Unpublished
Advice to America: “Shrug”
By Brian Lovett
January 30, 2004
Like most solutions to tough problems, the answer is always simple. While the liberals are having a hard time finding someone with “electability,” the Libertarians can’t seem to decide who to nominate. Distress no longer – I believe I have the solution not only to the Libertarian’s problem, but also to our larger “national” problem.
Nominate Antonin Scalia.
Allow me to take you through my thought-process of how I came up with this ingenuous idea. Like many readers, I’m an avid Ayn Rand fan. I’ve read many books written by her, as well as books about her, including LewRockwell contributor Jerome Tuccille’s famous and satirical It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand. After reading it, I was chagrined about his (and others’) flopped efforts to formulate a viable freedom party against the two anti-freedom parties. No sooner did I finish the book than I read Libertarians for the Dingbat. Now I was incited, and I e-mailed Mr. Tuccille my sure-fire solution.
Most of you have probably read Rand’s most famous treatise on man and morality, Atlas Shrugged. Without ruining the story for those of you who haven’t, the “lethal” weapon against the immoral and amoral antagonists was to “remove” anyone that slowed down the pace of America’s destruction. In other words, get the moral, productive people out of the picture, and the resulting collapse of society will be immediate and complete. Only then could you rebuild.
What a great idea for our “national” problem… that is, unless we can elect Justice Scalia. But, here’s the real beauty of this solution: if we can’t get him elected, we get him out of the way (i.e., convince him to go “on strike”) and accelerate America’s collapse.
There are heroes in America that continue to delay our destruction by attempting to protect the values for which our Founding Fathers spilled their blood. And, in my opinion, there is no one trying harder than Justice Scalia.
Just take a look at portions of his dissentions in two notable and recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
- Lawrence v. Texas (which informed America that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to homosexual sodomy… How were we to know?):
“Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct… It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed… What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change… [I]t is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.”
- McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold (which informed America that the U.S. Constitution says it’s fine for political incumbents to prohibit free speech by their opponents for public office… And you thought the First Amendment protected the expression of political ideas, you silly peasant):
“This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography… tobacco advertising… dissemination of illegally intercepted communications… and sexually explicit cable programming…would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort… Beyond that, however, the present legislation targets for prohibition certain categories of campaign speech that are particularly harmful to incumbents… It should be obvious, then, that a law limiting the amount a person can spend to broadcast his political views is a direct restriction on speech… The premise of the First Amendment is that the American people are neither sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of considering both the substance of the speech presented to them and its proximate and ultimate source. If that premise is wrong, our democracy has a much greater problem to overcome than merely the influence of amassed wealth. Given the premises of democracy, there is no such thing as too much speech… Which brings me back to where I began: This litigation is about preventing criticism of the government… The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy. In scene 3 the Court, having abandoned most of the First Amendment weaponry that Buckley left intact, will be even less equipped to resist the incumbents' writing of the rules of political debate. The federal election campaign laws, which are already (as today's opinions show) so voluminous, so detailed, so complex, that no ordinary citizen dare run for office, or even contribute a significant sum, without hiring an expert advisor in the field, can be expected to grow more voluminous, more detailed, and more complex in the years to come — and always, always, with the objective of reducing the excessive amount of speech.
Justice Scalia gets “it.” Justice Scalia is a real patriot, one of only a few Americans who understands the oath that he took to protect and defend the Constitution. This is why we either need to put his ethos front-and-center in the White House where he can lead the fight, or get him off the bench. I’m convinced that his strength derives from his self-confidence in knowing the truth about what freedom means. But, manning the barricades in the U.S. Supreme Court, he can’t prevent the storm that threatens to engulf us. He can only extend the anxious and torturous years of the storm’s approach and thus, unwittingly, prevent a truly sudden national hurricane which would serve as a call to arms that can’t be ignored.
Just the sound of it makes me smile: President Scalia. Now tell me (and be truthful): who better to stand-off against the two anti-freedom parties in debates on what the Constitution allows? Who better to teach our uneducated masses about the ideas animating the Constitution (not to mention the “peasants’” revolt per the Declaration of Independence)? Who better to re-establish trust in our government servants? Who better to spearhead impeachment efforts of our highest judicial officers? Who better to have immediate recognition? Who better to strike out at the immoral and illegal activities of our legislature, executive, and judiciary branches? Who is John Galt?
Implausible you say? Well, it doesn’t matter, because if he loses, America will still come-out ahead. Why? Because Justice Scalia will finally realize the futility of trying to resuscitate our dead republic and associated freedoms. Frankly, if he can’t win, it’s time we remove this last stop-gap.
WHAT?! you cry? Why would I suggest such an abominable course of action? Granted, America’s eventual victory will be costly, and the process ugly. But be realistic and think logically (or, as Ayn would have said, “don’t fake reality”) – the illegal and immoral actions by pedigreed icons such as Abraham Lincoln, FDR, et al, who conquered freedom so long ago have eliminated any non-violent possibility to let freedom ring. So, get over it. Stop groaning under the weight of an unfree nation that only your capable shoulders keep aloft. Only your support makes it possible for the government to oppress you. As Francisco advised Dagny: shrug.
Let the ruling elite finish their destruction already. Remember: we’re the ones who are capable of re-building it; they aren’t.
I don’t know about you, but as horrible as our immediate prospect is, and with a reticence for shooting a gun, I’d much prefer that I bare the brunt of it so my 4-year old daughter doesn’t have the burden. After all, what kind of Father would I be if I turned over this mess to her, like the past two generations have done to us?
Brian Lovett is a business strategy and transformation consultant, and earned his MBA from the University of Chicago. Without any education in law, he is currently challenging almost every divorce law in the State of Illinois pro se, including the “best interest of the child,” child support, alimony, attorneys’ fees, the disclosure of personal information, and the elimination of trials by jury in divorce proceedings. He can be reached at blovett@chicagogsb.edu, or through his Web site at www.loveisearned.com.