Skip to content

Will No One Rid Us Of Our Troublesome Hamlets?

07 January 2015 @ 11:30

During the days leading up to yesterday’s vote for Speaker Of The House, there were a number of those on the Right who denounced the efforts to garner votes in the House against the re-election of John Boehner.

Tammy Bruce was one of the denouncers, as Dicentra pointed-out in a comment over at Protein Wisdom:

Tammy Bruce Tweeted something revealing today: “Also, the last thing I want is @mialove to sacrifice herself in the name of theatre when Boehner’s reelection was more than likely”

“And because @MiaLove will do no one least of all her constituents, any good by throwing herself into a volcano.”

The “theater” jab really chaps my hide, right there….

Indeed. The attempts to belittle and, thus, delegitimize the actions of the opposers of the current Tyranny are not only disappointing but rather disgusting.

I say to the denouncers: Do you want to Restore the American Republic or not? If you claim that you do: why are you so dismissive of the efforts to fight and strike back against the Despots? Why do you fear confrontation?

Jeff Goldstein had these Quislings’s number in a post written before yesterday’s vote:

…I spent hours this morning arguing with heavily-followed, status-quo GOP pundits on Twitter who insist that a challenge to Boehner is nothing more than a “fundraising stunt” — the Alinskyite tactic on offer in such a sentiment being to trivialize and diminish those who don’t hew to some purported “common-sense, long-game” brand of GOP insider pragmatism, the very kind that has given us “leaders” like Boehner and McConnell in the first place.

The very fact that the challenge to Boehner will be difficult to win is itself posited as a reason to avoid the hard work of trying it. Which is not too far from where many on the left (and too many on the right) fall with respect to ideas of language: sussing out real intent in a complex work can be difficult and is impossible to ever claim with certainty; therefore, simply doing as you please with marks is every bit as legitimate an interpretive function as is attempting to reconstruct an author’s intent.

In both cases, however, one thing is certain: failure to try something difficult will result in its defeat nearly 100% of the time.

Losing a challenge is not the same thing as being unserious about making it. And no, we are not obliged to fall behind Boehner should he win the Speakership again — just as we weren’t obliged to fall in line behind Obama just because he won a couple elections. In fact, when Obama told McCain he was obliged to do the same thing in explicit terms, many of those now trivializing attempts at serious reform were among the first to claim OUTRAGE at Obama’s cocksure audacity and (at the time) latent imperial impulses.

It both astounds and saddens me to read Republican pundits arguing — without revulsion — that if you’re going to attempt to slay the king you’d better not miss, a formulation that, when presented in the context of the People’s House and representative government, is both deflating and, worse, completely ironic, and yet argued unironically.

Here’s a tip for the GOP Beltway status quo: if you are caught claiming that a challenge to a sitting Speaker who has broken nearly every promise he’s made to his constituency is “unprofessional,” you are concomitantly claiming that what you advocate for is a professional ruling class, one free of the troublesome challenges that may come from the Party’s constituency in any venue other than local elections, where name recognition, money, past pork, and gerrymandering assures an incumbency rate above 85%. Indeed, you are arguing for a kind of de facto aristocracy.

That you can do so with such ease while wearing an R behind your name is merely further proof that we live in a post-Constitutional America, one where party affiliation matters little and big government cronyism is to be protected at every turn.

Samuel Adams understood these Useful Idiots over two hundred years ago [re-paragraphing mine][emphasis mine]:

If the liberties of America are ever compleatly ruined, of which in my opinion there is now the utmost danger, it will in all probability be the consequence of a mistaken notion of prudence, which leads men to acquiesce in measures of the most destructive tendency for the sake of present ease.

When designs are form’d to rase the very foundation of a free government, those few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery

– They are alarmed at nothing so much, as attempts to awaken the people to jealousy and watchfulness; and it has been an old game played over and over again, to hold up the men who would rouse their fellow citizens and countrymen to a sense of their real danger, and spirit them to the most zealous activity in the use of all proper means for the preservation of the public liberty, as “pretended patriots,” “intemperate politicians,” rash, hot-headed men, Incendiaries, wretched desperadoes, who, as was said of the best of men, would turn the world upside down, or have done it already.

– But he must have a small share of fortitude indeed, who is put out of countenance by hard speeches without sense and meaning, or affrighted from the path of duty by the rude language of Billingsgate

– For my own part, I smile contemptuously at such unmanly efforts: I would be glad to hear the reasoning of Chronus, if he has a capacity for it; but I disregard his railing as I would the barking of a “Cur dog”. [writing as ‘CANDIDUS’ in the Boston Gazette, 09 December 1771]

This whole business of ‘if you’re going to attempt to slay the king you’d better not miss’ is not applicable to the kind of struggle we are in. This is not a direct life-or-death fight. Rather, like the situation faced by The Founders, this is kind of warfare that requires ‘death’ by a thousand cuts, as it were, by the nibbling-away at the legitimacy of the unlegitimate Despots who rule us. Every attack does not necessarily need to result in the vanquishing of the target for a victory to be achieved.

Offensives which result in the weakening of a Tyrant are worthwhile because they help undermine the Despot’s position of Power And Control, his effectiveness, which can only be maintained through the appearance of Strength. Weaken the Tyrant in the eyes of his fellow Tyrants and you diminish him as far as they are concerned, causing him to lose Prestige and Influence. Do this to a number of the Despots and you force them to confront each other over perceived opportunities for accumulating more Power And Control, thus sowing Chaos, instability, among those who are working to enslave us.

Attack, attack, attack. Be relentless. Use mockery, sabotage — whatever will undermine the corruptly-won legitimacy the Tyrants have. Dare and be Audacious.

We need more Samuel Adamses and Jeff Goldsteins rather than the plethora of Hamlets who dominate our ranks.

Our Freedoms and Liberties are a stake. The security of our Posterity is in grave danger.

I know not what course others may take, but as for me: I will not be a slave; I will either Live Free Or Die.

5 Comments
  1. Shermlaw (RS) permalink
    07 January 2015 @ 14:30 14:30

    You know, it used to be that people would learn about the importance of congressional posts like Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Those positions carry with them the authority to advance or hinder legislation without regard to the will of the people represented. That’s why they are important.

    I don’t know about Tammy Bruce. Perhaps she is one of the many “Yay, our team!” types more enamored with being in power than the actual documents constraining that power. Sadly, that’s where we’ve come, and its the absence of term limits (our Founders one mistake) combined with the 16th and 17th Amendments which started the clock running toward our republic’s eventual demise, absent some miraculous civic and spiritual reawakening.

    • 07 January 2015 @ 21:22 21:22

      I’m trying to understand the Hamlets, but it sure ain’t easy.

  2. Adobe_Walls permalink
    07 January 2015 @ 19:13 19:13

    Maybe we should stop electing house reps just let the parties pic them, since you know holding elections are so unhealthy for the system.

Trackbacks

  1. Alleged Muslims Allegedly ‘Kill Charlie Hebdo’ | Regular Right Guy

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: