The meaning of the two recent federal decisions

Mark Jaws writes:

I hate to say, “I told you so,” but these two instances of federal judges overturning the voice of the people in AZ and CA should put to rest the Austerian notion of a resurgent majority. We can elect legislatures and governors, we can mount voters’ initiatives and win referenda, but if the federal judicial oligarchy nullifies our attempts to turn back the tide of suicidal progressivism, then what is the whole point? I am convinced, and so are ever growing amounts of millions of Americans, that our only hope as a people with a distinct western culture is through dissolution of the United States (preferably peaceful and amicable) and accompanying secession.

LA replies:

But I have said the same thing: that if Obamacare is not repealed, and if the Arizona decision is not overturned or successfully defied, then we will have gone beyond the grey area of questionable legitimacy that our system of government has occupied for the last 40 or 70 years of overreaching Congress and federal courts and crossed a definitional line. Just as the Episcopal Church definitively ceased being a Christian body in 2003 with the ordination of an openly practicing homosexual as a bishop, we will have definitively ceased being the country that our Constitution and our political creed tell us we are: a limited government under the rule of law founded on the sovereign will and identity of the American people. We will have become instead a leftist dictatorship under the rule of anti-American elites. And then the only recourse, for those who still truthfully consider themselves Americans, will be rebellion against or secession from the perverted thing that America has now become.

- end of initial entry -

Jack S. writes:

I too feel that these recent decisions are further nails in the coffin of (now illusory) American democracy. How long will it be before it dawns on the general public that if the law and the constitution are whatever a leftist judge says it is then there are no laws. The Left has long understood that law and courts are weapons to be used against political opponents. Each one of these brazen acts arrogantly displays that power. It’s interesting to note that the Judge Vaughn Walker, a Bush senior appointee is one of only two openly gay federal judges. The Left is still cautious enough that they haven’t touted that fact in news reports of the decision.

The breakup of the country or the breakdown of civil society seems more and more likely with each of these assaults on decency.

The success of the Left’s social agenda over the last twenty years is stunning. Formerly taboo inter-racial relationships are now so common, even among alleged conservatives, that noticing such a relationship is now an overt display of racism. In a brief ten years homosexual marriage has gone from being off the radar screen to being enshrined in the Constition by a gay judge. The Leftist social agenda is no less that the destruction of the traditonal American values and especially the Constitution itself. Any leftist will admit, once you get past the boilerplate statements to fool the rubes, that they consider the Constitution and the founding fathers of dubious legitimacy, tainted as they are by the original sin of slavery.

Ben W. writes:

LA: “And then the only recourse, for those who still truthfully consider themselves Americans, will be rebellion against or secession from the perverted thing that America has now become.”

Why not peaceful co-existence with the enemy, a sort of political and cultural detente?

Debra C. writes:

To Ben W. who writes: “Why not peaceful co-existence with the enemy, a sort of political and cultural detente?”

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but we wouldn’t be at this depressing juncture today had we not adopted long ago an appeasement posture vis a vis our mortal enemies. Even worse is now to imagine that we have somehow gained a plateau where we may haggle around the edges of a dangerous and precipitous landscape. Such thinking is naive at best, suicidal at worst. How much progressive statism is enough for them? What is the end goal? It is nothing short of the eradication of any trace of a worldview that challenges the statist dogma, any remnant of a culture whose very existence exposes the lie of their utopian dream world and the nihilistic futility of their sad pathetic lives.

(I think even my auto-signature below is relevant to this point.)

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.” Karl Marx

James P. writes:

Ben W. writes:

“Why not peaceful co-existence with the enemy, a sort of political and cultural detente?”

Good grief, one thing is abundantly clear from the historical record, and that is Leftism will not leave you alone. It is a relentlessly aggressive, expansionist ideology that gives no respite or quarter. It cannot allow people to remain neutral any more than it can allow people to oppose it. After all, from the Left’s perspective, anyone who seeks to remain “neutral” in the struggle against racism, social injustice, climate change, and economic inequality is either ignorant (and thus must be educated until they are no longer neutral) or depraved (and thus must be punished until they renounce their depravity).

You may wish to be left alone, but Leftism will thrust itself into your home, your children’s schools, your place of business, your personal associations, and your leisure activities. You own your home and run your business at the whim of Leftist functionaries. If you stay home, the Left will vomit filth into your living room by way of the television. If you leave your home, you risk falling victim to the social chaos and criminality that Leftist rule generates. What detente is possible with such an all-consuming monster?

How do you propose to “co-exist” with an ideology that prides itself on remaking our social, cultural, economic, and political system in the name of “progress”? Even if the Left stopped advancing, their past victories would retain their destructive effect. Leftist laws, regulations, policies, and social values cannot merely be frozen in place, but must be reversed, if western civilization is to survive. Containment is a recipe for stalemate; victory requires rollback.

Last but not least, why should the Left accept detente? They are winning. They control the key institutions, and—as Mark Jaws noted—they can keep shoving their agenda down our throat no matter who we elect or what referenda we pass. Moreover they consider that their opponents are stupid or evil, and thus will show no mercy.

Kathlene M. writes:

Ben W. writes: “Why not peaceful co-existence with the enemy, a sort of political and cultural detente?”

What would be the price of this so-called “peaceful co-existence?” Subjugation to the state; abdication to tyranny. The enemy doesn’t seek equality; the enemy seeks its dominance over our lives, thoughts and behaviors. The enemy asks us to tolerate their beliefs, but will not tolerate ours. The enemy wants to eradicate/criminalize/fine our “bigoted” beliefs and thoughts by labeling them “hate.”

Ben’s question is like asking, “Why not just submit to Islam?”

Gintas writes:

To Ben W., quoting Leon Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

Jon W. writes:

I say Ben’s remark, if serious, is further evidence that the soil for our dhimmitude is prepared, fertile, and showing a lot of early, (dhimmi) volunteer growth. We are not, if you’ll excuse me, “On the Path to National Dhimmitude”. Collectively, we have arrived there and are celebrating that under our Codevilla Rulers and the Islamists who are taking victory laps: the latter even undertaking amid cheering to build monuments to mark their victories near Ground Zero and Shanksville.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 05, 2010 01:17 PM | Send