Why I Refuse to Listen 17-Year Olds


I am sorry, but I refuse to listen to a 17-year old tell me how the country must be run.  A 17-year old has, as a best-case scenario, maybe 10-years of relatively cognitive thought and zero-years of actual responsibility towards society.  They have nothing but the ability to parrot what their parents, teachers, or the collective pool of friends have told them they should think or say.  Their need to be part of a group makes them more likely to buy into the justification of the mob mentality we see around us today.

How many of us spend time considering what our founding fathers fought for, rather than just buying into the history lessons of what they fought against?

How easy is it to talk about the Boston Tea Party, where the “Sons of Liberty” dressed up and threw the tea shipped from England into the harbor to protest the English tax?  When we talk of Lexington and Concord we think of the “Minute Men” fighting against the British attempt to capture the militia’s leaders and destroy its supplies.  The problem is a nation cannot be built and survive on negatives.  It cannot exist to be against something, it must be for something.

It has been apparent for some time the young people of this great land seem to have been taught only that they must be against things and have not sorted out for themselves that it is more important to be for an ideal.  We see in the latest anti-gun movement all the things they are against, but the only thing I hear in the positive is “We need to be safe.”  An admirable idea, but there is a complete unwillingness to discuss any option that flies in the face of the negatives they espouse.

They are taught to be against “intolerance” yet their action demonstrates the fact they themselves are intolerant of views that run counter to the party.  They have not made the connection that they should be for a positive, not the negative.

They say they are against violence, but still, they support the violent rhetoric of the loudest voices within their political sphere.  They seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between being for peaceful resolution of conflict and giving lip service to the meme of anti-violence.

So, what did our founders fight for?

If we look at the two documents that created our nation, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, we will see one common theme.  They wanted sovereignty as independent states and freedom from an oppressive foreign government.  Article 2 of the first document says

“Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right with is not by this confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

Learning from the failure of the Confederation the Congress was more direct with the Constitution, for they understood the dangers of a stronger central government, but the protection of the nation took precedence for them.  James Madison, writing in Federalist Paper 41 said,

“THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches. Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States? Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question. It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment. That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.”

It is my fear the voices of outrage all seem to seek greater, not lesser, centralized control of those things I have long viewed as fundamental rights and what I chose to defend with my service.  The liberal voices have a short-term view that what they believe is the right way to do things is the only way to do things, and that if they get their way everything will work itself out.  The fallacy of this view is so apparent they refuse to even consider it, but we need only look at them to see the danger.

I choose to look at the last ten years to set the framework for this shift towards the extreme, although it actually traces its origin back further. Beginning with the election of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt we have seen an increasing growth of the central government and its powers to control and regulate our lives.  Much of this increased power and authority has been used wisely and has helped the nation flourish, but it seems with the increased polarization – the good of the nation as a whole is increasingly sacrificed to satisfy the demands of the few.

Following the financial crash of 2008, our nation chose to place its faith in the Democratic party to pull us from the disaster, much like it did in 1932.  The problem was the Democratic party was no longer the great representative of all the nation but had over the past 40 years grown to represent the urban and liberal elite.  There were no longer the voices of the southern and mid-western Democrats to offer a moderation for the costs to be borne by the great social programs the party wished to pursue.  As a result of their choices, the party lost Congressional strength in each of the subsequent six years.

Then we have the issue of a young, articulate individual who seemingly rose from the back row of the Senate to become President.  It was reminiscent of the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy, who brought to the job an aura of glamor and grace to replace the staleness of the Eisenhower years.  In this case, President Obama and his ability to articulate the thoughts of the left so well on television seemed to be what the nation wanted.  He, of course, had overwhelming support from the black minority who turned out in record numbers to bring him to the office.  Unfortunately for the nation, he chose to see his election as a mandate that his party was the only game in town and set in motion choices that would divide our nation further along racial and political lines rather than find unity and commonality.  He was aided in this by what can best be described as an adoring press and entertainment industry who covered up his failures and condemned those who questioned his decisions to use the various departments within the Executive Branch to secure the political advantage.

When his term was up, the media and the Democrats were so sure they had control of the government that they moved to the next great social hurdle.  The fulfillment of the dream of every woman activist since the passage of the 19th Amendment.  We had to elect a woman.  Unfortunately, they were so sure this was a slam dunk they chose the worst possible woman to push forward.  A woman who carried so much fucking baggage she could have been mistaken for a hotel porter.  Just to get her past their own party’s primaries they had to rig the system, yet still, they persisted.  In the general campaign she leveraged every insider advantage available yet somehow, she lost because she had told the rust belt state Democrats they didn’t matter in the grand scheme and the urban elites were all she needed or wanted. How do you like those fucking “Deplorable’s” now Hil?

Now we have a political outsider as President and the daily rage cluster fuck has reached the insane stage.  As he undoes all the executive orders and hidden government agendas so carefully crafted during President Obama’s administration you would think the opposition would be concerned with the effects of too much-centralized power, but other than name calling it doesn’t seem to be that big a deal for them.  The issue isn’t how much power the government should have, just who should have it.  It isn’t they are for more freedom, they are just against who should limit it.

The issue for me comes down to a group of young people who’ve led sheltered and privileged lives now coming on the political stage willing to give up the rights and freedoms that this nation was founded on without understanding the cost of those rights and impacts of their loss.  How can they possibly understand what they are choosing to condemn when they’ve never had to worry about anything ever?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s