a limited federal government.

Those on the other side of this argument will bring up what they call the “supremacy clause” which is included in Article VI in the main body of the Constitution. It reads, in the second paragraph, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Those folks who are in favor of the federal government involving itself in anything it pleases point to this paragraph and say, “See, there it is, federal law is supreme over state law.” This is one of the misreadings that we set out to identify, so let's take a closer look at their position. Theirs is a two fold misreading of the Constitution, based on ignoring one important word. That word is “Pursuance.”

Let's introduce an analogy to explain. Pretend you are watching an automobile chase scene, cops pursuing robbers, in a movie or real life. When the criminals, hoping to elude capture, take a right turn at an intersection, and then the police cars come along and take a left turn at the same intersection, would you say the police cars are still pursuing the criminals? No, of course not.

The word “pursuance” means going in the same direction, or in the sense of a legal meaning, going in an agreeing direction, or even being in compliance with. In other words, when it is used, in Article VI, the founders intended that it limit the actions of the federal government to those things the Constitution empowered it to be involved in. They intended to found a constitutionally limited republic, which is how we should understand it. What's more, they capitalized those words which they intended to carry precise, and profound meaning, such as Law, and State. This faithful to the original quote shows that they intended “Pursuance” to carry extra weight when we interpret the document.

Those who still want the Constitution to say what it doesn't say will likely continue to gloss over that one word,(it IS slightly difficult to understand) and still argue for an unlimited federal government. They will usually then assert that since Article VI is in the main body, and the Tenth Amendment is merely an amendment, it should take precedence.

They could not be more mistaken. Here I must insert some special knowledge, gained by independent research. Years ago, while investigating the wording of the First Amendment, I was reading through the “Congressional Record” from September of 1789. (Very interesting reading in general: there are found the debates in Congress after Madison introduced the “Bill of Rights“).

I stumbled upon the first reaction to the idea of the Tenth Amendment. One of the members objected that the subject of limiting the federal government was already covered in Article VI, so why was there a need for another such limitation? Others responded that the language in Article VI was too sparse, and that some folks might later misread it, and thus we needed further clarification. That, as subsequent policies proved, was a reasonable concern.

The Tenth Amendment was ultimately adopted, so we know how that debate ended. We also know that the 10^th wasn't intended to contradict Article VI, but rather to clarify it. And the 10^th came later, which would actually give it precedence if there WAS a conflict between the two.

That approach, simply ensuring we take every word seriously, ought to settle much of the division around our Constitution, providing us a way to move froward with it together. Sadly, that is not likely to happen, because the fall back position of those who want a powerful, unlimited federal government is to then assert that the Constitution is a “living document.” By that term they mean that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. So since the Supreme Court has never ruled, at least since 1937, that the Tenth Amendment limits the range of federal powers, then those limitations, although actually written in the document, no longer apply.

This issue, of who interprets the Constitution, has been around since at least the time of Thomas Jefferson. Since that power largely has to fall, in the interest of orderly government, to the Supreme Court, the question becomes how far we should let them drift from the original meaning in their reading of it.

Abraham Lincoln, who had been incensed by the Court's ruling in the Dred Scott decision, said this at his First inauguration, in front of Chief Justice Taney who had written that odious and racist decision.

”The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

With that quote in mind, let's conclude with two key points about how we, the people, should embrace our Constitution, and how that approach might lead us back to unity. While we must usually accept the constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court, we should always remember that they can and do get it wrong on occasion.

So first and foremost, we should familiarize ourselves with the Constitution, understanding what it actually means, and then behold how far we have strayed from it (To our great peril). Getting back to an honest use of it will take a great deal of effort, but we should be grateful that somehow, miraculously, such a revival is still within the realm of possibility. With that understanding, and the conviction that we should return to a strict originalist reading as much and as soon as possible, we as a people will be able to put effective pressure on the Court to read it as honestly as possible.

Secondly, for all of us who have to take an oath to the Constitution, from enlisted military personnel, to local and state officials, to presidents, and senators: ask yourself one question. Are you taking an oath to defend the Constitution, or are you taking an oath to defend the Supreme Court? If you want to pretend that they are the same thing, then you should read some more history, from Dred Scott, to Plessey v Ferguson, to as recently as the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court has often shown itself to be imperfect. The Supreme Court of the United States, and the Constitution of the United States, are not synonymous.

So we must present ourselves with one last proposition. Since we all, as citizens, and as oath taking officials in particular, are actually the first and last line of defense of the Constitution, something almost all of us profess a reverence for; How can we, with any degree of integrity take an oath to defend it if we never even read it and certainly don't understand it. Or worse yet, if we are eager to allow it to be clownishly twisted into incoherence by the dubious doctrine that it is a “living “ document?

In other words, isn't it high time, and way past time, that we once again studied it for ourselves and thereby started overcoming the mediocre education we have been subjected to about it for decades? By doing this we can start using our sincere and mutual love of our Constitution to regain our unity and rebuild our nation. That will undoubtedly work better than what we've been doing, which is throwing it at each other as a meaningless, infuriating insult.

Time for Revolution

 

With the election of Donald Trump to his second term, many of us conservative, Constitution loving Americans are tempted to think we have finally won the day. We have but to sit back and let Trump and his administration, and the Republican dominated legislature, fix what ails our nation. Nothing could be further from the truth, because while Trump's election has given us a reprieve, our national decline is so extreme, and been going on so long, that what we really need is a revolution.

The dictionary informs us that a revolution is a rotating or turning around some other object, such as a planet has a revolution around the sun. It can also be used in regard to a machine cycling around, such as a car's engine can run at some revolutions per minute. That same sense of the word applies to political revolutions; it merely means a turning, from one government to another. It can be a turning from the entire system of government and attaining a new one, or it can be simply exchanging one leader for another, a non violent revolution.

Even with that harmless sounding definition, the idea of having a revolution is still very frightening. That fear of revolution is easy to understand because so many times of violence and war, calling themselves revolutions, have totally failed to turn their societies in a better direction. This has happened in so many nations that they are too numerous to list here. They generally call themselves revolutions, but are in reality just one local dictator, or war lord, overthrowing and replacing an older dictator.

Some of the larger, and more well known of these kinds of revolutions were the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution under Mao, and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. What all of those revolutions have in common is that they began in a time of great crisis, and because of that chaotic birth, never developed the kind of social dynamic which marks successful revolutions. They were born in times of great social and material upheaval, and consequently when the people turned away from the existing order they had to make that change while chaos and disorder prevailed. The foundations of a new order, chosen in such conditions, proved to not be stable and enduring.

The American Revolution had a different genesis. While it undoubtedly started with a war for independence from Great Britain, the leaders who launched it were not under immediate physical threat when they did so.

Even in 1776 they could take the time to consider the best way to form together as a nation. Later, after the War of Independence was over, they could take even more time, although they did have to move with deliberate haste, to put a truly workable system of self government together.

Thus was our constitutionally limited democratic republic born, out of a time of orderly revolution. Since the Founders could take time to incorporate many lessons from history in their plan, it has proven much more durable than other revolutions.

So as we think about revolution, it is good to note that revolutions which start for ideological reasons, in times of relative peace, tend to last longer and have better effect, than revolutions that start in rushed chaos, with a need to patch something together quickly. The rule of thumb seems to be that crisis driven revolutions are bad, and ideologically driven revolutions are good.

With that in mind, we should proceed with our revolution, because we are not in a time of immediate crisis. Things aren't coming down around our ears, and if we do conduct a successful revolution, there won't be a crisis. We simply have to ensure it is the good kind of revolution, the ideological kind.

Now we can come up with a new definition for revolution, or at least a new technique with which to conduct a good revolution. Basically, it should consist of taking a long, honest look at history; Figure out what we did wrong, and quit doing it: Figure out what we did right, and do more of it, and then carry on. By carrying on is meant that these deliberations have to go from just the merely ideological to actually being implemented in the real world.

The most important thing about having a discussion to separate the good from the bad in our history is that it has to be both honest and thorough. Take, for instance, how we must address that most difficult of subjects: “racism.” If we allow a superficial opinion to dominate, we will never come to a good result. The quick, easy and wrong opinion would be to say that racism is something really bad that White people do. The solution, if we adopt that view, is to squelch and discriminate against White people.

That will never work, because it is not the truth. The truth is that racism permeates all of humanity, and has been manifested in every group in this nation. While it is true that it manifested as a worse problem among White people, it wasn't exclusively their problem, so curing that disease can't focus solely on that one group. Rather, the problem of racism should be dealt with like a contagious disease, and attacked with equal honest fervor wherever it manifests.

That then is an example of the kind of thinking our new American revolution must employee if it is to be successful. It has to be, and can be, a thorough and honest long term conversation about what kind of nation we want to be.

Some might scoff and say that if we don't have a time of a real shoot em up, violent war, it isn't a revolution. Think about it though. If we can arrive at that time of an open hearted, honest dialogue, would that not accomplish a true turning in another direction of our society, even if we got there without a lot of people dying.

On the other hand, if we did have some kind of major bloody struggle, and never actually got to that time of honest dialogue, would it really turn us in another direction? Would it not probably just install some even more corrupt regime on us, and we continue on the same down ward path. Needless to say, we would have to continue with even more death, maiming, resentment, and hate.

In a lot of ways, we should realize that this is just calling us back to being true Americans. Our revolution merely commenced with the Declaration of Independence, with its call for liberty and justice for all, and for governments to have the consent of the governed. Those were undoubtedly revolutionary sentiments, but our revolution actually got fired up later, in 1787. At that time our Founding Fathers got together to formulate our constitutional government. Admittedly, some of them were rich enough to be considered potential oligarchs, as some accuse them of, but they were oligarchs with a difference. The difference was that this particular group of oligarchs knew that their necks were on the line. If they didn't formulate a government that was strong and stable enough to endure, the British were very likely to return and gather back up their empire, one state at a time. The Founders would then have undoubtedly been hung for their troubles. What's more, this particular set of oligarchs also knew that any government they devised would have to gain the acceptance of the people. The American people at the time were the most astute and politically engaged people on Earth. So the Founders knew they had to do a good job.

Therefore, they started our Republic on a revolutionary basis, looking at the long sweep of world history, as they could see it, and incorporating what had worked well in the past, and rejecting what had not worked well. Truly revolutionary thinking.

Then, the American Revolution really got started, once the people as a whole began to wrestle with the concepts of self government. Not only did we decide to end the scourge of slavery withing our first ninety years, but we ended property requirements for voting, established schools and universities, and accomplished many other revolutionary goals. In fact, while we have lost much of that early revolutionary zeal, it is still with us, and needs merely to be infused with new life.

The next American revolution, the one we must initiate now, also promises to be a years, if not decades, long process. Let it be. It is long past time that the people, the citizens of this nation, reclaimed their revolutionary zeal, and started to engage in the revolutionary debates that this nation, indeed this whole planet, so desperately needs.

Say No to Jingoistic Herdability

 

There is a human malady, newly come to light. This one is worse than Nazism, Communism, racism, religious bigotry, wokeism, lynch mobs, or any other examples of group hysteria. This malady is a deeper problem than those because it is the one that enables all those other problems. The malady in question is our human propensity to be herd-able, our willingness, indeed eagerness, to allow ourselves to be herded around. I recently came to realize the importance of this problem during a discussion with a friend at a local coffee spot. During the same encounter it became clear how much of a role jingos play in enabling this human herding.

Before relating the incident at the coffee spot, let's take a closer look at jingos, and the jingoism that has long affected our thinking. There is nothing new or old fashioned about jingos, but the name has been changed over the years to protect the crafty. These days of the internet we call them memes, or the slightly older terms, T-shirt sayings, or bumper stickers, or sound bite logic. Political slogans of all stripes fit this description. Jingos. They are pithy little phrases which are used as a kind of shorthand, to sum up a position, to let other people know where we stand. They can be used for or against any particular cause.

In olden times jingos like “manifest destiny” or “that's progress” were a couple of favorites. “Fifty four forty or fight” was used to insist on American territorial expansion, while “free soil”, “peculiar institution” and “states rights” were used around the time of the American Civil War. Many dog whistle code words are also jingos. Of course, a thorough look at jingos would include some racist phrases, such as Sheridan's “the only good Indian is a dead Indian,” or phrases more common folks used like, “I don't mind colored folks, it's N-words I can't stand.” All were jingos in older times, and all used, in their times, to keep folks in easily controlled herds. Consider how effectively folks could be kept in line by hinting that they were “N-word lovers.” That jingo usually ended any discussion and ended many germinal friendships between Black and White.

Which brings us to the discussion I had at coffee the other day. I mentioned a recent New York Times article which asserted that President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship might have a leg to stand on in court. This had surprised me, since it came from the normally left leaning (anti Trump) New York Times. I mentioned it because I favor such a ban, although I can see the case against it has merit. My conversation partner said that the proposed ban was wrong because, “it is in the Constitution.” I responded to her that it wasn't so cut and dried as all that and started going in to the particulars of the article.

She responded, not with anything substantive about the Constitution or birthright citizenship, but with a string of anti American jingos.

“Well, we didn't let Natives be citizens. We held Japanese Americans in internment camps,” and such like remarks. Courageously fighting long ago battles. All delivered with an attitude of you have to accept what I am saying or I am on the verge of losing all hope in the country, and it will be your fault if I do.

Instead of being a dialogue, I realized these jingos were being used to herd me, to silence my thinking and make me stay in line. It was the end of the discussion, as she “had” to leave, but I felt, as I often do in such cases, defrauded. I wanted to ask her if she was saying, as she was implying, that the United States of America does not have a legitimate right to exist. I see that implied in her remarks, and the jingos she used to deflect the conversation. The idea seems to be (and I hear it implied a lot) that we really shouldn't control immigration because we really shouldn't even be a nation.

There are a slew of similar negative-toward-America jingos around these days, and they are often used to keep the herd together. Jingos like “White supremacy,” or “Misogyny” or “capitalism is evil, or “stolen land.” On the other hand, there are more positive sounding jingos in use today, such as “inclusive,” or “tolerant,” which are also used to end discussions and either reject the other person, or keep those on one side in line.

On the conservative side, the jingos start with the word MAGA, Make America Great Again, with the addendum being the assertion this is “the greatest country ever” and that those who complain should just “buck up, and get jobs.” Once again, these, and similar jingos serve to cut short any real discussion, to keep the herd (or at least one side of it) in line, and to reject those on the other side.

This is all very disturbing to me personally, because I have seen, and been the victim of, the herd mentality gone bad. My first experience with it was in the second grade, playing four square, a playground game played at recess. The first time it happened, I must admit I was in the wrong, kind of.

We were playing the game, taking turns. I saw that some of the kids were cheating (popular kids it turned out) and getting away with it. I got into the game and hit it slightly out of bounds. Since I had seen others arguing their way back into the game, I tried it, firmly standing my cheating ground. Before I knew what had happened, I was surrounded by the rest of the kids pointing at me and chanting, “the majority rules you're out.” Their jingo. So I retreated to the back of the line.

However, on subsequent days, when I would enter the daily game, every time there was a close call, (I was never again in the wrong) the same group, led by the same chubby girl, would surround me and herd me out of the game with the same chant. I realize, in retrospect, that they must have felt so good in doing that. It must have felt so powerful acting as a mob, with that same chubby girl leading the way each time, that those moments became more important than the game itself. I got to where I found something else to do at recess.

I ran into the same mob mentality in the sixth grade, at a different school. In the middle of the first semester, a new kid came into the class, which was a magnet class for gifted students. His name was Doug, and I got along fine with him. One day, one of the popular kids (it is always them, isn't it?), who must have been in a conflict with Doug, was asked if he would fight him. He answered, “No, I ain't going to fight no N-word.”

This shocked me, because even though Doug was slightly dark skinned, I didn't realize until that moment he was African American. Without thinking about it, I let the popular kid know that he shouldn't have that attitude. Doug withdrew from the class just a day or two later, undoubtedly due to racist harassment. I ended up being the enemy of the cool kids for the rest of the year, who would chase me around the school yard, and ostracized me from their company. They also influenced (herded) the rest of my classmates to do the same. I then had almost no one to talk to, except for a couple of nice girls.

This essay is not, however, about me. Don't cry for me Argentina, especially over long resolved childhood trauma. Rather it is about the propensity of us humans to use half thought out ideas, communicated via catchy jingos, to allow ourselves to be herded so easily. Especially because that herd instinct can so easily morph into a mob mentality.

That is what went so wrong with the Nazis, and with Mao's Red Guards. We saw it in operation during the BLM Summer of Love, where mobs felt emboldened to harass and humiliate strangers on the basis of their race, all in the name of ending racism. The wilding and larceny gangs have to be included in this herding gone wrong problem as well. Black Lives Matter is, in fact, another jingo used in the way they all are, to herd humans, reject the other, and possibly justify violence. The same could be said, with less accuracy, about the January 6 rioters with their chants of “stop the steal.” In those, and many other instances, (lynch mobs, etc) normal people can feel a great empowerment in a mob. Especially with agreed upon jingos dancing in their heads.

I think about my friend in the recent coffee conversation. She was on fire to win the battle of the Cherokee “trail of tears,” now that it is safely in the past. But at the time, when Davey Crockett spoke out against the illegal actions of President Andrew Jackson, I wonder if she would have spoken up. The folks back in Tennessee, his constituents, voted him out of congress for his straying from the herd in that way. His last words to them were, “Y'all can go to hell, I'm going to Texas.”

Similarly, when Abraham Lincoln spoke out (with his “Spot” speech) against the Mexican American War, a war which many today see as unjust, he got voted out of congress in 1836. Not many normal people, obedient members of their herd, approved of his truth telling.

Keeping us in tightly controlled herds is not, however, the work of the elites who would rule us. Even though they probably facilitate the herding by using their media power to open the window about what is acceptable to use in our jingos. It is called the “Overton Window”, and it is a highly controlled opening in what is acceptable public dialogue. But the herding is done by us, in our little gatherings, ostracizing, ignoring, huffing the oddball off.. Making it to where only certain opinions can be viced if one is to be admitted into polite company.

This phenomenon goes across all peoples, groups, nations and times. Almost all nations can be defined by whatever consensual delusion (jingos) they agree on, and herd themselves with. Their Overton windows, and their local jingos. God save the Queen, Deutchland uber alles, Viva la France, Viva Mexico, God bless America. Our king, our land, our culture. This thinking reigns over the entire planet.

It is not that this social cohesion is all bad, but that it is easily misused to keep us in tidy, obedient herds. What we must always keep in mind is that it is all always on the verge of mob rule and riot.

The antidote is not to just hate Nazis, or racists, or Wokeism. Rather the antidote is to look to our own souls, and minds. The antidote is to make ourselves, as individuals, not herd-able. To no longer accept the soft oppression of silencing, of ostracism, of ourselves or others; to not allow the popular kids, or influential adults, to set the agenda, and subtly ensure no other point of view is voiced in our groups.

In other words, the way to avoid this malady is to become truly human. To work toward building a truly humane, reason based society,. We must nurture up, educate for and develop the strength to stand alone as individuals. To stand for the truth as we see it, and not allow any thing other than a stronger, deeper truth, arrived at through open debate and discussion, to change out stance. Certainly don't allow the social ostracism of some fools who refuse to even look at the truth, who hide behind half thinking jingoism, to in any way dissuade you from seeking it. Not in school, not at the coffee group, not at church, or work, or at a political rally. Be willing to stand alone for the truth, as you see it, regardless of the latest jingo. If you don't do that, then realize that you will probably, eventually, find yourself swept up in some new form of Nazi like mob rule.

William Seward in Black History

 

When the name William Seward is mentioned, most people remember him as the guy who bought Alaska from the Russians. If they know a little more history they also know that he was Secretary of State in the Lincoln administration. While those two achievements give him historical significance, they come far short of a full accounting of the man. With a more full understanding of his life, William Seward emerges as one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever known. What's more, it is entirely appropriate to recall his life during Black History Month, because as a national leader, he arguably accomplished more than any other leader to uplift Black people.

To start to get a feel for the man, let us hearken back to March of 1846. A free Black man, one William Freeman, recently released from five years in prison after it was learned he was wrongly convicted, went on an insane rampage, murdering an entire family in Seward's hometown of Auburn, New York. There was no doubt as to the man's guilt in this case, and the prisoner barely made it past the lynch mob to jail.

In court, no lawyer was willing to take the case, probably since the citizens of Auburn let it be known they would kill any who dared. In the courtroom, when the judge asked if any would defend him, William Seward, a practicing attorney (by then a former governor of the state, not yet elected to the senate), stepped forward to volunteer his services. At great personal and career risk and against the advice of political allies, William Seward chose to defend the obviously guilty Mr. Freeman on the basis of his insanity.

He lost the case, but in making it he gave a rousing defense of the humanity of Black people, and argued that if the defendant was White, the jury would would have found him insane and committed him to life in a mental institution. In many ways, therefore, William Seward actually lived out, in 1846, the heroic roles portrayed in the movies “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and “A Time to Kill.” Such courage and compassion should never be forgotten.

Even earlier in his life, his wife and he, while not in favor of slavery, decided, in his typically open minded and congenial way, to go down South and see things for themselves. Barely into Virginia in their southbound carriage, they encountered a group of slave boys being driven to market, chained and naked. The sight so repulsed both Mr. and Mrs. Seward that they immediately turned around and never again visited the South. They were passionate abolitionists from that day forward.

When elected to the Senate, Senator Seward was the leading voice for abolition and lifting the Black, or what was called at the time, the Negro population. This earned him the undying hatred of slave owners. Once, in the heat of battle leading to the Civil War, some Southern Senator, letting the false mask of civility slip, used the N-word in a speech in the Senate. Senator Seward, in his response, let it be known that no one would ever be president who spells “Negro with two g's.” Statements like that, and he made many in favor of freedom for Negros, did not win him any friends in the South.

By 1860, with the North turning away from slavery, and the Republican Party uniting around the issue of abolition, it was assumed that the greatest advocate of emancipation, William Seward, would be the nominee. No one, however, had reckoned on the political acumen of the obscure country lawyer from Illinois, so Abraham Lincoln won the nomination for President.

Although undoubtedly disappointed, William Seward bore the loss well, and in his typical noble manner, campaigned vigorously for Lincoln, and for the cause of emancipation. After the Republicans won, Senator Seward was anticipating completing his term in the Senate and retiring to his home in Auburn. It was not to be though, because Abraham Lincoln was not only a canny politician, he was a truly wise leader.

Seward was expecting a pro forma invitation from Lincoln to join the administration, and it was expected he would, in similar pro forma fashion, turn down the offer. But Lincoln sent a second letter with the pro forma one, and its sincerity and wisdom convinced Seward to accept the appointment as Secretary of State. It was probably the best decision either man ever made, as it brought together two of the greatest minds in the country, at the very moment the nation was in its greatest need of wisdom..

Even before Lincoln's inauguration, then still Senator Seward proved his mettle by helping to thwart a Confederate plot to take over Washington just before the inauguration and thereby win the war without a shot being fired. Edwin Stanton, also later in Lincoln's cabinet, was in Buchanan's cabinet, privy to the treasonous conversations going on in the Oval office, and secretly relaying that information to Senator Seward. Seward's actions helped preserve the Union before the war even started. Once again, he acted, at great personal risk, with courage and diplomacy.

From day one of his administration, Lincoln and Seward had a close and trusting working relationship, going so far as Lincoln allowing Seward to modify the language his inaugural address. Their on going collaboration was vital in fulfilling the goal of keeping the border states in the Union.

What's more, Seward had previously traveled extensively in Europe, with his strong abolitionist stance opening many doors on the continent. He now effectively used those contacts to help prevent England and France from recognizing the Confederacy. The Europeans staying neutral in the war deprived the Confederacy of a vital source of revenue, and was one of the main reasons the Union won the war.

The night Lincoln was assassinated, another member of the team of assassins tried to kill William Seward and his son. He used a knife and stabbed the Secretary repeatedly in the face. The only reason it did not kill him was that he had recently suffered a broken jaw in a carriage accident, and had a metal brace on his jaw which deflected the knife from hitting his jugular vein. His son was even more grievously wounded but both men survived the assault.

Sadly, their families did not survive the ordeal. His beloved wife Frances, a fine woman who supported her husband in every issue, died six weeks later. Undoubtedly, her demise was a result of the strain of caring for his wounds, and the stress of the times. His daughter Fannie also died shortly thereafter.

Seward recovered and stayed on as Secretary of State under Andrew Johnson, which is how he was in a positions to arrange and conclude our purchase of Alaska. He died in 1872 at 71 years of age.

Much of the information in this essay was gleaned from reading “Team of Rivals,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin (the book can't be recommended highly enough). On the cover of that book is a posed photo of Lincoln and his cabinet, with Lincoln and Seward seated and facing toward each other. After reading the book, one is struck by the idea that arguably the greater man in that photo is William Seward. Admittedly, both men had failings, but both men were undoubtedly great leaders of a righteous cause.

The question becomes, “Why isn't he already highly remembered?” The answer is that history has a way of being written by the winners, and the survivors. In the chaos of war and reconstruction, and the national grief at President Lincoln's death, a lot of Seward's deeds have been forgotten. What's more, virtually none of his family survived the tumultuous times to keep his memory alive.

So it is time that we remember him, today. Additionally, even though he and this author are both White, it is totally fitting for his life to be remembered during Black History Month, because William Seward deserves as much or more credit for preserving the Union and ending slavery as anyone, including Abraham Lincoln. He had a huge effect on Black history. He was not only one of the greatest Americans ever born, he was one of the greatest humans. Such inspiring figures should never be lost to history.

On a related note, let me add. A lot of White folks don't much like Black History Month, with their yearly refrain being “Why don't we have White history month?”

I rather enjoy learning of Black leaders and exceptional figures from the past. I had never heard of folks like Roberts Smalls, or Harriet Tubman before Black History Month began, and I am better for learning of their heroic lives and courageous contributions. Rather than ending this yearly history lesson, maybe it can be transformed to include more truly great people, like William Seward, from all quarters of our national history. I know Native American leaders like Crazy Horse should also be remembered, as should Ceasar Chavez, and other exemplary leaders of various ethnic groups, Whites included.

Maybe instead of Black History month, or focusing any other particular group, let us transition to a never ending history minute every day that reminds us of great figures from our collective past. This will be a way of reminding us of who we are, where we came from and how we got here. Further, such remembrance might even inspire us to consider what kind of future we want to build together.