Tag Archives: Winston Churchill

Dominic and the Lost Conservative

Amid the fun and optimism of the Ronald Reagan dinner at this past weekend’s “Defending the American Dream” Summit, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, came a gathering of the “Occupy D.C.’ movement that congregated outside the Washington Convention Center Friday night.  Conference goers looked down at the crowd with the same curiosity one would have at watching a caged animal at the zoo.  As most of the protesters averaged an age in the early twenties, the AFP participants averaged, well… older.  Thus fulfilling the old Churchillian axiom of, “If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart and if you are 40 and not a conservative, you have no brain.”


With the onset of one’s third decade comes energy and passion on a grand scale.  That passion is ignited with meteoric intensity when one’s worldview goes from the sandbox to the planet as a whole. Much more so is that hunger amplified when they witness a world suffering in real time on YouTube or the 24-hour news cycle.


Each new generation decries the injustices of the world; each older generation replies firmly, “ehhhh shut-up!!”, for it takes a generation who has had their idealology collide with reality to properly put the young bucks in their place; not just because they can, but because it is the right thing to do.


Cue the protesters.  Being the middle aged chap I am and having had my endurance sneak off into the night some time ago, I was ready to call it a night at the conclusion of the dinner (around 9:00).  So, I headed out of the convention hall in a circular pattern to avoid the bulk of the “peaceful assembly” and promptly got lost (those who know be best will not be shocked by this). After the usual period of exercising my masculine pride, I finally decided to ask someone for directions.  As it turned out, I had wandered my way back to the edge of the convention center and, as it was, next to the ODC folks.  I met eyes with one of the least “unusual” of the crowd and asked him for directions.  I don’t know if it was because I came from the opposite direction or that I usually dress at the low end of the acceptable fashion totem pole and probably didn’t resemble the stereotypical “evil, rich conservative”, he freely engaged me in conversation.


After setting my compass back to true north, he invited me to join the protest.  I had removed my rank insignia as a junior officer in the conservative army, feigned ignorance and asked him to explain why they were there.


He introduced himself as Dominic, a young fair-skinned man who I surmised was in his early twenties, and proceeded to tell me of the purpose of their assembly.  To my surprise, he calmly, yet energetically explained why he believed they were there, sans any screaming, yelling or the usual vitriol one sees on the news (or later at this gathering).  He proclaimed his interpretation of the injustice of the tyranny of the elite 1% over the masses.


At this point, I could have launched into my usual debate mode and, of course, would have won decisively on points, but by this time, I wanted to track his logic (or lack thereof). It was clear that he was not the “typical” OWS type, full of rage against the machine, but with no clear target – in other words, “Ready, FIRE…. Aim.”


Dominic proceeded to lay out his argument for equality and justice, clearly coming from a desire to see the world a better place and, as misguided and misinformed as it was, it was still pure.  I would query from time to time as to the unrealistic nature of his argument – that there could actually be a 1% versus 99% reality in a democratic republic.  When I asked why there should not be a huge majority of 99%ers in both houses, he couldn’t really proffer an effective responsible.


Suppressing my human instinct to yell, “a HA!’ and commence a victory dance, I continued to ask questions that challenged his positions.  Some of his responses were typical programming, while some would actually make sense, at least on paper.  Yet all of them stemmed from that youthful enthusiasm all of us have experienced at that age.


After a few more minutes of discussion, we parted ways amicably, without a voice being raised or personal insults hurled.  It was a debate, not a confrontation.  I could clearly see that Dominic was not the stereotypical “Occupy _____” protester as all during our conversation, a gaggle of less mature folks gathered at the convention entrance, hurling insults and epithets toward people they had never met (and eventually became violent).


Neither Dominic nor I “won” an argument that night, because we didn’t engage in one.  We had a discussion; at most, a debate.  Perhaps seeds of both wisdom and youthful energy were sown – I more than likely will never really know because I will probably never see his like again.  I’m pretty sure he will never see this article, at least on this site, but then again, 20 years is not so long a time.


As I walked to my Metro stop, I realized I had experienced what has become a rarity in our modern, post-Jerry Springer society – a civil conversation.  And while the Earth didn’t spin off its axis or miraculously heal itself, we both will reap dividends far beyond the obvious and immediate.  What I realized is that we were both doing our jobs.  His was to bark at the moon and mine was to teach him how, where and when to effectively do so.  Dominic is on the other side of the idealogical aisle from me, but that does not make him my enemy.  At worst, he is a worthy opponent; at least he is a member of the field “white for the harvest.”


It will be the Dominics of the world that will hopefully have a Damascus road experience and simply turn their passion loose on what works best.  He and his kind will rise above the base emotions, combining heart and head to help a fragile world realize its potential.


Our job is to find the Dominics, separate them from the herd and raise them up in the way of generations past.  The worst thing we can do is to leave them alone or try to destroy their zeal.  The best thing we can do is redirect it.

Help Wanted: Conservative Statesmen

The Tea Party is getting larger and stronger all the time. It is now a force to be reckoned with in Congress, in state legislatures across the fruited plain, and in the daily news cycle. Yet it lacks one thing. One thing that if present would take it from a force to be reckoned with to an irresistible force. What the Tea Party lacks is the one thing the Founding Fathers had in abundance. And what is that? Statesmen. People like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry were integral to the American Revolution and the establishment of the Constitution. The Tea Party lacks the latter-day equivalents of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and James Madison. Politicians the Tea Party has aplenty. Statesmen, though, are sorely lacking.

Using the Tea Parties analogy to the American Founding, I think you can fairly compare people like Palin and Bachmann to Henry and Sam Adams. That isn’t enough though. We need people like Paul Ryan, and yes, Chris Christie (even if I am not completely sold on him). People who are sensible and pragmatic and educated and experienced. If we want real change, I think the founding of our country is a good model to look at. Hopefully, we can avoid a physical revolution. I believe the founders died so we wouldn’t have to go there. But they do provide a good model for getting things back on the right track. We should look at the whole model. If things had ended in Boston Harbor, we would still be a protectorate of the United Kingdom right now. That isn’t good enough. – ALRMCoug

In response to ALARMCoug’s blog post, HighHorse came back with this bit of analysis concerning the Tea Party:

There is no Samuel Adams on the scene in America today. The centrist Republican establishment sees to it that a modern day Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson will not get anywhere in America.

Your example is interesting because Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were known radicals even in that day. The Tea Party of today is radical as were those guys mentioned. We can expect a watered down version that will never create real change in our country. Moderates will see to it that the true radicals never have representation.

It isn’t just bloggers that recognize the need for leaders of our nation who possess the qualities found in such abundance among those who brought forth the United States of America. Academics see it as well:

The raising up of that constellation of “wise” Founding Fathers to produce America’s remarkable Constitution, whose rights and protection belong to “every man,” was not a random thing…. One historian called our Founding Fathers “the most remarkable generation of public men in the history of the United States or perhaps of any other nation” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Birth of the Nation [1968], 245). Another historian added, “It would be invaluable if we could know what produced this burst of talent from a base of only two and a half million inhabitants” (Barbara W. Tuchman, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam [1984], 18). – Neal A. Maxwell

Furthermore, the Founding Fathers recognized for themselves the remarkable nature of the founding of this nation. Describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In a 1788 letter to Lafayette, he said:

“It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well-founded objections.” 3

It was a miracle. Consider the setting.

The thirteen colonies and three and one-half million Americans who had won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should reaffiliate with the British crown. Among the majority who favored continued independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United States should have a strong central government to replace the weak “league of friendship” established by the Articles of Confederation. Under the Confederation of 1781, there was no executive or judicial authority, and the national Congress had no power to tax or to regulate commerce. The thirteen states retained all their sovereignty, and the national government could do nothing without their approval. The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the unanimous approval of all the states, and every effort to strengthen this loose confederation had failed.

Congress could not even protect itself. In July 1783, an armed mob of former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to take Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When Pennsylvania declined to provide militia to protect them, the congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was a laughingstock, wandering from city to city.

Unless America could adopt a central government with sufficient authority to function as a nation, the thirteen states would remain a group of insignificant, feuding little nations united by nothing more than geography and forever vulnerable to the impositions of aggressive foreign powers. No wonder the first purpose stated in the preamble of the new United States Constitution was “to form a more perfect union.”

The Constitution had its origin in a resolution by which the relatively powerless Congress called delegates to a convention to discuss amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This convention was promoted by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two farsighted young statesmen still in their thirties, who favored a strong national government. They persuaded a reluctant George Washington to attend and then used his influence in a letter-writing campaign to encourage participation by all the states. The convention was held in Philadelphia, whose population of a little over 40,000 made it the largest city in the thirteen states.

As the delegates assembled, there were ominous signs of disunity. It was not until eleven days after the scheduled beginning of the convention that enough states were represented to form a quorum. New Hampshire’s delegation arrived more than two months late because the state had not provided them travel money. No delegates ever came from Rhode Island.

Economically and politically, the country was alarmingly weak. The states were in a paralyzing depression. Everyone was in debt. The national treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various currencies were nearly worthless. The trade deficit was staggering. Rebelling against their inclusion in New York State, prominent citizens of Vermont had already entered into negotiations to rejoin the British crown. In the western territory, Kentucky leaders were speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances with the Old World.

Instead of reacting timidly because of disunity and weakness, the delegates boldly ignored the terms of their invitation to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead set out to write an entirely new constitution. They were conscious of their place in history. For millennia the world’s people had been ruled by kings or tyrants. Now a group of colonies had won independence from a king and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would later describe as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

The delegates faced staggering obstacles. The leaders in the thirteen states were deeply divided on the extent to which the states would cede any power to a national government. If there was to be a strong central government, there were seemingly irresolvable differences on how to allocate the ingredients of national power between large and small states. As to the nature of the national executive, some wanted to copy the British parliamentary system. At least one delegate even favored the adoption of a monarchy. Divisions over slavery could well have prevented any agreement on other issues. There were 600,000 black slaves in the thirteen states, and slavery was essential in the view of some delegates and repulsive to many others.

Deeming secrecy essential to the success of their venture, the delegates spent over three months in secret sessions, faithfully observing their agreement that no one would speak outside the meeting room on the progress of their work. They were fearful that if their debates were reported to the people before the entire document was ready for submission, the opposition would unite to kill the effort before it was born. This type of proceeding would obviously be impossible today. There is irony in the fact that a constitution which protects the people’s “right to know” was written under a set of ground rules that its present beneficiaries would not tolerate.

It took the delegates seven weeks of debate to resolve the question of how the large and small states would be represented in the national congress. The Great Compromise provided a senate with equal representation for each state, and a lower house in which representation was apportioned according to the whole population of free persons in the state, plus three-fifths of the slaves. The vote on this pivotal issue was five states in favor and four against; other states did not vote, either because no delegates were present or because their delegation was divided. Upon that fragile base, the delegates went forward to consider other issues, including the nature of the executive and judicial branches, and whether the document should include a bill of rights.

It is remarkable that the delegates were able to put aside their narrow sectional loyalties to agree on a strong central government. Timely events were persuasive of the need: the delegates’ memories of the national humiliation when Congress was chased out of Philadelphia by a mob, the recent challenge of Shay’s rebellion against Massachusetts farm foreclosures, and the frightening prospect that northern and western areas would be drawn back into the orbit of European power.

The success of the convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention:

“There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.” – Dallin H. Oaks

The Tea Party has its heroes to be sure:

  • Chris Christie is a fiscal genius who is reclaiming the State of New Jersey from the leftist teachers union in that state.
  • Governor Scott Walker made history as he disemboweled the public employee unions in Wisconsin.
  • Justice David Prosser of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court beat back a socialist candidate in dramatic fashion.
  • Sarah Palin is a continual thorn in Barack Obama’s side with her instantly classic Facebook posts.
  • Rush Limbaugh bedevils the progressives so much that he is their inspiration to attempt to take away our Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
  • Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction bill is so powerful that the socialists are compelled to lie about it in order to try to convince independent voters that it is evil. And we all know that the independents are the block of voters who decide elections in this country.
  • Donald Trump has revived the argument about Obama’s missing birth certificate. Stay tuned, this issue isn’t over yet!
  • Michele Bachmann is such a powerful conservative voice that she has a real shot at the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

But still, the Tea Party is missing its statesmen. We are talking about leaders of the stature of Winston Churchill, Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi, Benjamin Disraeli, and yes, Benjamin Franklin. Where are the leaders for our time? Surely we can do better than the RINO Jon Huntsman. Do we really think that Tim Pawlenty is in the same league as James Madison? Does the thought of Mitt Romney as president inspire comparisons to John Adams? Barack Obama Lite is not what this country needs. Obama is not less-filling and he sure doesn’t taste great, either.

The Tea Party needs leaders of unabashed conservatism. The Tea Party needs leaders with the courage of their convictions. The Tea Party needs leaders who respect the Constitution and who are willing to fight in defense of that inspired document of freedom. The Tea Party seeks God-fearing leaders who recognize that the State is subservient to Him who land this is. The Tea Party needs a charismatic, humble, yet strong leader who exudes confidence in the defense of liberty. The Tea Party needs the second coming of the Founding Fathers.

If Obama is to be defeated in the 2012 elections then the Tea Party must produce a leader who can rally the conservative troops. A divided conservative base will lose the election. An energized conservative base will sweep Obama into the ash heap of history. Let us pray we find our statesman before it is too late.