Activist re-inventions

null
“It may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.” – Thoreau

“Eternal vigilance,” we have been told, “is the price of liberty.”  Americans have heard this for generations, but the true meaning of the statement is seldom understood.  The institution of liberty removes all necessity for movements in its favor, and in a truly free environment, the only political movements that develop must aim to reduce liberty in some way.  A truly free society must remain vigilant against all political activists. 

Unfortunately, humankind has never known a truly free society, so liberal activism has always been in need.  Liberal activism brought slavery to an end and made equal rights human social institutions.  Activists of liberal movements are inspired to fight for liberty and equality, but once their aims are met, their necessity dissolves.  Success did not bring an end to the women’s rights and civil rights movements, however.  Remnants remain, the prominent of which are not at all liberal, but harbor within themselves, and unpardonably perpetuate and instill in society, the very qualities that they claim to despise.

The vast majority of civil rights activists, who so admirably stood for freedom in the 1960s, discontinued activism upon the realization of equal rights and equal opportunity.  The same can be said of many women’s rights activists.  Can there be greater evidence of the success of these movements than the Democratic Presidential primary of 2008? 

Because blacks and women now hold legal equality (and even certain legal advantages) in this country, the need for activism in their favor has all but disappeared.  True advocates of liberty wish only to be treated fairly as individuals, and those that continue to fight for a freedom already attained, are either swinging at windmills or seeking personal gain at the expense of liberty and those that believe in it.  Remnants of successful rights movements must re-invent inequality, or re-define equality, in order to survive.  It is as if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson miss the dissolved external hatred that they once found both real and profitable.  These men, formerly revered as civil rights activists, are merely opportunistic businessmen.  If the likes of Jackson and Sharpton come to believe, as most Americans do, that a person is a person, regardless of superficial qualities, they lose all marketability; so, in the absence of injustice, they re-invent a collectivist mentality that should have faded away, and they are the true believers and sowers of racism in America today. 

If sexism and racism make a comeback in this country, it will be the work of the feminist and racial rights “leaders.”

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. “It is as if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson miss the dissolved external hatred that they once found both real and profitable. These men, formerly revered as civil rights activists, are merely opportunistic businessmen. If the likes of Jackson and Sharpton come to believe, as most Americans do, that a person is a person, regardless of superficial qualities, they lose all marketability; so, in the absence of injustice, they re-invent a collectivist mentality that should have faded away, and they are the true believers and sowers of racism in America today.” Good call. reading your blogs It’s easy to see that you and Ron Paul are peas in a pod. My question is whether you found someone that embodies (for the most part anyway) the beliefs you already had, or was it that once you read up on his ideas you ‘converted’ to his way of thinking? It’s not a loaded question, promise – I just like to hear peoples stories of why they believe the way they do.

  2. I have spent a lot of my life reading philosophy. It always seemed to me that a person with a consistent principled integrity was bound to fail in politics. I believed lots of people like Ron Paul existed, but I had no idea any of them were in Congress, until I heard him during a debate on Fox News over the summer. I always say the answer to 99 out of 100 questions is money. If you want to understand the relationship between our money and our freedom, I suggest reading The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. You will clearly see that our economic stumblings come as a result of socialist planning, which persists unquestioned by either side of the aisle. We have left our spending decisions and governance to special interests and think tanks, and have thus chained the invisible hand of the free market. There is nothing flawed about Adam Smith’s economics, but there are many flaws in that of Keynes.

  3. I’m a fan of economics, Adam Smith was the man

  4. Liberal activism was needed to end slavery, yes, and for that reason I wasn’t brought up in bondage. Yet, classical liberals –those that fought for abolition of slavery and later for equal rights but not especial rights for all Americans– we call, perhaps wrongly, conservatives today. The ideological and cultural descendants of the liberals of old are by and large the Republicans of the Northern style today: Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, President George Bush the elder, Michael Steele of Maryland, Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gary Franks of Connecticut, George Pataki of New York, Rudolph Giuliani of New York, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of Missouri and Virginia, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, William T. Coleman of Pennsylvania, C. Scott Vanderhoef of New York, J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, Olympia Snow of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, Theodore Roosevelt IV of New York, William Weld of Massachusetts and New York, Colin Powell of Washington DC, John Warner of Virginia, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Claude Allen of Washington DC, the late President Gerald Ford, and, yes, John McCain of Arizona. This group of leading “old style liberals” which we bizarrely call “conservatives” today because we call the socialists in America “liberals” are nearly half black in numbers, they are what has become of the abolitionists. The politicians who engage in social activism on behalf of special rights for certain people are socialists. They believe in the redistribution of American wealth and un-evening the playing field to give special interest groups advantages over everybody else.

  5. Regarding the word Conservative: At the time of the Founding of America, most of the founders were liberals in the sense of Liberating people from the clutches of the church-state which permeated most cultures in Europe and on Earth. Conservatives, in turn, were trying to maintain the church-state grip on people, and therefore in conflict with the Liberals. (Legend has it that in legislatures, the liberals sat on the left side of the house, and conservatives on the right, supposedly where the left/right distinction came from.)

    So the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation were Liberal phenomena. The Constitution, with people like Hamilton involved, was a bit of a compromise, and a move back toward centralism or Statism, as the Anti-Federalists so clearly, and correctly, warned. It was a move back toward church-state conservatism. But it was pretty good compared to what the rest of the world had, if only We The People had held onto it to the letter, and not let it slip away by Supreme Court, Executive and Legislative erosion.

    The Anti-Federalists were right, the words of the Constitution had enough wiggle-room to be interpreted out of existence, along with our freedoms and rights. Which might have been preserved IF the Living Constitution idea had not taken hold and the centralists had not gained power. But nearly everyone loves being taken care of by a Daddy or Mommy State. So giving the Feds just a little more power can’t hurt, can it? … And a little more. … And a little more. …

    So today, the people who are trying to go back to the strict interpretation of the early views of the Constitution, and still in light of the now defunct Declaration of Independence, are attempting to Conserve the Liberal revolution at the time of the Founding. So this is what a Paleo-Conservative is, one who is going WAY back to Original Intent, trying to recover the liberating revolution the Founders started. Most so-called conservatives today, and especially Republicans, however, have no idea what I just said even means, let alone live up to it.

    Thanks for Reading,
    Take Care,
    David Scott Lynn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: