Posts Tagged ‘Anarchy’

Levin Condemns Violence; Prompts Critical Question

Wednesday, January 6th, 2021

Is there no answer?

This evening, my favorite talk-show host took to the airwaves and condemned the violence that occurred today on Capitol Hill. As I’ve pointed out earlier, this looks like a set-up job by the DC UniParty, and while Levin(and others including particularly the President,) is right to  condemn the violence, and while I make no excuse for those who launched this assault, such actions being repugnant in a constitutional, representative republic, I nevertheless have serious misgivings about the focus on this incident for several reasons. Levin rightly points out that we have no room to condemn Antifa and BLM if this sort of thing goes on with alleged conservative actors.  I agree.  On its face, this was egregious behavior, and it appears that at least one young woman paid with her life.  The other point Levin made is that those who carried this out must be identified and prosecuted. Again, I agree. There is substantial evidence that the people who instigated violence at the Capitol today were in fact camouflaged members of Antifa and other various anarchists. I am not here suggesting that absolutely no Trump supporters took part, but I have serious doubts about the contention that is widely the case. More than all this, however, the problem comes in when Mark Levin argues that we must never violate the law. Never?  Not even unjust law?  Would violations of the law be impermissible even in a growing tyranny? You see, I believe we’re in a sucker’s trap.  I think this is the problem for which Levin and others, myself included, have offered no solution.  We are in a constitutional crisis, but I think even Levin, for all his wisdom can’t quite see it: Once the power of the state is perverted to the extent that official actors now participate in the fraud against the people, how then do the people ever correct it without resort to violence?

I do not say this lightly. We now find ourselves in the situation in which a large proportion of the country now believes the election was rigged and stolen, and not merely by private actors, which would be abominable enough, but with the assistance and collusion of actors in the offices of local, state, and federal governments.  Once you cross that particular line, it seems to me there is no going back, and no way in which to resolve it peaceably. Again, I do not make this argument lightly, and I also do not contend that my evaluation is perfect, or infallible, but again, I must insist that those who argue we must never resort to violence must now step forward to explain how it is we’re to logically, rationally, and legally overcome all that’s been arrayed against us.

Let us suppose for a moment that those of us who believe this election was wholly fraudulent are correct. What then?  How do we undo it?  As Levin himself pointed out in rightful criticism of Senator Rand Paul’s(R-KY) suggestion that this is a states’ issue, essentially, Paul laid down the notion that this isn’t something to be addressed at the federal level, and that the remedy lies within the individual states. As Levin contends rightly, what good is state law if it’s going to be ignored by states’ office-holders? You see, it’s a farce to suggest that if the legislature of Georgia wants to fix the election issues, all it needs to do is pass some laws, if immediately thereafter, their Secretary of State enters into a consent agreement with agitators for the opposition that effectively nullify the very laws they’ve enacted.  What good then is law?

Levin would rightly argue that we should be able to rely upon the courts as a backstop to enforce and uphold the law. Will they? All evidence from this election cycle suggests that the courts either have no stomach or are ideologically inclined to justify these transgressions of law.  You see, this becomes the inescapable and gaping hole in Levin’s argument. Of course, it’s not only Levin who makes this argument. I would, in ordinary times, make the same basic argument, but look at the scale of what’s been done, and what actually confronts us.  This is not an insignificant one-off in a single small jurisdiction that can be remedied by a single population of an isolated locale.  This issue is much broader, involving all three branches of government, and at all levels of governance. All of it is further buttressed by media institutions only too happy for the current course of things, since they are almost entirely corrupt too.

Like so many of my readers, I’ve raised my hand and recited the words of an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. To suggest, however, that we’re not in a constitutional crisis merely because we still maintain the façade of law and constitutional order is preposterous. It is quite clear that what we are seeing at present is a complete devolution of the constitutional order, or what Levin terms a “post-constitutional” disorder. While in the classical definition of the term, we’re not in a constitutional crisis, we nevertheless find ourselves in some sort of crisis, whatever adjective you might prefer to define it. This is an untenable circumstance, whatever particular label we may choose to affix to it. The simple fact is that we men and women who comprise the bulk of the population that holds up this country, whose children before themselves fight this nation’s wars, spilling their blood all across the globe, find ourselves in the position that we cannot rely upon law.

My questions for those wiser than I, can be only that which others around me find themselves asking of our thought leaders:

What now? What are we to do? What am I to do? I’ve voted. Over and over. I’ve elected people, and they betray us, or find themselves betrayed. We appoint what we think are good judges, yet they fail and abandon our constitution when the going gets tough. We follow all of the rules. We play fair. We volunteer and participate in public affairs in various ways. We man the polling places, but find ourselves ejected so we cannot even view the process. We do everything we can reasonably do. We short our own lives by contributing grocery money to these politicians. What more are we expected to do before we turn aside from the law? How can I overcome an enemy who will not obey the law? How can I get recourse when all the modes are ineffective or subversive?

I am not suggesting that I want an easy answer, but I must insist on a plausible answer.  Mark Levin famously wrote a tremendous book called “The Liberty Amendments.” I have one copy I read, and another autographed copy put away as a valued keepsake.  What good is it?  I’m being quite serious. What good is such an amazing idea? Yes, there’s a very slow movement of people toiling to get a convention of states together, and they’re making very slow progress, but it’s slowly waning because such a project takes decades, and most people can’t engage and maintain attention for the length of a two-page article. By the time a project of that sort bears fruit, America, as we have known it, will be gone. That is not intended to disparage the effort, but it offers no relief for the crisis in which we now find ourselves. Let me list the broad categories of problems, on the assumption that you’ve lost count:

  • The media is completely corrupt and is indeed an enemy of the people
  • Big Tech is dominated by leftists who are in league with or indeed comprise a portion of the subversives
  • The administrative state or bureaucracy now effectively makes, enforces, and judges law, combining all the powers of government into an unelected branch
  • The Congress is bought and compromised by people who do not share our interests
  • The Congress is run by unelected staff and consultants who feather their own nests
  • The Congress is completely out of control and we have no means by which to directly remove them when they transgress the constitution
  • The executive branch is out of control because it relies too heavily on executive orders, in part due to the intransigence of Congress and the courts
  • The courts are useless, concocting law when convenient, or ignoring law when its not

That’s just the start, of course, but you get the point. Then, in the last twenty minutes of his show, Levin received a call from a gentleman who raised essentially the same question, analogizing the situation to a football game in which the game is rigged, the opponent cheats, the referees collude with the opponent, and the commissioner offers no relief.  To his credit, Levin said in response that there are no easy answers.

But he will not advocate violence. He will not call for a civil war. He will not call for lawlessness.

Fine. How then, captured by at least the laundry list of deficiencies only briefly outlined above, are we ever to overcome it?

No answer.

You see, this is the point at which I have begun to part ways from Mr. Levin. I am not a violent man. I abhor violence, and I truly revile senseless destruction of any sort. I came of age in a world where two global powers constantly contemplated wiping one another from the face of the globe, with me as the forward-stationed cannon-fodder. I saw men injured, maimed, and killed, just in training for that war that never came, at least not in that form, so I know too well the costs of violence.

That said, Levin mentioned that all of this is coming to a head. Indeed. What then? You see, I believe in self-defense, and I also believe in the defense of my nation. At what point do we, as individuals, make the decision that we’ve done all that we can peaceably do, but that action is now required that must risk more than peaceful protest and public political activism? Levin closed the show by stating bluntly that he will never advocate violence.

Never? Under no circumstance? Inconceivable?

You see, this is where I do part company from Levin. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and all those other men of that period also parted company from Levin.  I think part of the problem, and it’s much broader than just Levin, is that if you’ve had your business closed by a lockdown in one of these deep blue hellholes, or had your vote stolen/nullified in one of these compromised states, you may have a different view. If you’ve watched your country systematically demolished, but haven’t the means to make an escape to safer shores, you may view this differently. If your children have been propagandized right under your nose in the college or primary schools for which you’ve paid through the nose, only to see them turned against you, I suspect you may feel differently.

Mark Levin doesn’t know me. I have some reason to think he may be slightly aware of me. Over the years, when I’ve been able, I’ve contributed to many of the causes and candidates he has recommended, but that doesn’t mean he owes me anything. What I do think he owes his audience, me included, if it’s anything at all, is some sort of explanation of what we are to do. Most of my readers are regular listeners to his show. I’d wager that at least half my readers have subscriptions to BlazeTV and have had subscriptions all the way back to the start when it was LevinTV. There isn’t a book he’s written of which I don’t have at least two copies, all in hardback(usually one dog-eared and marked-up as a study tool, and one in pristine condition, often autographed and kept as a collectible) save for “Men in Black” and “Rescuing Sprite” which were available new in paperback only by the time I became aware of them. I receive mailings from Landmark Legal Foundation to which I am a contributor when I find a few spare dollars to send. My point is that like so many of my readers, I’ve availed myself of Mark’s work and supported it frequently. I don’t religiously purchase from his advertisers, but if I am purchasing an item in the same category as one advertised on his show, I always choose it and make sure the seller knows where I heard about their offerings. Like most conservatives, I am loyal to those who serve our nation while entertaining, educating and edifying me and those around me.

I don’t know if Mr. Levin will ever see this piece, but if he does, I suspect it will pain him a bit, as it does me to write it. I love his show, and I love his sense of humor, and I enjoy his taste in bumper-music. He adds value to my life, every day, but I’m afraid that on this day, I need a little more. Given all that confronts us, to say that I’ve been demoralized is to understate the scope and the intensity of the issue. It’s not that the fight has gone out of me, because I love my country, and I’ve done more on behalf of my country and countrymen than most by a fair piece, and maybe that’s why the demoralization now feels so intense: You can’t know how much you love a thing until you’ve risked your neck for it, toiled for it, shed blood, sweat and tears for it, and sworn your allegiance to it, all to see it collapsing around you. I know Mark doesn’t have all the answers, but the answer cannot be just to lie here, supine, and take whatever it is that they dish out.

Now the leftists will, it seems, control all of the federal government. Top to bottom. Side to side. They are already planning all the mischief they intend. They have legislative packages ready to go, to send to the desk of…President Biden, the imposter, who will happily sign what they send him into law. Levin says he will never advocate violence.  It sounds great, until you realize what it means in full. They will come for our second amendment and all the implements of its exercise. They will not amend the constitution. They will simply shove it down our throats with a packed court and a stolen Presidency and Senate. I will not be made defenseless. If the disposition of the Polish Jews in Warsaw taught no other lesson to posterity, it must be that one. I also will not be reduced to a rat, left to shelter in my nest, clutching my implements, while waiting to be “evacuated.” In New York, the legislators now introduce a bill to detain and take into custody any people who might carry or pass any disease.

What answer is there to such things — to prevent the execution of such things? If the law is no further impediment to tyranny and abuse, what remains? I don’t revel in the asking of this question. I detest the fact that I find myself in this position. But wishes are not reality. There is a reason that civilized nations consider violence as the last resort. The question is rapidly advancing to the forefront: Have we arrived at a time of last resort?

What, concretely, am I to do?

 

Editor’s note: I’ve had a question from a reader asking “what is the classical definition of constitutional crisis,” mentioned above. Generally, a constitutional crisis is any of a number of possible situations in which the constitution provides no answer to some sort of underlying contradiction. It’s essentially a sort of structural problem, and it can have many types of causes. In this way, one might consider our current circumstance to be a constitutional crisis, because the constitution certainly offers no clear remedy when it’s apparent that some or all branches may have essentially discarded its provisions, restrictions, or prohibitions. Still, I think the term intends to countenance those sorts of issues that can arise out of parties exercising their powers, privileges, rights and so on and what happens when those come into clear conflict. I understand why legal and political theorists might not consider our current situation to fit within the loose definition of a “constitutional crisis,” as they might define it, but we’re certainly in a crisis, inasmuch as it’s difficult to find anybody in Washington DC willing to live within its bounds. Maybe a better term here would be “constitutional catastrophe,” because whatever you call it, this situation is likely to result in the dissolution of the republic. Most consider the attempted secession of the Southern states in 1861 to have been a constitutional crisis, because, among other reasons, the constitution is silent on how or if states may leave the union, having previously entered it. I have always thought that among the flurry of amendments after the Civil War, Congress ought to have passed one describing a legal procedure for secession. (I don’t think parties should be forced to remain married once their differences have become irreconcilable, or partners compelled to remain in a business partnership once they’ve become irreconcilably averse to said relationship, but that’s another story for another day.)

Advertisements