“Excuse me, Officer, I have a question.”
“Go for it, but just so you know I am a retired officer.”
“Oh, okay… well, there is this colleague of mine, he is a Libertarian.”
“Oh, good Lord.”
“Yeah, I know… right?!”
“So, what can I help you with?”
“Well, he is always spouting off about how we need to expand freedom, and he accuses me of being a Collectivist since I advocate government regulation of his life.”
“The thing is… some of my fellow employees are starting to listen to him. They are starting to question the benevolence of the State.”
“It gets worse. Some are now actually thinking about voting against the established power structure and seeking to change the system!”
“I see. What do you think I should do?”
“Well, when your coworker starts to criticize the system, kick him.”
“What? You mean literally kick him?”
“Yep. Use force, take him to the ground, then start kicking.”
“Oh, okay. So use physical force to protect our ideology.”
“Thanks for your advice!”
What you just read above was a fictitious conversation between a citizen and a cop. In that conversation the law enforcement officer expressly advocated the use of violence by the citizen as a means of enforcing adherence to his ideology. Unfortunately, last week essentially the same conversation took place between our nation’s former head law enforcement officer and a group to whom he was speaking.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder got a little fast and furious with his language during a speech. He started off by gushing about his relationship with Michelle Obama, then took her pronouncements to task. He pointed out she said that when the Collective’s political opponents “go low” (whatever that means), her minions need to “go high” (again, the phrase is confusing, but we will be charitable and figure she is suggesting civil discourse).
Holder would have none of it.
He said that when enemies of servitude go low, we need to “kick them.”
That statement is crystal clear.
It is also spectacularly dangerous.
There are two ways to achieve a change in behavior in someone: one is through persuasive speech, the other is through the use of violence. Traditionally, we outsource the use of violence to a third party… the State.
There are times when the outsourcing of this violence is impractical (see justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense). Other times, the implicit threat of violence by the State can create enough of a deterrent to prevent antisocial behavior on the part of its citizens toward one another.
When the State itself becomes threatened by competing ideologies, the State will often use force, or the threat of force, to strike terror into the hearts of its citizens to force compliance with the State’s wishes. (The use of Stalin in the conversation above was not done by accident).
In a democratic republic we understand that social discourse changes and evolves over time. We understand that competing ideologies are absolutely necessary for the health of a nation founded on the principles of limited government, and the precept that power comes from the people who have acquiesced to limited regulation for the purposes of securing individual liberty.
Since the late 1930s, our government has abandoned these principles to a large degree and become an expansive entity with the goal of deeper entanglements into the lives of its citizens and the self-preservation of the entity itself.
The current administration has begun a process of deconstructing that paradigm, and the Collectivists are understandably concerned. What is worse, is that the general public seems to be accepting, and in many instances, favorable to this new ideology.
The power of persuasive speech on the part of the Collectivists is quickly evaporating in the wake of empirical evidence to the contrary. The regulations of the State are being removed, and in some cases eviscerated, and yet the Earth still continues spinning around the Sun. African American unemployment is lower than it has ever been, and female employment numbers are higher than they have been in 50 years. Hispanics are now reported to support President Trump (or at the very least his overall agenda) by 40%. The prospect of identity politics as a wedge to protect the Collective is literally falling apart before our eyes.
Those who are dependent on the Collective…. (not the citizens made subservient by it, but rather the administrators, and the Mandarins who help organizations navigate, or exempt themselves from it)… are justifiably frightened. For it is only a matter of time before the general public sees that the “Emperor has no clothes” and the need for the Collective is overrated.
Without the ability to persuade with reasoned logic, the Collective now turns to the only alternative it knows… violence.
Expect to see more of this.