American Reactionary

September 21, 2011

A Look of Concern

Yesterday I had a conversation following a job interview in North Carolina which was most interesting.  The interview was with an educational establishment.  The business end of the conversation was brief and pleasant.  Toward the end though some topics revolving around the subject of education both as a system and on an individual basis came up. Not knowing how candid I should be in expressing my opinions in a job interview; I let the office manager do most of the talking.

What came out is that  those who are most dedicated to the education of our children are disturbed on a great level.  The educator in question was with a group tutoring children who were falling behind in school the most.  The kids often come from single parent homes and from economic backgrounds that can at best be described as desperate.  They are also often submerged in a criminal social group that leaves them with few options and less hope.  The teachers of this group are paid little and asked to make great emotional sacrifices to help those most in need.  Frankly though, even thought they are but elementary and middle school students, it is already too late.

I am not happy to make that statement but it is true.  Some kids will grasp what is before them and struggle forward.  It may be for personal pride, fear of continuing in their circumstances, or just chance.  I fear though that only a minority will achieve even a modicum of educational achievement as most of us understand it.   We are not talking here about getting these kids college bound.  At best they may enter a technical school some day and that would be a great achievement.  What we are trying to do is get an 8th grader who reads on a 2nd grade level, if they read at all, to become at least a self supporting individual.  We want them to be able to take care of themselves and not be a further drain on an already overstretched society.

The look of concern on the managers face was plain.  There was deep emotion in they eyes of someone who has seen the failures of not only an educational system, but of a society.  Large swaths of our culture turn a blind eye to their own children.  Whether this is due to economics, personnel history, social pressure, or other factors is a matter of debate.  What is not a matter of debate is the fact that our future lies not only in the hands of the school student who is bound for academic greatness at an Ivy League university.  It is also intrinsically bound up in the fate of perhaps millions of children who are not only falling behind in their education, but are falling behind in a fight for a basic existence with human dignity.

The pain in the eyes of the manager during the interview rending.  Also there, a grim resignation seemed to be growing.  As we talked further the manager shared that they had a feeling of gloom about any victory at all.  A single child who advanced out of a couple of dozen was seen as a great accomplishment.  What, one wonders, is the fate of the other 23 kids.  The manager did not lay specific blame on any one area but did indicate a number of points in which a system and a society have utterly failed.

The fact that the Federal government now dictates standards to school systems was one.   A remote bureaucrat in Washington cannot know let alone prescribe answers for the problems of a school in say, Statesville, NC or Yuma, AZ.  The manager indicated the the whole idea of checks and balances seems to be dead at every level.   Schools that become factories to turn out a volume of students rather than a quality of students are another.   More still the fact that students are not at any point given exams to see if they really do merit and academic future in an university or a technical/trade future at perhaps another type school.

Above and beyond all this though was the fact that we have produced two, three, or maybe more generations of Americans in which the parents live only for themselves and take no real interest in their own children’s future.  The worship of the self has done more to destroy families, education, and society than any economic distress.  Until people can put aside their own self interest and work for the betterment of the conditions not only of their children’s economic situation but of their minds and their souls,little real hope can be had for the future.

The manager with some despair said that there is a real concern that in a few years, with perhaps millions of young people out of school and unable to take care of themselves and with little hope for the future, our country will be in dire condition.   And great danger too I might add.

C L Ingram


July 19, 2011

John McCain and the “Isolationists”

During a phone call to the Imus in the Morning radio show on 20 June 2011, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), made and extraordinary statement.  Don Imus was questioning the wisdom of the United States’ involvement in Libya and what interest the US had there.  McCain’s response was to state that “our values are our interests.”

Curious.  If our values are our interests as Senator McCain suggests, what are the implications?  Foremost in the immediate sense, this means that the removal of the Libyan dicator and his replacement with what we wistfully pray is a representative government is something that coincides with our values.  If our values demand that we tolerate no tyrants or undemocratic leadership in other countries, then I suggest we dispense with this foolish bickering about the debt ceiling.  We are going to need to borrow hundreds of billions more dollars if  Senator McCain is right.

If he is right that our national values become our national interests in other countries then we are in for a ride.  Since we are in Libyia and our values dictate that we be there; perhaps we had better pop over to Algeria to bring democracy to them as well.  Then, while we are in the Mediterranean, Lebanon and Syria may need some military attention as well.  You know we never did straighten out that Somolia situation.  So lets head down the Red Sea and start mopping up tyrants, warlords and despots in the Horn of Africa.  Soon they will see our values in the blessings of Jeffersonian democracy.  While we are at it there are a number of absolute monarchies on the Arabian Penensula that could be seen as clashing with our values.   Off we go!

Congress, as I said, must quickly raise the debt limit of course.  While they are in session they should probably look into adding at least 4 new aircraft carrier battle groups to the Navy.  A number of smaller patrol vessels will be needed as well.  The Army will certainly need at least 10 new active full divisions for the protection of our values in other lands.  The Marines will certainly need to up the ante as well.  Come to think of it since we are going to venture forth globally to protect our values (interests) we may was well reinstate the draft.  It will be difficult to fill up the ranks of the Armed Forces to the levels we will need with volunteers alone.

I guess President Wilson was right.  We fight to make the world safe for democracy.  And since the fall of the Second Reich, the Hapsburg Monarchy, the Ottoman Empire, the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, the Japanese Empire  and the Soviet Union did not make it safe enough,  we have to stamp out tyrants and dictators everywhere else.  We are the lone global superpower after all.  It is our duty.

The Communists in Vietnam should be shivering in their boots.  We want a rematch….then on to Beijing!

Our values after all, are our interests.

C.L. Ingram


June 17, 2011

The Populist Pitfall

The work wrought by the Tea Party Movement in the past two years has been tremendous by any standard.  It has been nearly a century since a political movement outside the two main parties has wielded so much influence.  The progressive  populists of Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party were the last to rise to such prominence.  Ross Perot’s powerful bid in the 1990’s while spectacular, was primarily a presidential campaign and not one which had any real impact on legislative elections.

This success though brings with it its own dangers.  The Tea Party candidates elected to office are as human as the lifetime legislators that they replaced.  In this they will be as subject to the same temptations to power and avarice as their predecessors.  This alone means that though they come to office full of fire and determination they must be watched carefully.  If the Tea Party movement is sincere, it must be just as watchful and critical of its recently elected officials as it has been of those already in office, Democrat and Republican.

In this the movement must be just as prepared to hoist these new members out of office if they fail to attempt to live up to the standards they campaigned for.  I say attempt because to achieve legislative success on many issues such as tax reform and even repeal or neutering of the health care law will difficult if not impossible.  This is because the preponderance of the legislatures both state and federal are still full of partisans that seem to prefer power to duty.  Yet there is another problem.

The fact that the Tea Party is largely a populist movement has its own dangers.  Any movement which claims as its raison d’être the doing of the will of the people is in peril from the beginning.  The “people” do not exist.  It is a phrase bandied about by those attempting to pull on the emotions of voters by almost everyone in politics, regardless of party.  Yet it has no basis in fact.  There is no will of the people because in a country of 300 million no real consensus on the wisdom of any public policy is possible.  Rather, office seekers and holders repeat “the will of the people” out of habit, not reason or even good sense.

Try getting 25 people together of varied races, religions and backgrounds.  Then try to get a reasonable agreement on policy that some of the may have to pay for and which may or may not affect them all.  The folly that the people have a discernible “will” quickly fades.   This is the pitfall of populism, and populists in general.  The recite the mantra of the people and the people’s will yet it has no solid basis.  Rather, public policy should be based on what is good and reasonable for the maintenance of both order and liberty.  While this may often run parallel to the will of the people, it is not synonymous.

It is true that the populist may be a better executive or legislator than the self serving lifers that we often have.  Yet how much better?  Is it really an improvement to have a campaign and policy driven by whatever the latest poll says that “the people” want?  Are such polls accurate?  What do they really say?

To legislate in that way is the essence of democracy.  The United States of America was not meant to be a democracy.  It was created as a Republic.  Its government was formed in such a way as to protect the country from the tyranny of “the people”.  Sadly much has changed in the last two centuries.

The populist trend in the Tea Party, as well as in the Democrat and Republican parties sounds good as a slogan.  How much good it can do as actual policy may leave much to be desired.

C. L. Ingram

June 1, 2011

No Respect

As the last post focused on the problem of Libertarian individualism, this one is an accompaniment to  Victor Davis Hanson’s article on Pajamasmedia.  The disregard for law and custom at local, state and federal levels is a terrible symptom of the decay of a society and its governing classes.

It has become astounding how little respect is paid to the system of government and laws we live under, even those most edifying for our society.  Historically it is an American tradition to speak dismissively of the central government, though.  This is perhaps rooted in our experience with the Revolution.  That however was traditionally a public sentiment not a private one.  It was almost a badge of honor to be so manly as to speak out against the “Feds”; especially in some parts of the country.  Yet the private feelings were more often of pride in the accomplishments of our country and a gladness that our government was as good as it was.

All that is now past.  Public and private sentiments have a markedly lower respect for government even as the power of that very government grows almost daily.  The rot is from the top down sadly.  The Obama administration both refuses to execute the laws of the legislature (Defense of Marriage Act) and ignores the very existence of a check on the war making powers of the President (Libya and the War Powers Act).  This is not a specific indictment of the Obama White House any more than similar complaints could be made against any President.  The fact that they are so blatant though is newer.  First, the President began by usurping the authority of Congress and the Supreme Court by declaring parts of DOMA unconstitutional.  No Chief Executive, even if they have acted as though they do, has ever had the power to do that.  Secondly, in giving no real response at all to the 60 day requirement to inform Congress after the Libya action, the President has assumed the mantle of both Executive and Legislative powers in himself.   To say this is disturbing is hardly strong enough.

This is just an example at the top of a phenomenon that can be witnessed in State Houses, Mayors offices, and roadside cafe’s all across the country.  Everywhere, even though the power of government has grown, respect for it has waned proportionally.  It can be debated as to the cause of this.  Perhaps the exponential growth of laws and their often unenforceable nature has made us numb to good laws and bad laws alike.  Perhaps the diversions of post-modern life in the West have grown so great that the old patriotism of true debate about law and government, as well as true accountability has just become too pedestrian to be bothered with.  Greed and the overwhelming self-centeredness of the American people may play a part as well.

Perhaps a force more powerful than liberalism, socialism or conservatism  is to blame.  That force is cynicism.

Bread and circuses may work after all.

C. L. Ingram

May 30, 2011

Too Much Me

To be a reactionary in America means to find oneself in conflict with “conservatives” as often as with elements of the left.  In particular there is issue with the libertarian branch of conservatism, both culturally and politically within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement.  At particular issue is what is often an extreme version of individualism that is found in the speeches and implications of policy from those branches of conservatism.

Of course this creates problems for those of a reactionary bent in that we do not wish to find ourselves in conflict with those who should be our natural allies.  The problem is that this individualist attitude, particularly as expressed by libertarians, is of a nature that we traditionalists see a great danger in it.  Most often it is expressed as a desire to have the government stay out of our individual lives and decision making.  This is tied to the notion of a smaller, less intrusive government and a lessening of regulation in business and personal matters.  The most prominent spokesman for this is of course Ron Paul.  Radio talk show host Neil Boortz is a well known voice as a libertarian as well.  If it went no further than that,  little could be found to fault the libertarian view.

Yet they insist, or seem to, on going further.  Libertarians insist not only that government get out of their lives, but that individual liberty has no limits.  (Or virtually none)  They pay lip service to the idea that one’s rights should not trample on those of another.  They do not however allow that their community or society around them can lay any claim to limit liberty for the good of a common culture.  The idea espoused by libertarians that it is the decision making ability of the individual that is supreme is not only dangerous in the long run, it is unhistorical.

Humanity is unthinkable without society.  Society by its nature involves law and government of some form or another.  It may be a formal written system with a constitution.  It could just as easily be a series of understood and adhered to customs that govern the actions and reactions of men within a community.  This is absolutely essential not only for order and peace among people, but to generate the very civilized goods that we value as human beings.   Invention, teaching, religion, medicine, the arts, all the things to be appreciated by societies that rise above mere barbarism are the product of restrictions on the liberty of the individual in order to bring greater gifts to the people as a whole.

Now, this very idea will be attacked by some libertarians as socialism.  This is an overreaction.  Libertarians tend to see all government as a Bourbon King, or Soviet Commissar.  Reactionaries do not doubt that government coercion can become oppressive and destructive.  That is why we insist that all government acts be methodical and prescriptive.  They should address specific issues in specific times and places.  Government is no place for ideology.

I for one would dread to live in a society in which the individual was as “free” as many libertarians wish they were.  Soon, the idea that any behavior which is not completely insane should be permissible, would make that society unworkable.  Any government or authority would be under constant attack as an oppressive force.  The extremism of the French Revolution would be the logical outcome of attempting to set up a society based on libertarian lines.  Just as government must be limited; human liberty too must have its limits.

C.L. Ingram

May 25, 2011

Stand-up or Sitcom: American Foreign Policy

Filed under: Reactionary politics — C.L. Ingram @ 3:58 PM
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

In a culture dominated by celebrity and entertainment it is sometimes easy to blur the line between serious political questions and mere fluff.  Nowhere has this become more apparent than in the area of foreign policy.  Domestic politics of course have always had its share of buffoons, comedy and delightful satire.  When the same sentiments are applied to our standing and policy with the states of the world the results are usually only tragic.

Since the fall of the Soviet Empire the foreign policy of the United States has been remarkable for its lack of clarity, amateurishness, and pure blunders.  From Jerusalem to Jakarta, from Baghdad to Berlin and Moscow to  Mogadishu we have stumbled so many times so as to strain the credulity of those who consider the State Department a place of educated professionals.  Yet as with Harry Truman the buck stops at the top and it is there that the lions share of the blame must be laid.

Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all (for sometimes varied reasons) enacted foreign policies not of a Superpower, but of a neophyte.  Sometimes, as with the fall of Communism inf Eastern Europe, we stood by with shock as the Soviets fell apart and took little real action to lead.  Our own surprise at the weakness of communist power left us dazed and confused as to what, if anything, to offer the new governments in the way of help.  Instead,at best, we praised the rise of what was commonly believed to be Jeffersonian (or was it Robespierreian) democracy in countries sometimes eminently unsuited for such a system.  Instead of a studied look at limited government changes until stability could be enacted, or even the return of monarchy, we crashed forward with ideology.

The 1990’s largely followed this policy of unthinking reaction.  In Serbia, Wilsonian ideology prevailed.  In Rwanda Machiavellian practicality rose.  The obtuse belief that the fall of the Soviet Empire ended major foreign challenges to the US was a stunning lack of vision.  The State Department, the President and a host of sycophants and advisers missed the far larger story of the last century.  That was the domination of not communism in much of the world but of nationalism and alongside it the resurgence of Arab and non-Arab Muslim radicalism.  That we callously disregarded these in our moment of “victory” in the early 1990’s has been our enduring tragedy.

With no clear statement of what US Foreign policy is, it is no wonder we act schizophrenically.  We established NATO to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.  Then, with the Soviets gone, we suddenly forgot the whole purpose and began to move the borders of NATO to the borders of Russia without any regard for European history or Russian mentality.  Then we seemed unable to believe that Moscow would object.  Stunning.

We demand Gaddafi go and bomb Tripoli while doing a wink and nod at Assad in Syria while he does as bad or worse to his people.  There is no rhyme or reason to our policy because we don’t have one.  Bush adopted the “with us or against us” mentality after 9-11 without regard to the realpolitik  that governs the world.  Obama has adopted a globalist view that, while idealistic, does not account for the fact that he is the US Head of State and must put our needs and security before all.  Idealism in foreign policy is for professors to haggle, not for diplomats to actually implement.   The farce goes on.

C.L. Ingram

January 27, 2011

The Long Road Down

Many who call themselves conservatives think that liberal-progressivism is a fairly recent development.  It is commonly thought that this movement sprang full grown from the womb of 1960’s radicals.  It is true that many prominent writers on the left do come from that era.  Yet that was not the era in which most of their ideas were born.  In fact the root of these problems lies far deeper in the past than many would now admit or even see.

Some recent writings and several others from the twentieth century pointed out the roots of progressivism quite well.  John Lukacs, Jonah Goldberg and other current writers have noted the roots of the movement.  Great writers of the recent past like Russell Kirk and Paul Elmer More did masterful jobs as well.  Yet perhaps none saw the roots of what would be progressivism more clearly than Edmund Burke.  Yes we are talking 18th century.

Those roots, in the works of Rousseau predominantly, have also given birth to Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, and National Socialism.  All are predicated on Rousseau’s mistaken belief that man is the all in all.  The belief that man can be perfected in this world; and that this world is the measure of all things.  The rejection of Original Sin and the replacement of God with humanity is at the origin of two centuries of war, murder and suffering.

Sadly also wrapped up in this past are many things that Americans would not readily associate with those odious ideas above.  Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, channeled much of Rousseau into the preamble of that document.  In declaring all men to be created equal Jefferson was definately touching on Rousseau and Locke before him.  The problem is that the definition was too broad.  Men are inheriently unequal by most standards.  Much of the two centuries since that statement have been hobbled by the effort to make that fantasy a reality.

Then Jefferson compounded the problem by inserting the phrase “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Life and liberty are more or less easily defined.  The pursuit of happiness though is less so.  Many scholars have debated the meaning, in Jefferson’s mind, of that phrase.  What is known however is that another phrase “pursuit (or protection) of property” was widely used at the time as well.  Jefferson and Franklin, both enamoured of the Enlightenment ideals of Rousseau, rejected that ideal.  Since then we have struggled with the concept of happiness to no satisfactory conclusion.

All in all the road across the centuries to today’s progressivism and radicalism has been bumpy but consistent.  Once Rousseau’s ideas began to circulate and demagogues realized the power they could tap into by exploiting the ideas, the path forward was logical and relentless.  The French Revolution, not the American, was the first great expression of these goals.  The American Revolution was primarily conservative in that the colonists sought to regain rights and privileges that as Englishmen, custom and law had awarded their fore-bearers.

From the French Revolution to the gulag a straight line can be drawn.  Parallel to this political devolution has been a cultural one.  Centuries of mistakes by the church created a fertile ground for those who sought to destroy the concept of God and morality.  This fed the political machine that has sought to make the state or party supreme in the hearts and heads of its people.

The sad fact is that when the true conservative or reactionary examines the history of the West, and even of the United States, he sees this sad truth.  That the Enlightenment, and Rousseau in particular, has been one of the most destructive forces unleashed by man.  Few recognize this, fewer still admit it.

January 18, 2011

140 Years Later

Filed under: Reactionary politics — C.L. Ingram @ 10:11 AM
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Today, January 18, 2011 is the 140th anniversary of the Unification of the German states into the German Empire or Second Reich.  Under the leadership of  King Wilhelm I and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck the north German state of Prussia in an alliance with smaller states crushed the French army and captured the Emperor of France, Napoleon III.  It was the result of a long social and political process.  The culmination of Prussian victory realized the dream of many of a unified Germany.  We still live in a world shaped by that Franco-Prussian War.

From 1871 until 1945 Germany would be the pivot on which all European questions turned.  The economy of the continent was tied to that country and it became a world power.  The defeat of Nazi Germany seemed to end that trend but not for long.  NATO itself was said to be formed to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down in Europe.  The Cold War and the division of the country made it a focal point of a possible Third World War.

Then finally Germans gave the world the lasting image of the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 which presaged the end the Soviet Union.  All these things have focused on the centralized state in the middle of Europe.  Communism, Socialism, Nazism, democracy, monarchy, all have been a facet of daily life in Germany during the last 140 years.  They are a microcosm of what can happen to a civilized industrial state.  They are particularly an example of the dangers of a mixture of  economic collapse and socialist demagoguery.

Americans are likely associate Germany with World War II, Hitler, castles, cars and militant Green parties.  Yet so much of our world has been shaped by this country which as a unified state is younger than the US.  So much political theory has been brought into action in Germany in the last 100 years that it would take volumes to catalog.

Human nature being virtually a constant and Germany being part of the Western tradition (albeit not as directly connected to us as England) there is much to learn there.  Germany has seen every sort of economic turmoil imaginable and in this time of uncertainty there are lessons to be learned there.  The political stability and experience of the Germans may also hold much wisdom.

In this time of uncertainty in America we are often accosted by pundits who claim to hold all answers and great wisdom.  They never hold the former and rarely any of the latter.  A serious study of the social, political and economic history of our industrialized and post-industrial society must include Germany.  Anyone who seeks greater understanding of the world we live in would do well to seek where we have been.  Too little understanding and too much verbage have become our bane.  It can be redressed only one at a time.

January 12, 2011

The Discourse of the Lowest Common Denominator

The tragedy of the Tuscon, Arizona killings is evident without further eulogizing on my part.  Any such event is a heinous crime.  This sadness  is further compounded by the fact that an additional travesty has been visited on America.  This is the vain and malicious talk that has flooded radio, television, and the internet following the murders.

Both left and right, whatever their distinctions, are guilty of hyperbole and hypocrisy.  A massive tome would be required to catalog their ways.  Yet this particular crime brings home pettiness and vanity of the talking heads in all their glory.  The Chris Matthews’ of the world automatically start to name radio talk show hosts and blame them for their constant anger.  Yet he and others somehow fail to recall the recent words of the left they are so endeared to.  During the late Bush administration the left spouted near homicidal levels of vitriol constantly.  This apparently slipped Mr. Matthews mind.

At any rate this is not about the failures, left and right, to hold to standards of decency.  Rather it is about the dire need to find voices of reason, intelligence and humility in American political discussion.  This seems a sound and simple idea but the reality is far from it.

The reality is that American public discourse has fallen to such a low standard that we may not now even remember what a civil public discussion is.  Privately Americans do still speak with reason and calmness on great issues.  I myself have taken part in these talks.  They are I admit, rare.  That scarceness must cease if we have any hope of seeing civility return. In most ways this has nothing to do with the Arizona shootings. That event likely had little to do with politics in any rational way.  Yet the tragedy may be able to trigger in some a desire to find this civility.

I suspect there are many reasons for the failure of a higher level of language, grace and humility in our public places.  Most of those must wait for other writings but right now one comes to mind.  That is the fact that most Americans have ceased to be able to think for themselves.  We are a nation in which almost everyone is schooled and almost no one is educated.  This is of course part of a larger discussion.   We have as a country abrogated our duty to intellectual political discussion.

The story of America’s historical amnesia is well documented.  What is less explored is the fact that American conservatism, which should be the pinnacle of political thought and discussion, is a desert.  The few great writers of conservative thought left in academia are either ignored at large or soon fall prey to populist instincts to write for the masses.  Just when character and greatness of mind are needed to give heft to the current trend for a return to strict constitutional government, they are little to be found.

This has been long coming and is shown most readily by radio, television, and internet media outlets and their personalities.  To find an original or deeply intelligent discussion from these sources is to search in vain.  Part of it is the restraint of time and the 24 hour news cycle.  These make impossible a real discussion.  Part of it may also be laziness on the part of the public.  Why do the hard work of learning politics, history, literature, theology and philosophy when we can have talking points instead?  That seems to be the prevailing attitude and it is one which gives many of us pause.  In a republic it is a duty of those who are able and gifted enough to comprehend these things to learn and take part.  Succeeding generations of Americans though have shirked the duty, opting for the pleasure and easy lives provided by their for-bearers.

For the Republic to remain strong and for conservative thought to prevail we must have the best minds step forward and lead.  Whats more, the large numbers of people who make up the Tea Party inspired movements must recognize and give place to those who are able to lead.  Without that I fear the greatness of the current movement will sink back into the lowest forms of politics as usual and thus surrender all they have gained.  We pray not.

January 5, 2011

A New Leaf?

Filed under: Reactionary politics — C.L. Ingram @ 12:08 PM
Tags: , , , , , ,

The New Year is supposed to be a time of new beginnings.  Aside from the cliche’ about resolutions broken it is at least a time to reflect on the idea of a new start to things.  Our marking of another trip around the sun is arbitrary as is much of modern life.  Yet we may see some glimmer of hope in our unbroken chain of broken promises (both personal and public).

The swearing in of a new majority in the House of Representatives fills one with the hope that if they cannot do things right, there is the joyous prospect that they will do nothing at all.  Each time I see the members of the House gathered, from whatever party, I cannot help but pity our country.  Never has mediocrity striven to such heights.  If evolution is  progressive improvement then the movement from the 1st to the 112th Congress is enough to undo Darwin.

Yet perhaps they may stumble into some good actions.  The unfunding, if not the repeal of a great deal of bad legislation would be a nice start.  Another would be the passage of rules for both the House and Senate to reduce the expenditure of the Legislative branch.  The money saved would be a pittance of the budget but perhaps good habits can be developed by practice.

At any rate we will now see how the populist Tea Party members will do.  More importantly we shall see if they can maintain their integrity in the cesspool that is Washington.  If they can do that alone they will show themselves to be vastly superior to the socialists that have just lost power.

All in all though I do not know how much faith I have in an improvement this side of a national economic or governmental collapse.  We may “take back” our nation at some point, though it only be wreckage.

C.L. Ingram

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at