History, it seems, has a singular sense of irony.
For all I know, Tuesday, January 19, 2010 may in the end be relegated to a minor historical footnote. Conversely, this day–tomorrow–may also be one about which people tell their children and grandchildren. No great war will be fought, however; no one will remember the heroic deeds of soldiers or the words spoken by influential leaders during speeches that come to define generational turning points. What people may remember, though, is that this day was one of a smaller series of examples when the American people took a stand against the encroachment of global soft tyranny and preserved their God-given rights, rights made clear and evident to them by their Founding Fathers.
While the people of Massachusetts seem to have mobilized after having finally taken notice of the questionable, liberally-oriented policies coming out of our nation’s capital, and while New England more generally appears to be rushing to the aid of its sister state in an all-out effort to assist in electing a common-sense conservative, Scott Brown, to the United States Senate, I’m still not altogether convinced that the average, everyday, politically-unmotivated American truly understands the magnitude of what is about to take place.
We may be, in a quite realistic sense, in the midst of history. At the end of the day, the choice which will have been rendered will not be the personage of Scott Brown or Martha Coakley; at the end of the day, our nation will be staring directly at either a future clouded by the continuing spectre of fascism or a future in which we finally begin to witness the revival of that for which our founders were willing to die.
In order to understand these two divergent roads, people must first understand the history of the fascist movement that has gripped this country–and in some sense, the world–over the course of the past century. Broadly defined, fascism is the fusion of government and big business, a philosophy which inevitably leads to domination by the powerful elite of society. If allowed to continue on its present course, the United States will eventually come under the grip of a movement which calls itself “liberalism” but in truth will relegate the masses to little more than global serfdom.
While America is a nation with physical borders, it is also an idea — the most unique governing principle ever conceived, in that a nation and its people can more greatly prosper if the central government of that nation gets out of the way of its people. This government’s only true function is to protect the freedoms and natural rights guaranteed to the people, and to keep those people safe from harm. Of course, a central government, at both the state and federal level, needs to function so that those two responsibilities can be carried out; consequently, there are government offices which need to be filled by qualified people, a situation that requires the people to contribute–taxes–to the salaries of these individuals. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out before, the colonists of the late-eighteenth century had no issue whatsoever with the principle and necessity of paying taxes; their issue was with representation in Parliament.
Over the course of the past two years, many words have been spoken in the heated political arena with regard to the concepts of limited and large government. On this point, I will say this: when the United States won its independence, it was a nation of approximately four million people in 13 states. Today, we are a nation of approximately 305 million people in 50 states. Mere simple logic would seem to suggest that, in order to properly execute the aforementioned two basic functions, the size and influence of a central government would by necessity need to slightly expand in some degree or proportion to the size of its citizenry.
Make no mistake, in no sense should that statement be construed as a call for large government; a central government can still be a limited one but would need to acknowledge greater complexities in carrying out its basic mission. Limited social programs might need to be implemented in some cases, but that is where any degree of what might pass for my “expertise” would end. I’m only painting what is a decidedly general picture.
To those who understood the significance and potential political consequences of the alleged “referendum” that came about on November 4, 2008, the midterm elections coming up in less than11 months seemed awfully, awfully far away. What we could see was nearly unlimited damage which could be brought to bear on the freedoms of the American people through a flagrant disregard for our nation’s Constitution. And, I believe, we’ve been proven correct, and in only one calendar year.
Now, miraculously, we’ve been granted a reprieve in as unique an opportunity as there arguably ever has been in the history of the American Republic — a special election held nine months prior to mid-term elections, a special election and unique circumstance having the chance to re-shape the immediate political landscape. Universal health care, perhaps the largest entitlement program since the New Deal and no doubt the crown jewel of the socialist movement in the United States of America, is what hangs in the balance. Nearly everything about a free individual’s life can be regulated under the umbrella of health-related considerations and, unless this legislation is stopped, control over nearly every aspect of our daily lives and our behavioral choices will eventually become a way of life. Couple that with the crushing debt that this administration–along with the TARP bailout at the tail end of the previous administration’s admitted abandonment of free market principles–has already imposed on us, and the prospects for our children’s “pursuit of happiness” begins to look fairly bleak.
That’s where the singular sense of irony comes into play. We’ve now been given the opportunity to draw a line in the sand, and in only a very limited space. At the risk of coming across as unnecessarily dramatic, allow me to say that I simply can’t help but notice the quasi-historical nature of everything lining up in just such a way. Three years ago, a motion picture told us the true story of a small band of elite warriors who bought time for their homeland by risking everything and defending a very limited corridor at Thermopylae. The mass numbers of the opposing army did not matter; they were rendered impotent by the lack of space. Clearly, that film “glamorized” the sacrifice of those men, but the essential points remain. What once looked impossible can be done.
Furthermore, the “limited space” in which this potential historical turning point will unfold will be none other than the cradle of American liberty itself, Massachusetts. Despite the overwhelming political majority held by the nation’s Democrats, their advantage will be almost completely negated, as only the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to defend and define America’s future. Even further, the objective is to secure none other than the ground once occupied by one of the most iconic political figureheads of the past century, a man who had stood as the Liberal Lion of the United States Senate for 46 out of its only 223 years. Now is our chance; may God protect our American States.