Legend has it that comic Lenny Bruce started his downward slide at least partially because many of the hipsters who had boosted his brief career into the stratosphere turned against him. They did so when Bruce kept focusing his acid wit on the powers-that-be, even after Eisenhower made way for Kennedy. It was all well and good to mock conservatism and conformity, but to go after Camelot was too much. And then Bruce dared to suggest that Jackie was less courageous during JFK's assassination than instant mythology insisted.
"Bullsh-t!" said Bruce, suggesting instead that she "hauled ass to save her ass"!
Of course, there's more to Bruce's downfall than that, including a huge dose of self-destruction. But that's a good place to start in describing the occasional fate of people who critique power rather than party. I make this point because we're very clearly about to have a changing of the guard, and in the months and years to come, I'm almost certainly going to be tough on the new president and his "change you can believe in," along with the inevitably increased congressional majority that president's party will enjoy.
And some of you, my loyal readers, even those who have enjoyed swipes at the current administration, will be upset with me as a result.
That's going to happen even though I've been writing about civil liberties for over a decade, took the Bush administration to-task for its due-process-busting military tribunal schemes as early as 2001, and haven't exactly let up in recent years.
Yes, yes, I understand that President Bush is a right-wing baddie and that we'll all get to ride unicorns under President Obama. But what happens if that's not the case?
Or, rather, what happens when that's not the case?
As I've written before, "it's not so much the president as the presidency." I'll add that it's not so much about the party in power as the power itself.
And the government under which we suffer wields an awful lot of power.
Some looming issues that already set off my virtual canary in a civil libertarian coal mine are: the potential reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine and the stifling of political speech that would result; the threatened passage of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act or a similar bill, which has the potential to criminalize political advocacy rather than violent action; and renewed assaults on the right to bear arms before the full protections that should be accorded by the Supreme Court's Heller decision are formalized and become established law.
Which is to say, the personal freedom concerns raised by the new boss will probably be different than those raised by the old boss, but I'm still going to have plenty to write about.
As much as some people think that salvation arrives when their team wins at the ballot box, the sad fact is that elections generally result in little more than the turning out of a tired set of control freaks with a worn-out agenda and their replacement by a fresh set of control freaks with an all-new list of things to be done. Honestly, do you think people with a restrained sense of their right to mold the world to fit their views are attracted to a career in political office? From any party? What normal person gives up privacy, proximity to family and peaceful relations with their neighbors for life in the spotlight, largely spent far from home, in a state of eternal combat with people who hold opposing views?
With few exceptions, normal people don't do that. The folks who do find that an attractive career choice are those who can't resist the siren call of access to power to, by proxy, hold guns to people's heads and make them do things they wouldn't do on their own, or to stop them from doing things they want to do.
And all too often, they're cheered on by tribal loyalists who think that a temporary victory at the polls is a swell opportunity to sock it to the evil folks who dare to favor the other tribe, or just think and live differently.
We'll go through this regularly scheduled charade for as long as government retains the power to seriously intrude into and disrupt our lives in so many ways. When government ceases to be such a handy bludgeon for whoever is in power, it will stop being abused. So long as it remains so powerful, it will continue to wreak havoc on life, liberty and property no matter what political tribe currently holds the reins.
Hey, despite the abuse I expect to get from people who loved what I wrote just a few months ago, I look on the bright side: so long as I can retain an audience, there's always job security in writing about government excesses.
You can discuss hot topics with other readers, click through a regular feed of Civil Liberties Examiner headlines, and check out categorized compilations of stories. Join now!
Contact J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
Comments
It's hard to defend "involuntary servitude". However, take a look at universal facts of life. Human beings live in societies, not isolated enclaves. We always face societally imposed restrictions and obligations. In families, this will be chores, roles, obligations, commitments whereby we commit our own time and energy to contribute to the wellbeing of other family members - at our immediate expense. In return we can expect others to do the same. In a democratic polity this is ideally expressed by taxes and communal service reimbursed by communally funded protection from violence and exploitation. Communal compulsion also ensures the maintenance of an infrastructure that guarantees commercial and social frameworks in which we pursue our social, spiritual and material goals. In short, a kneejerk animosity to the very concept of compulsory "community service" is quite naive. The USA is an enormous nation-state. This state exists only through the interaction of numerous "social contracts" negotiated between a mosaic of communities with conflicting interests. The result of this dynamic is a lively pluralistic society allowing, among other things, the existence of individuals and movements calling into question its own existence. That this framework may often bring about injustices and absurdities I see as as a given. Such is life. What I ask of opponents of "big government" is to soberly assess what would come about through the application of extreme libertarianism. I believe, as I'm sure you do, that Utopia is not around the corner. That being the the case, the question for us is not whether the philosophy of Obama or McCain will bring redemption but rather which of them better addresses the complexity of our individual rights vs communal obligations dilemma. The first step is recognizing that such a dilemma exists. This is what is missing from your article.
Free, Speech, Rights, Rush, Limbaugh, Sean, Hannity, Mark, Levin, Laura, Ingraham, Speaker, Nancy, Pelosi, Senate, Majority, Leader, Harry, Reid, Fairness, Doctrine., Media, Research, Center’s, Free, Speech, Alliance, biden, blueprint, Bush, commercial, Congress, economy, Election, energy, gotcha, grassroots, independence, kennedy, McCain, News, Obama, outreach, palin, pickensplan, political, senate
Hiya - I'm crazy about Obama because he's thoughtful and competent, and makes decisions like a leader. That us/them stuff is for Fox and other irrelevant geezers who don't get it. Of course it won't be instant nirvana - I'm not looking to my government for that - all I want gov to do is keep the basics running reasonably well and make sane tax policies and devise a safety net to help the weakest among us get back on their feet.
Annie
You've won at least one new reader with this powerful insight.
Questioner, the fundamental flaw in your analysis is that familial obligations are voluntary and governmental obligations are by force. Libertarians are not against civil society or moral obligations, we are against the overwhelming use of force that your gigantic nation-state theory requires. Besides the fact that its flat-wrong. This >federation< was founded through the consent of thirteen independent states, each constituted as a constitutional republic and not a majoritarian democracy. Our slow downfall is due to you progressives teaming up with conservatives to royally f(censored by website)k our good system.
And no, I'm not a Republican. Only a Democrat would be stupid enough to think that libertarian and Republican are synonyms. You Democrats and Republicans are like each other, as Mr. Tucille illustrates, but unlike those who question power in all its manifestations. You have allowed the tyrants to divide you and conquer you.
(mikevine.com)
We really have a one party system now. They're called the Republocrats. They present us with just enough of a difference to tug our heartstrings and keep us distracted so we don't look at the really important ways in which they are all too similar.
"Republocrats." I love that. And Questioner - obviously you don't really find it that hard to defend involuntary servitude.
There are too many who fail to do their own research. I; myself, vote on validity of the causes I research. I am not lead about by the GOP's hook in my nose. I am a Reagan type conservative.... but love the Libertarian ideas of states rights over the federal brutal authority over the states. That there should be a very loose association with the federal government and cooperation amongst the united states. We are not a Republic any more and few know that a democracy is just as bad as a socialis
Half my comments were deleted due to being too close to links or URL which in not told ahead of time. These videos are just informative on the type of government we were and are today. Type in the titles of the below subject lines into YouTube and you'll be informed.
1. Democracy vs. Republic: Most aren't taught the difference...
2. What is America's true form of government
Being a libertarian, fiscally conservative liberal (take that as you will), I know that each party is one side of the same coin, but I cannot see how you view the fairness doctrine as a stifle of free speech/views, when we're inundated by hard right views constantly in media (Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, on and on) with no real counterviews. If it's something that can be convincingly argued, why not welcome debate, so that people can actually make informed opinions from what they watch. Too many people still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that the war on Iraq is justified by this. I disagree, if fair time is given to both angles, at least reasonable people should be able to sift through the garbage from each side and have a chance to make a rational opinion, instead of what we have now. You can't stop stupid, but you can slow down misinformation that confuses. But everyone has their own opinion, which is what this country is about...
David says: ..but I cannot see how you view the fairness doctrine as a stifle of free speech/views, when we're inundated by hard right views constantly in media (Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, on and on) with no real counterviews.
You've got to be kidding, what of Wolfe B, Charlie R, Chrissy M, Keith O, Rachel (ugh) Madcow, Ed S, George S, Air America (oops), NPR, PBS, etc?
PLUS they are ALL just the left and right wings of the same predators of the corporate state.
Here's the reality:
The Great Cooperation
mises"dot"org/media/4504
The Progressive Era Triple Alliance: Government as Cartellizer
mises "dot" org/media/4464
The Progressive Era Triple Alliance: Government as Cartellizer (continued)
mises "dot" org/media/4465
20th Century Democide
hawaii "dot" edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
The US Constitution
mises "dot" org/media/976
The Rise of the Nation-State
mises "dot" org/media/972
Constitution: Four Disputed Clauses
mises "dot" org/media/1836
Progr
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!