Starting over again

A correspondent told me this evening that he is working on an article about secession in which, among other things, he will present the laws that would be needed in the new, non-liberal, breakaway society (or societies) to avoid the mistakes of the existing society. This is exactly the kind of work that is needed. It is a complement to my proposed article listing all the things about the existing America that we reject.

The trauma of the decisive takeover of this society by the left and the death of the constitutional republic has a large silver lining: we are now free intellectually of liberal America. We no longer have to keep hopelessly trying to inject some conservatism into a society that is overwhelmingly and unchallengeably liberal. Now we are free to start over again,—intellectually at first, and later, we hope, practically. What the task involves is taking the good principles and components of the old America and dispensing with the bad, and introducing new principles and components that can be the basis of a new, viable, non-liberal society.

- end of initial entry -

Ed H. writes:

Does the model of the South as it existed for almost a hundred years post-Reconstruction, pre-Civil Rights, offer anything as to what a post-liberal American political entity might look like? During that time the South was an almost a de facto separate country existing loosely within the USA. Rather than formal secession, independence was maintained by culture, local laws, and indifference to what others might think. There were no external borders, but it was a no-go zone for the federal government. Strict states rights created a unique, powerful, and defiant culture and people, defined by the principles of the 1787 Constitution and yet a place where no one dared use federal laws to distort the local religious or racial identity. We do not need to accept how liberals looked on the New South, i.e. a cauldron of bigotry, we can look at it as a non-liberal, traditionalist, highly cultured, European, white, American Republic. So we do have at least one rough but workable model from our past to go by. And this seems a much more likely and achievable first step.

Arizona with its defiance of Eric Holder provides another example of how this could begin to happen today. The federal judiciary would quickly show up, pure defiance with no backing down would be inevitable.

LA replies:

I think there is much to what you are saying.

I would also point out that your accurate picture of the post-Reconstruction South puts the lie to the ridiculous, brain-dead paleoconservative notion that America’s constitutional order was destroyed by Lincoln.

LA adds (December 10):

Stogie at Confederate Gray, while agreeing with the overall drift of this entry, says that I have the views I have on the Civil War because I was “heavily indoctrinated into the Lincoln myth at an early age.” Actually my views of the Civil War were formed by my reading and thinking as a middle-aged adult. However, since I described the opposing view of the Civil War, held by Stogie and others, as “ridiculous” and “brain-dead,” I can’t complain if he wants to suggest that I also am mindless on this issue.

December 10

Ed H. writes:

When imagining how any new post-USSSA (United Socialist Sodomite States of America) political entity might draw up its laws, a handy guide might be to catalogue the ways the ACLU operates and create a set of laws that would make it impossible for any such organization to function. Does the ACLU use anonymous complainants, and on-demand federal injunctions to destroy local desires and customs? Then make laws to the effect that local complainants must have a local support base before judicial intervention is possible. Make laws that all judicial intervention shall be in accordance with the customs and traditions of the reformed Republic and its constituent communities. For example if a large cross has been placed on a hilltop over a town and the local residents agree that its presence is not offensive and it is in accordance with the traditions of their community then that is the end of the matter.

This is a rough start, but again, if it stops the ACLU it might be highly valuable just by default. Our legal thinking needs a fresh start and needs to occur outside the box. This is difficult for many because the box and its tyrannical walls have been accepted for so long. I have stunned many liberals to silence when I vocally dream of laws so contrived. Like automatons they reply on cue with cries of “racist” or “sexist” or “intolerant”! I look at them pointedly and say: “You fail to understand. It won’t be your country anymore. What part of that don’t you understand?” It is indescribably delicious to watch the blank look that comes over their faces.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 09, 2012 10:03 PM | Send