Intro to this Feature
This is a new blog feature that I really wanted to initiate at the beginning of the summer but didn’t get the time to until now, because it involves a great deal of reading before typing.
On my bookshelf are rows of indispensible books with wise, powerful, and inspiring messages. Yes, these books are of a political nature, and they are almost all right-of-center. Their authors cherish freedom, individual liberty, and American exceptionalism. Likewise, they reject the jackboot of liberalism, which in modern times is none other than the rejection of the above.
From the moment I curiously pulled my first political/societal book down from a Barnes & Noble outside of Union Square in NYC shortly after September 11, 2001, they have led me on the path out of go-with-the-flow political agnosticism to where I am today.
It has been my intention to reread these books over the course of several years and provide for you, dear readers, my favorite morsels—“rite quotes”—to mull over, absorb, and, when short and pithy enough, even memorize. Basically, the eternal grad student in me feels compelled to return to my most treasured sources, collect the most significant excerpts, and present them indefinitely on this blog, chapter by chapter.
The Left likes to mock the Right as having a philosophy that is shallow and fit neatly on bumper stickers for the intellectually incurious to consume and regurgitate (because, ya know, “No blood for oil,” “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries,” and “Buck Fush” are so sophisticated). Make no mistake: These quotes aren’t for bumper stickers. Even if you don’t agree with all of them, they are nevertheless profound and thought-provoking.
The result of this labor of love will serve, I hope, not only as a resource for politically-minded people surfing the web, but also as sort of a “Cliffs Notes” version of my favorite books. Please enjoy it and feel free to comment, contribute, and debate.
From Chapter 1 of Liberty and Tyranny by Mark R. Levin, 2009
Three main themes comprise the introductory chapter of Levin’s book, which set the stage for its remainder: (1) The Conservative’s faith in and adherence to the Constitution, vs. the Statist’s rejection of diversion from it, (2) Following point 1, the Conservative’s belief in limited, constitutionally constrained government vs. the Statist’s endless appetite for centralized governmental authority, supposedly to right society’s “injustices,” (3) The Conservative’s focus on the individual and his role of self-interested cooperation in a civil society, vs. the Statist’s rejection of individualism as being selfish and greedy and needing to be replaced by a philosophy of collectivism (often couched in such feel-good rhetoric as “sacrificing for the greater good”).
[All bolds are mine]
The Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights. (p.2–3)
* * * * *
In the civil society [a.k.a. ordered liberty or social contract – ed.], the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous—that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends. (p.3)
* * * * *
In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual’s right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual’s time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty. (p.3–4)
* * * * *
The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). (p.4)
* * * * *
… [T]he Statist has an insatiable appetite for control. His sights are set on his next meal even before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action. And in furtherance of that purpose, the Statist speaks in the tongue of a demagogue, concocting one pretext and grievance after another to manipulate public perceptions and build popular momentum for the divestiture of liberty and prosperity from its rightful possessors. The industrious, earnest, and successful are demonized as perpetrators of various offenses against the public good, which justifies governmental intervention on behalf of an endless parade of “victims.” In this way, [both] the perpetrator and the victim are subordinated to the government’s authority—the former by outright theft, the latter by dependent existence. (p.8)
This last quote reminds me of the rhetoric of 2004 vice-presidential candidate John Edwards. Speaking, as Levin describes it, in the tongue of a demogogue, Edwards lamented what he called the Two Americas: the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Indeed, the Kerry-Edwards platform, typical of virtually every Democrat platform since the New Deal era, was based on convincing the electorate of the existence of such injustices, and that only by granting them governmental authority (i.e., by electing them), can they be rectified. Of course, the whole scenario is a load of B.S. sold to the American people as a way to exert more centralized control over them, which is why Levin correctly rejects the label “liberal” in favor of the much more accurate “Statist.”
Although the Kerry-Edwards ticket did not succeed in the 2004 race, the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008 did. And merely six month into the Obama presidency, the American people—both “perpetrator” and “victim”—are beginning to understand the reality of being subordinated by a quintessential Statist government.
The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequalities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution … Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions, what is left to limit the Statist’s ambitions is his own moral compass, which has already led him astray? He is never circumspect about his own shortcomings. Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources. Thus are born endless rationalizations for seizing ever more governmental authority. (p.8)
* * * * *
When living freely and pursuing his own legitimite interests, the individual displays qualities that are antithetical to the Statist’s—initiative, self-reliance, and independence. … [T]he individual must be drained of uniqueness and self-worth, and deterred from independent thought or behavior. This is achieved through varying methods of economic punishment and political suppression. (p.9)
One need to look no further than the treatment endured by publicly vocal opponents to the Statist’s agenda. Rush Limbaugh and other voices of Conservative talk radio are constantly demonized, threatened with economic punishment and political suppression. While Limbaugh himslef hasn’t resided in New York State for years, he has nevertheless been curiously audited every year since, with the hopes he could be caught violating some state tax law. Another victim of such tactics is Sarah Palin, who has endured not only personal attacks from the mainstream media, but has had to defend herself from over a dozen bogus ethics charges and even the hacking of her email account by the son of a Democrat politician. In short, there’s been ample evidence to show that there’s almost nothing the Statist will do in order to deter his opponents from thwarting his agenda.
How many enterprises and jobs might have been created, how many people might have been saved from illness and disease, how many more poor children might have been fed but for the additional costs, market dislocations, and management inefficiencies that distort supply and demand or discourage research and development as a result of the federal government’s role? (p.10)
The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it. An “effective” government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government. (p.10)
A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested cooperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity, and happiness for more people than any alternative. Conservativism is the antidote to tyranny because its principles are the founding principles. (p.11)
Incidentally, the Statist/Lefist despises the notion of self-interest, considering it greed and selfishness. They are always demanding productive and successful citizens “sacrifice” for the common good. On this is based rhetoric by VP Joe Biden, who famously scolded the wealthiest Americans (who already pay the lion’s share of income tax revenue) that it was “time to pay your fair share, time to be part of the deal.”
And that’s the beauty and genius of Mark Levin’s book. He describes Statists to a T. He knows their mindset, their motivations, their agenda, and their ideology-influenced character flaws. No wonder it enjoyed a good dozen weeks at #1 on the NY Times bestseller list (and no wonder the Times, as cheerleaders for the Statist agenda, have devoted little to no attention to arguably the most important book of the 00’s.)
Recent Comments