Guest post by Andrew Schwartz
What are we to think of such blatant attacks recently made on members who have assumed the name of the Tea Party? Surely, these attacks are not new; but rarely have they ever been so concerted and coincidental in their timing. The Tea Party has been branded as “the enemy,” and have been told to “go to hell,” by representatives, of the same body of people from whom the Party themselves arose; they have been implicated as “barbarians,” by the vice-executor and senatorial president; and they have had wars waged upon them by leaders of similar groups who have themselves organized for political goals. The latter—that is, the accursed, defamatory, and altogether martial language by Union leaders—even received the tacit consent and approbation from the chief executive—nay, even the Commander in Chief—of our nation. (Such silent approval, without rebuke or modification from their Supreme Commander, must allow and encourage subordinate generals to wage their plans as proposed.)
Much has been said about the ‘civility’ of such language, and its obvious hypocritical nature, being approved by the same who called for language that ‘heals, not wounds.’ If this be healing language from the declared enemies of the Tea Party, imagine their conduct if they were provoked to truly offend. It is not my intent to address such hypocrisy; such a charge does nothing to address a more imminent concern: I mean the concern over the foundations of their charges.
It is almost certain that members who oppose the principles of the Tea Party anticipate their anger in the coming days, over an economic proposal planned by our executive and his council. It will be a plan laden with positive legislation—and by ‘positive’ I mean legislation that requires individuals, groups, and governments, to act, rather than ‘negative’ legislation that restricts government, groups, or individuals from acting, though both may be enforced upon pain of penalty. It will be a plan of expenditures, dressed as investments, and prostituted as prosperity. It will be a recycled philosophy, glittered with the creative nature and language, of which the sinistra ala is so proud, to make it appear innovative, necessary, and moderate. The attentive will see this, and oppose it as they have many other such jejune machinations. The instigators of the plan will attempt to portray that opposition as destructive, but only by the instigators’ being ignorant of the opposing premise, or worse, purposefully disregarding it.
What is really under attack? Is it the members of the Tea Party, who have been called everything from ‘racist’ to ‘rebel?’ Is it the Republicans, who because of their size and recent history make an easy target? It may be, but both of these targets are incidental to their primary objective, the philosophy of conservatism.
The liberal philosophy is one that glorifies change, even if only for the sake of change; it elevates to infinite degrees the potential progress of the human race through evolutionary means, but denies that same ascription, by restricting freedom, to the individual human; it promotes a leveled society, in which a supervised equality holds governmental dominion—which the alert reader will realize is no equality at all. It is the sect of humanity that clings to the optimistic view that society can indeed be perfected, if only the imperfect are marginalized, exiled, or murdered.
The conservative philosophy is hesitant, sometimes to a fault; it must be thoroughly convinced of new ideas before it embraces them fully; it denigrates all of humanity, while devolving the ability of the individual, in many cases, to seek his own elevation from depravity; it promotes a free society, which necessarily results in an unlevel society, since those who seek gain with their freedom will eventually dominate those who only seek to prevent loss. It is the sect of humanity that realizes that man is capable of great things, but he is also prone to corruption. It believes that society may become near to perfection, but only through a healthy system of political pessimism, such as the American system of checks and balances.
The two are antithetical; but the liberal is much more apt to march upon the conservative, than the reverse. To the liberal, a conservative is an obstacle—a fence along the border of society that impedes their path to paradisical pastures. To the conservative, a liberal is a nuisance, but it rarely becomes an obstacle, except when the liberal attempts to violate constitutional territory; but even then conservatism stands as a bulwark, not a ballista. Liberality is by nature offensive, desperately seeking constant change in its futile pursuit of procuring political perfection; Conservatism is by nature defensive, cautiously resisting change in its futile pursuit of preventing political peril.
The liberal always seeks new ideas, and accepts them as new as long as they are perceived as such; the conservative adheres to Solomonic wisdom that there is nothing new under the sun. The liberal sees infinite progress and evolution; the conservative recognizes inevitable entropy.
As to the concentrated and continued attempts to marginalize those who dare to stand up for the constitutional authority of natural laws and rights, and not the arbitrary authority of natural men, this too has been tried—without success—in the 1760s and 1770s in our very own country. Emer de Vattel, the 18th-century Swiss philosopher would say this about our current environment: “tyrants alone will treat as seditious, those brave and resolute citizens who exhort the people to preserve themselves from oppression in the vindication of their rights and privileges: a good [executive] will commend such virtuous patriots, provided their zeal be tempered with moderation and prudence. If he has justice and duty at heart, if he aspires to that immortal and unsullied glory of being the father of his people; let him mistrust the selfish suggestions of [his supporters] who represents to him as rebels all those citizens who do not hold out their hands to chains, who refuse tamely to suffer the strokes of arbitrary power.”
*****
Andrew Schwartz is a United States Marine, and a graduate of Old Dominion University with a Bachelor’s Degree (Summa Cum Laude) in History, and focuses on Colonial and Early American Political and Intellectual History. He has written for various blogs and newspapers on historical and political matters for about five years
