Politics Is WarEditorial
John J. Pitney, Jr.
wrote an excellent little book five years ago, The Art of Political
Warfare, where he described the similarity between politics and
war. Indeed, politics is war without weapons, or the pursuit of the
same kinds of goals as traditional warfare with the reluctance to take
up arms unless necessary. War and politics both
involve strategy, leadership with clarity of purpose and intelligent
application, skillful coordination of all forces to concentrate on the
goal, rallying the troops so they are committed to the cause,
development of intelligence to understand the enemy, the practice of
demoralization, deception, and stealth. In the conduct of politicians
before the public, polite language is often used, “the honorable
gentleman from Ohio,” “I yield the floor to my friend from
Michigan,” and so forth. Some expressions are sincere, and some
representatives are civil to each other outside the public chamber,
even friendly, when they are not in argument; but gentle expressions
of goodwill are temporary affectations. The two sides are enemies, as
surely as if they were armed. President Clinton put it well: If you give me a political context, I’ll just tell you that you’re not going to find what you out there in the world, civilians, think is friendship. President
Clinton, an excellent political technician, illustrates how defeat can
be turned into success even as a general can counter-attack and wrest
success from defeat. During the impeachment trial, Mr. Clinton turned
the tables by shifting the discussion from his conduct to the conduct
of the special counsel and his Republican enemies. In the words of
George Stephanopoulos, “Clinton’s shamelessness is a key to his
political success.” His shamelessness is forgotten now, and he is
accepted by his former opponents in an atmosphere of mutual goodwill.
He remains a general in the constitutional war that is before us. Democrats and
Republicans have opposing points of view, different strategies in the
prosecution of the war being fought in Congress. There is a difference
in the meaning of capitalism, the role of religion in society, and the
meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The chief emphasis at the moment is
about the meaning of the Constitution. Republicans believe the
Constitution “is established” and should determine our political
behavior. The Democrats do not believe in the Constitution, though
they say they do. They oppose President Bush’s nominees to any court
because, it is said, they do not conform to mainstream belief. Senator
Schumer is dogmatic on this point. What he means by “mainstream
belief” is his point of view and the point of view of the Democratic
Party. The fact that both houses of Congress and the majority of the
governors are Republican denies that his point of view and that of the
Democratic Party illustrate “mainstream belief.” To assert that
judges are to be nominated to office or denied office based on their
political point of view is improper. Democrats say they are
protecting the country from radical judges. Senator Reid says, “the
president is at it again with extremist judges.” Kennedy promises,
“I will resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president .
. . for any federal court.” The Democratic plan for
constitutionalism is to elect judges who can rule by judicial diktat,
bypassing Congress, or, in the words of Senator Sam Irvin, by judges
“who interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if
they, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it.” Said Thomas Jefferson, The
opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are
constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own
sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their
spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. . . . The
Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of
the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they
please.
***** Religion is said to be destroying the republic by becoming established. Nonsense. A church, or a religion, is established when the government regulates that church, defines doctrine, and is responsible for its financial well-being. The Church of England in England is part of the state and illustrates religious establishment. In the early history of this country some churches were established, but this practice was discontinued. Thomas Jefferson resisted the establishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Neither the national or any state constitution in the United States establishes religion or a church. Jefferson wrote a letter in which he mentioned the separation of church and state, and that expression has become popular and is used to prevent religious expression. Its use is an inaccurate representation of Jefferson’s meaning. Denial of the relevance of religious belief and its
possible influence on legislation ignores American history, and the
history of any country. All decisions in politics and law are based on
moral values, and moral values define religion properly understood.
George Washington did not have in mind the doctrine of the Trinity or
the Immaculate Conception when he implored the guidance of God; he
sought personal and political guidance in ultimate values, attempting
to practice these for himself and his country. (Theologians have
argued about trinitarianism and tritheism, baptismal regeneration, the
incarnate logos, sacramental participation, atonement,
consubstantiation or trans-substantiation. Ordinary people think
religion has to do with behavior.) Religion influences
behavior, but it can be wicked as well as helpful. Present fanaticism
by Islamic clerics is proof. Any religion that promotes murder is
wicked. Islam has forgotten how to be intelligent, but we are not to
be overly critical because the Christian church for almost two
thousand years has been defined by theology rather than behavior—the
same attitude we now see in Islam. Toleration in 17th century England,
rationalism in 18th century France, and 19th century Biblical
criticism in Germany undermined doctrinal interpretations of religion
so that in the late 19th and early 20th century most clerics lost
their traditional beliefs. They then lost a monumental opportunity for
reformation. New and Old Testaments spoke of being “Christian” or
“faithful to Judaism,” in both cases referring to Godlike
behavior. The Psalms praised God and asked people to be godly. So did
other books of the Bible. The opportunity for the church, with the
decline of doctrinal dogmatism, was to return to basics and praise
individual righteousness. Church leaders neglected this needed
reformation and chose church union and social action. Church union
meant combining differing churches into one legal body, a
centralization of power, a perversion of religion. Social action meant
using the power of the church to speak on political issues. The church
decided that political action was more important than individual
righteousness, or the two were the same. The practical consequence has
been that church spokesman have promoted centralization and paternal
attitudes, the same point of view as Democrats. Most parishioners
ignore political statements by church officials while those who are
members of independent congregations tend to support Republicans.
Religious independents and Republicans are committed to individual
responsibility, at least in theory. ***** The U.S. Constitution
was written to protect individuals from the state, a unique document.
The present constitutional battle is to preserve our American
tradition or to return to the European model as illustrated in France,
where the emphasis is on paternalism. The effort in Europe is to
establish a single European state, strong enough to counter the United
States, where politicians will not be directly elected, and
self-appointed European courts will determine the legality of
parliamentary actions in member states. The U.S. Supreme Court has
been interpreting our Constitution by decisions made in the
self-appointed courts of Europe. This illustrates the seriousness of
the present debate on judicial appointments and the differing
philosophies of the two parties in the U.S. The intellectual
leadership of Europe looks with contempt at our capitalism and prefers
a paternal society; the opposition to American traditions by the
Democratic Party is the same as opposition to America in Europe. The French people voted down the proposed constitution
of the European Union. Before we celebrate their good sense, however,
we have to acknowledge that the average Frenchman voted “no”
because he wanted more money and fewer working hours and criticized
his government for lack of generosity. He was as much out of touch
with reality as President Chirac. France may fade from history and
become a Muslim state. During the 20th century Germany, Russia,
and Japan had the insane desire to rule the world, and they caused the
loss of millions of lives. Japan has become civilized by turning to
commerce; the other countries have the same point of view as in the
20th century, joined in their madness by France. In times of war, and I
suppose every age is a time of war, incredible abuse is the order of
the day. President Lincoln was one of the great gentlemen of the
United States, but he was opposed by the bulk of the media, political
opposition, and members of his party. They wanted his job. During the
campaign for his second term, only one of his party in Congress gave
him support. He was called ape, gorilla, fool, filthy storyteller,
despot, liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, tortoise,
ignoramus, old scoundrel, perjurer, robber, swindler, tyrant, fiend,
butcher, land pirate. He ignored his detractors and trusted the
people. If they were informed, he believed, they would decide
correctly. So they did in his time, in spite of detractors, and so
they have in the years that have passed. His detractors are disgraced
by his intelligence, virtue, and wisdom. It would be wisdom for
politicians if their conduct were determined by sense and information
rather than by ambition. * “It is not what a
lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell
me I ought to do.” Edmund Burke * The
quotes following each article have been gathered by The Federalist
Patriot, which can be reached at: http://FederalistPatriot.US/services.asp. |
|||
[ Who We Are | Authors | Articles | Archive | Subscription | Search | Contact Us ] © Copyright St.Croix Review 2001 |