IS KILLING THE AMERICAN DREAM - AN IDLE THOUGHT

Politics in the United States has reached an impasse. The adversarial positions taken by the new conservatives affiliated with the republican party is solidifying with each passing day. Not only are they intent on obstructing any attempt to create a more inclusive and caring society, but they are claiming the authority of the United States Constitution is supporting their narrow, restrictive, prejudicial and bigoted point of view. Their reasoning is as primitive as one can imagine.

In the matter of possession of weapons, they cite the growing use of violence in the United States, as the reason for promoting the use and possession of weapons to allow the citizen to protect himself and his family against that violence. Any attempt to limit the right to possess weapons is seen as un-American and dangerous liberal socialist policy which should itself be outlawed. The fact that the increasing use of violence is directly correlated with the increased use and possession of weapons does not enter into their thinking. Having yet more guns on the street is the solution to the problem of violence on the street. The larger the arsenal the safer we become, isn’t that right? Self-protection and isolationism appear to be the continuing mantra. To see and hear so called political representatives, now members of congress, linking patriotism with the second amendment, is beyond belief.

The insanity and irrational thinking supporting this proposition prevails across the globe. The idea that might makes right seems to be so deeply engrained in human beings, that any attempt to change that point of view is seen as weak and feeble socialist clap trap. The idea that reason, intellect, rational, intelligent and educated thinking might have something to offer is nonsense.

To promote the possession of weapons, whilst at the same time, railing against the State of Iran for having the temerity to wish to possess its own nuclear arsenal is par for the course. Those political representatives who do that, see no contradiction in their thinking. Iran could easily argue that, given the increase and prevalence of violence throughout the world it is vital that they have the appropriate arsenal with which to defend themselves and their families. Hypocrisy is never a healthy political position to adopt.

Dictatorships, fascism, extreme governments of any kind, can only exist if they are allowed to do so. If nothing else, the passage of time has revealed this as true a statement as one can make.

And yet:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.  This from Edmund Burke, an Irish conservative politician and philosopher. Burke was Member of Parliament for Malton between 18 October 1780 – 20 June 1794 and was Paymaster of the Forces between 16 April 1783 – 8 January 1784. William Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister, aged 24, on the 19^th December 1783. In a speech to the House of Commons, as Member for the constituency of Appleby, on the 18^th November 1783, William Pitt stated “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” This from a tory conservative. These two were in the same cabinet of government. 

They could argue that the triumph of evil might be the taking away of guns, and that the good men are those who might allow that to happen. Indeed, the plea for infringing the human freedom to possess a weapon as stated in the second amendment, may well be the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. This would be, in effect, the argument of the new republicans. Indeed, Marjorie Taylor Green likened the attempts to get the covid vaccination program accelerated, by medical personnel going door to door, as the equivalent of Hitler’s Brown Shirts. In her eyes, the democrats are the fascists. The fact of her ignorance of history and many other things, is neither here nor there, but her ignorance is a magnet to the ignorant, and her popularity swells. 

However, I do not believe that either Burke or Pitt intended for their comments to support the contention that “my way or no way” thinking is in any way rational. Their expressed views are in line with most declarations of Human Rights. Furthermore, nowhere, in any document purporting to list those matters which are part of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is it suggested that the right to bear arms is a human right, except in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. That constitution is not a universal declaration of human rights. It is a document purporting to be the blue print for the formation of the Government of the United States of America. The first ten amendments are called a ‘Bill of Rights’ and are intended solely for citizens of the United States. They do not have the force of law anywhere except in the United States. Indeed, if you are not a citizen, you do not qualify for its protection.

So I would ask that those citizens of the United States who consider themselves good men to do anything, small or large, to stand up to the likes of Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham and many others, and make their poster boy Trump disappear, finally, from the public scene.  How long must this charade go on? The world is weary of this American crisis.

That 2^nd amendment is an “amendment”. As such, it can be undone, just as the 18^th Amendment (Prohibition) was undone by the 21^st Amendment. It is not rewriting the Constitution; it is amending the Constitution. Conditions of violence and gangsterism that prevailed as a result of the introduction of prohibition by the 18^th amendment led to its reversal by the 21^st. Surely the conditions of violence and gangsterism that currently prevail in the United States should lead to its reversal rather that the increase of gun ownership.  Or is it that the necessity for a drink is just as great as the desire to kill? Is that the American Dream?