Why the Current American Political Situation is So Dangerous

This is a big picture post so I will cut to the chase.  The United States is in a precarious situation because increasingly we no longer agree on the ground rules for political combat.  We have had our radical politics before, such as during the Great Depression.  But even then, and for over 200 years, there was a consensus on the political ground rules – that the Constitution rules (although there has long been disagreement on its application).  Oh sure, Democrats and the Deep State Establishment have tried, with too much success, to get around the Constitution.  But few have openly suggested trashing it altogether.

But now Beto the Boy Wonder has openly questioned whether the Constitution should rule today:

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke recently questioned the modern-day relevance of the U.S. Constitution and whether the country should still be governed by “the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago.”

“I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work?” Mr. O’Rourke asked during a taped conversation with two friends, which he aired to thousands in response to President Trump’s Oval Office address to the American people about the border wall, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

---

“Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships … and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?” Mr. O’Rourke reportedly asked.

And it is fair to say Beto is in the mainstream of the Democrat Party today and is popular to boot.  Heck, he gave Ted Cruz a good run in Texas.

Disregard for the Constitution is usually not so openly expressed even in the Democrat Party.  At least not yet.  But by their actions, Democrats have long showed they really do not care much for the Constitution and its principles.  Rampant attacks on free speech are only one example of this disregard.

Whatever one thinks of the Constitution (I am a adamant advocate of it.), it is dangerous for what is now the mainstream of a major party to have such disregard for the basic ground rules of political combat in any country.

Allow me to use American football to illustrate.  Football has a number of complicated rules. The purpose of many of these is to keep the players from maiming each other and worse.  Yes, the players try to get around the rules, but there is agreement that the rules are the rules.  And there is today a player culture that frowns on breaking the rules in order to injure another.  Rules can and do get changed – amended if you will – but they are respected during a game even when broken.

What can happen if the rules are disregarded by the authorities or applied with an obvious double standard (or there is at least the widespread perception thereof)?  Well, you get the Bengals-Steelers game of January 2016.  It. Was. Ugly.

We already have a Bengals-Steelers situation in this country.  In the political realm at least, roughly a third of this country has utter contempt for roughly another third and visa versa.  That has certainly happened before. (And, yes, we did have our Civil War.) But what if, in addition, the rules, the Constitution, gets tossed aside?  What if there is not even agreement on the political ground rules of the Constitution anymore?  Well, increasingly there is not.

And we are therefore in great danger of political combat getting out of hand even into widespread violence as Ace has warned:  

…If you attempt to ditch the Constitution and keep actual Americans enslaved under a no-longer-American government, expect violence.

Because that's straight-up tyranny.

That may sound alarmist.  But what keeps us from each others’ throats most of the time is agreed upon rules of political engagement.  If one side arbitrarily tosses the rules, why should the other side still be nice and obey the rules?

Now probably the other side should still obey the rules, but try explaining that to them.  If a large segment of the population feels their lives and liberty are under threat by tyrants who disregard both and disregard the Constitutional rule of law, we are at great risk of violence and worse.

Trust me that I hope I am being alarmist.  I certainly hope and pray that the tyrannical segment of the population and the totalitarians they are electing are so utterly and repeatedly defeated in coming elections that they will find better things to do than attacking our Constitutional freedoms and the Constitutional rule of law.  I think that the only good and relatively peaceful way out of our current situation.  But given the cyclical nature of politics, I am not optimistic.

---

NOTE:  Ace sees a “national divorce” of the United States splitting up as the best way out.  I understand that, but disagree for now and don’t see that happening.  I do agree with him that the current situation is that bad.

Look Who Introduced the House Resolution Against Steve King

First off, I am among those who find Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) recent comments about White supremacy and White nationalism unacceptable.  And I have said so in another public venue. 

And I am glad to see Republicans in the House acted quickly to strip him of his committee assignments.

But that makes a serious problem in politics today all the more glaring.  Those in the Democrat Party who defend or even associate themselves with racism (usually against Whites) or antisemitism get treated with kid gloves.  Heck, one such Congressman, James Clyburn (D-SC), has shared a stage with the vile racist antisemite Louis Farrakhan and has since refused to condemn him.  And Clyburn is not only a Democrat in good standing in the House; he is No. 3 in the House Democrat leadership.

And look who introduced the resolution condemning King’s remarks – James Clyburn.

Now the resolution rightly passed with almost unanimous support.  Even Steve King, to his credit, voted for it.  But James Clyburn was the wrong man to introduce it.  Once again, the Democrat Party’s double standard on racism and bigotry is glaring.

Democrats Only Respect Elections They Win

I’m old enough to remember when Democrats respected election results.  But, yes, I’m not very young.  In recent decades, Democrat leaders and activists seem to respect only those elections they win. See 2000.  See 2016 and what is really an ongoing attempted coup against that presidential election.  Heck, when was the last election of a Republican President after which Democrats genuinely respected the results? 1988?

Democrats are yet again showing their colors in openly still disrespecting the results of the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial election in which the Republican Kemp won by over 50,000 votes.  The official twitter account of the Georgia Democrat Party has dubbed him “Georgia’s Asterisk Governor.” That’s not from California, Washington, Oregon, or Vermont.  That’s the Georgia Democrat Party.

And in case one thinks those are just the rantings of a twitter account administrator, the Democrat candidate Stacey Abrams never has respected and fully accepted the results.  And she was joined in that by such mainstream Democrats as Hillary Clinton and Cory Booker.

This pattern from Democrats disturbs.  When one major party persistently disrespects elections and the Constitution when elections and/or the rule of law do not go their way, the very foundations of the country are in danger.  For if a major party does not respect constitutional democracy when the results don’t go their way, then they don’t respect constitutional democracy at all.  And what happens when such a party gains power for any length of time?

What we have here is a major political party that acts more like totalitarians than Americans.  Yes, I said it.  It’s true, and it needs to be said.  A first step out of our precarious situation is for us to open our eyes to what the Democrat Party has become.

-----

Yes, I have voted for a number of Democrats in the past.  I doubt I can consciously do that again.

Are we at Revelation 13:17?

When I was younger, I took the Book of Revelation pretty literally. I therefore expected Revelation 13:17 to be fulfilled by a world government requiring an actual mark or tattoo of some sort with those not submitting being unable to buy or sell.  Yes, I am a child of 70's American evangelical Christianity.

Now with bar codes and the like (and with several governments making cash more and more unusable), such a literal fulfillment is certainly possible.  But I am beginning to wonder if a less literal fulfillment is happening now.  For both governments and corporations are making doing business more difficult for those who do not submit to lib/left cultural standards.  Robert Spencer of JihadWatch has been banned by Patreon and MasterCard.  The State of New York has made banking difficult for the National Rifle Association.  And this is for starters only.  Those in power, both government and corporate power, with totalitarian tendencies are making life more and more difficult for more and more of those determined to exercise their free speech against various Leftisms and Islam.

Jordan Peterson is so concerned about Patreon’s part in the attacks on free speech that he is leaving that platform.  His announcement of that also summarizes much of the current war on free speech. Give it a good listen.

Bishop Gavin Ashenden has also noted the use of finance to attack free speech.  He, too, wonders if this is Revelation 13:17 happening today.  And really such a less literal fulfillment is more likely. Why should “the Beast” bother with putting physical marks on everybody if invasive modern technology can be used to effectively “deplatform” and defund those who refuse to submit? That certainly seems the direction the beast of tyranny seems to be going today in its attacks on free speech.

And remember this is not the first time corporations have been the willing tools of tyrants.  That is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany and what has been happening in China for years.

And now it’s beginning to happen even in the United States. Whether this is Revelation 13:17 or not, that should alarm all who care about freedom of speech.

About that Mary Queen of Scots Movie…

I’ve noticed – it is hard not to notice thanks to bombardment of silly social media ads – that there is a new Mary Queen of Scots movie that portrays Queen Elizabeth I as a very mean and naughty queen who scowls a lot at Mary the heroine.  Never mind that in actual history Mary was a fool caught plotting against Elizabeth and thereby gave her little choice but to lop off Mary’s regicidal head.  And even then Elizabeth was reluctant to do so.

But during this Christmas season I wish to be full of peace and good will and all that.  So I recommend an older presentation which I find to be more historically accurate.  You’re welcome.

Christmas in England 100 Years Ago

One of my alter egos gave an informal talk this week on Christmas in England 100 years ago just after the end of World War I.

Those interested in the Great War, in J. R. Tolkien, or in the Nine Lessons and Carols Christmas Eve service at King’s College Cambridge may want to listen.

By the way the Tolkien books recommended in the talk are Tolkien: Maker of Middle Earthby Catherine McIlwaine, which is the book for the exhibition in Oxford this year and Tolkien and the Great Warby John Garth.  Both are excellent and reasonably priced.  Much pricier is King’s College Chapel 1515-2015, but it is close to a must have for those interested in that august institution. 

Dante in Paradise – Sublime . . . and Petty

Just a brief note that in my study of Dante’s Divine Comedy, I am struck by how sublime and profound he was . . . and by how petty he could be at the same time, particularly in how he just could not let go of factional politics in his home city of Florence. Of course, he was exiled from Florence so one can hardly blame him.

But just one example from Paradiso, Canto XXXI.  Dante writes of how amazed he was to see Heaven, and he makes a profound statement about time, or the lack of it, there:

I, who had come to things divine from man’s estate,

to eternity from time . . .

This is a brilliant observation on a topic I have begun thinking about: God and the eternal state in which He lives and into which He brings His people is not bound by time, but is instead timeless. (Or at least that is the way many Christians have historically seen it.)  Thus eternity is not so much a very long time or infinite time as it is a departure “from time” and from its bounds.

But then look at the very next line:

...from Florence to a people just and sane,…

The man just could not let go of Florence and its politics that had driven him out!  Even in his magnum opus, as soon as he expounds something so deep and profound as the timelessness of the eternity of God’s kingdom, he just could not resist immediately taking one of his many pot shots at Florence.  It is funny really.

But such humanity is part of the fun, if you will, of Dante and part of why I keep returning to him.