Tom Sheppard10/16/2020
Many people today are very agitated about the state of our nation and the world. Everyone has their own reasons for being distraught. Some are so upset that they are taking to the streets in protests. Others are engaging in violent and riotous behavior, either believing that violence is the only way to effect change, or because they feel others have no right to their own views or property.
For many Americans taking to the streets is either too extreme, ineffective, or dangerous. They feel helpless in the face of these strong storm winds of change. Typically, the silent majority remains silent, speaking only through their votes, rather than carrying placards, or guns, in the streets. However, times like these seem to require more than just silently casting our votes, because many interpret silence as acceptance. That implicit acceptance feeds their belief that they are a majority rather than a minority view.
The reality is that the protestors and violent actors represent a small, but very vocal and active minority in this country. The majority of people believe that change can, and should be enacted through non-violent, civil means.
What is Fundamental Change?
While some of those espousing the need for change are calling for "fundamental" changes in this country, the majority of people are understandably reluctant and resistant to fundamental changes in our country. They have good reason for their reticence.
The phrase "fundamental change" literally means changing our foundations. To be clear, the foundation of our nation is the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional Amendments. So, anyone calling for fundamental change is calling for the abolition of the US Constitution either in whole or in large part.
The publicly stated premise of the need for this fundamental change is a false charge that the United States is fundamentally flawed and supports racism and other unjustices through the very concepts, ideals, and organization framed in our Constitution.
When you liken the Constitution to the foundation of country you can fully understand what people like CNN correspondent Don Limon means when he talks of "burn[ing] it all down." If you want to replace the foundation of a building, in most cases, you have to tear down the whole building and start over. This is exactly what these activists are talking about. What is more, the new foundation they want to install is Marxism, also known as communism, socialism, statism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, etc.
Institutional Racism Has Been Removed
I stated above that a key driver of demand for all this change is a false charge of fundamental racism. This cry of fundamental racism is an extension of a similarly false charge of systemic racism pervading our nation and its institutions.
I say these charges are false based on the mountains of evidence which refute these charges. Although there is not sufficient space in this short column (or in a whole library) to demonstrate all the evidence refuting these claims I will provide a few counterpoints to support my belief that these are false charges.
The Declaration of Independence which set forth the guiding principles which led to the creation of our Constitution boldly declares that, "all men are created equal" and all have the same rights. Further it states that the source of these rights come to individuals by right of birth, not dispensed or revoked by any government of men. These declarations exempted no one.
While it is true that the protection of these rights was imperfectly implemented in the Constitution, those imperfections which supported slavery and the limitation of rights based on race were cured with both the blood shed in the US Civil War and legislation in subsequent years including amendments to the constitution ensuring equal rights for all citizens without regard to gender, race, or religion. The fact that those imperfections were cured within the current framework demonstrates that the foundation is both strong and worthy of continued support.
Racism Persists
While it is inarguable that racist and sexist behaviors continue to persist in individuals and even in some societies and businesses, the purging of racism and sexism from the halls of federal, state, county, and city governments across the United States of America is clearly demonstrated in both statute and court cases where such anti-social behaviors have been punished with both criminal and civil penalties. Likewise court cases demonstrate that the weight of law has been consistently been brought to bear to rectify racist and sexist discrimination in both public and private institutions and societies wherever it has been found.
In short, the history of our nation shows over and over again that our system of government is very effective in the ongoing perfection of the defenses of our rights.
A More Perfect Union
Some seek to discredit the Constitution and our national foundation by pointing out the flaws of the founders. Noting how some of their behaviors were in greater or lesser degree in conflict with the ideals they embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The notion here is that their creation could not be less flawed than the founders.
The reality is that the founders were not perfect. Many of them had aspects of their lives which were not in full harmony with the principles they put forward in the framing of our government. As noted above, some of their imperfections were passed on through the Constitution.
While individuals have the option of repenting and changing their behaviors to align their actions more closely with their principles, those attacking the foundation of our nation would have you believe that no such means to remedy defects exists for our government. However, as I mentioned above, those means not only exist, they have been applied and continue to be applied.
Because of its amendments, our Constitution today is a more perfect document than it was when it and the The Bill of Rights were ratified back in 1787.
Our founders declared their intent was to create "a more perfect union." What the created was not perfect. It was, however, more perfect than what it replaced. And since then, it has been perfected further.
The world today is so much better than it ever has been before because of the existence and rise of the United States of America.
To this point in my column I have explained why our union does not require fundamental change. What follows is to help to take action to protect our foundation from those who want to burn down our nation and rip up the US Constitution.
Action #1 - Stop looking to government to solve societal
problems.
Those who are seeking to "burn it all down" are rationalizing their efforts on the basis that the government is not adequately addressing societal ills. This argument rests on a false foundational premise. It assumes that it is the role of government to cure the ailments of our society.
The problem with this assumption is that our societal ailments are neither more nor less than manifestations of our own human imperfections and bad actions driven by ungodly defects in human nature. When I say ungodly, I mean that literally.
Ungodly defects in human nature are those motives, thoughts, and actions which are in conflict with the best attributes we believe are inherent in deity, e.g., love, charity, kindness, generosity, etc. Any efforts which profess to be attempting to rid us of these ungodly defects are reflexively wrapped in a mantle of altruism because they appear to be aimed at making us better people and thus making the world a better place.
Government Cannot Change Human Nature
Unfortunately, there is no government or economic architecture which has ever been devised and tested in the history of this world which is capable of transforming human nature into a more godly version of itself. That is the realm of religion, not government.
The reason governments fail to effect this transformation is because they, necessarily, are only able to control the outward behaviors of people and cannot force thoughts and beliefs to change on demand. Those which have tried, notably communism is in this camp, have used mass extermination to eradicate those whose manifested thoughts and beliefs, or behaviors, failed to conform.
In contrast with the universal failure of government in this regard, religion has achieved the transformation of man's nature on several individual and at least two documented collective occasions. However, the ability to sustain a community of such transformed individuals has been, at a minimum limited by individual life spans and sometimes they were exterminated by those with differing beliefs or agendas. Successful Individual Transformations Achieved by Religion
According to Buddhism, the Buddha successfully transformed his nature, and then taught others.
According to Islam, Mohammed's nature was changed as he became the prophet, and he then taught others.
Judaism and Christianity teach that Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Peter, Saul/Paul, and John the Revelator all overcame the defects in their human nature to transform into the kind of people we should be. I omit Jesus of Nazareth from this list because although "he learned wisdom" in this life, his disciples believe he was perfect from birth, rather than achieving some transformation during his mortal life. It is his nature that Christians seek to emulate.
Successful Collective Transformations Achieved by Religion
According to the Old Testament, not only did Enoch achieve personal transformation to the point where he "walked with God," the entire city of Zion, people led by Enoch, achieved that transformation to the point where all of them were "caught up into heaven."
The New Testament records a period where the disciples of Christ, for a time at least, achieved a very happy state where they had all things in common and had no poor among them.
Successful Individual or Collective Transformations Achieved by Socialism
- The Soviet Union - NO 20+ million killed (just by Stalin) trying to make it work.
- Cambodia - NO 2+ million killed trying under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to make it work.
- Cuba - NO with nearly 100,000 dissidents dead, the country still looks like it is living in the early 1950's, at best.
- Venezuela - NO 7,000+ dead by "security forces" with violent unrest and rampant poverty
- China - NO 45+ millions killed already with tens of thousands more in "re-education" camps right now.
With this sort of proven track record shown in this scorecard you would think that socialism in all its forms would be dead and buried, never to rise again. However, like some shambling, shuffling, half-decayed horrifying walking-dead zombie in a B-grade film socialism continues to rise up and threaten the lives of us all.
If the zombie of socialism were as blatantly distinct from our current government it would be easy to hunt it down and kill it. However, at least since FDR's New Deal, socialism has been making massive inroads into the American government. So many socialist solutions have been implemented to lesser degrees that nearly the whole economy and government has been converted over to socialism piecemeal. Don't believe me? Take a good hard look through this lens.
Anytime government is tasked with doing something for people which they should be doing for themselves, that is a form of socialism.
Social Security is Socialism
The Great Depression threw many people into poverty and highlighted the fact that many of the elderly lacked sufficient means to support themselves in their waning years. In response, Congress passed the Social Security Act and FDR signed it into law on August 14, 1935. The underlying notion of Social Security is that we somehow have a life-long right to economic security and everyone around us is responsible to protect that right.
Economic Security is Not a Right
Take note that economic security was not listed in The Declaration of Independence as one of our inalienable rights, nor did it appear in any form in The Bill of Rights, or any constitutional amendment. The notion of this "right" is based on the idea that it is the "right" thing for us to care for the less fortunate among us.
This is not only a perversion of transforming morally right behavior into a legally defensible right it uses immoral means to support this morality. In the past, impoverished people, if they were unable to rectify their own situation turned first to family and then to the community through private charities.
Private Charity Beats Government Programs
Private charities and families rely on morally impelled charity to help the impoverished. Government uses forced taxation and income redistribution, which are immoral means to try to remedy a moral wrong.
Healthcare is Not a Right
Medicare and Medicaid likewise are state sponsored charity. Both are aimed at setting right a morally wrong situation where people are unable to afford their health care. In fact the whole notion currently being promoted around "Medicare for All" is just a logical extension of this usurpation of private charity by the state. Are you seeing a pattern here?
Congressman Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist and erstwhile Presidential candidate has proclaimed that from the socialist view private charities should be abolished. The socialist view is that all "charity" is handled by the state by using tax dollars pulled from the pockets of working people.
When President Johnson declared the "war on poverty" he integrated a whole new raft of government programs to "right" a moral wrong of people living in poverty. He attacked the problem through taxes and government programs instead of promoting what was already working to reduce the number and percentage of people in poverty - self-reliance, hard work, thrift, and the safety net of the nuclear family. The results speak for themselves - destruction of the nuclear family among the poor, rising poverty levels, rising crime rates in poor areas, and the list of human misery just keeps mounting with every new wrong that socialists want to make right with the power of government.
How can you determine if a politician or social movement is promoting good or bad solutions?
Use the simple question, will the implementation of this result in increased dependence on government or increased emphasis on self-reliance?
Take note, I ask you to consider not just the hype, but to consider how it will look once it is implemented. If it is the former, oppose it. If the latter, support it.
Here are some practical ways to implement Action #1.
Read and analyze party platforms (national and state) to uncover whether the party philosophy trends toward reliance on government or self-reliance of individuals. Most parties post their platforms online now so they are relatively easy to find.
Read and analyze proposed and actual legislation and ordinances to uncover whether they tend to increase the intrusion of government into private lives or to protect individual and states’ rights.
Study the effects of existing laws and ordinances to uncover whether they tend to support self-reliance and individual industry or government dependence. Look at key demographic trends before and after a given piece of legislation was introduced.
For example, if you look at poverty rates in the US, particularly in the Black American community you will see that the rates were falling steadily for many years prior to LBJ's War nn Poverty. After, the rates leveled out, instead of continuing to decline, and have begun to climb.
It is telling that a key indicator of poverty is whether or not there are two parents in the home. Prior to The War on Poverty, the percentage of single mothers in the Black American community was less than 10%, now it is well above 50%. It seems pretty clear that the economic incentives in this legislation had the effect of encouraging out-of-wedlock marriages and the dissolution of the nuclear family.
The results have been devastating the the Black American community, locking multiple generations into poverty and enforcing the soft bigotry of low expectations to exacerbate the problem by discouraging academic achievement by children.
Study and analyze both the voting records and pronouncements of candidates and politicians to uncover where their words and deeds align with the protection of individual and states’ rights and encourage self-reliance or government dependency.
Action #2 - Make Your Views Known
Exert your influence to encourage the cause of
liberty, self-reliance, charity, and decreased worship of government as the
cure for all our ills. Bear in mind, this step is neither passive nor free of costs. The biggest costs may be the loss of friends and the vitriol of those who disagree with your views. Whenever you take a stand, there are inevitably those who will oppose you. These days, that opposition has proven to be particularly nasty and uncivil.
Whether or not others become uncivil is irrelevant. If you want to maintain the moral high ground that comes with supporting our unalienable rights (and their attendant responsibilities) you need to maintain high standards of civility and decorum. Descending to the level of those who oppose you degrades you and your position, creating a semblance of moral equivalence between the principles you promote and those you oppose.
Use social media appropriately – don’t go negative.
Most of us are far too familiar with how nasty people can be on the internet. Don't be one of those folks. When you use social media, keep it positive and uplifting.
Many years ago while I was serving as a missionary, one of my trainers pointed out a very important principle to me. He taught me that there are two ways to attempt to win people to your view.
One way is to tear down the view of others while touting the brilliance of your view. He pointed out that this seldom works because it puts people on the defensive. They tend to become reactive and are so busy thinking of how to defend or attack that they often quit listening to the positive points you are trying to make.
The alternative is to largely ignore the view of others while simply talking up the good points and benefits of your view. Many times, this wholly positive approach disarms them a bit and draws them in to look at your view more deeply and begin to ask questions.
To that end, here are a few rules of the road to remember:
- Make sure your posts and comments encourage support for your views without denigrating others
- Make complimentary comments, likes, follows, and shares of posts which support your views without denigrating others.
- Engage in civil discourse instead of uncivil discourse.
Please note, avoiding denigrating other view points does not mean avoiding disagreeing with them. I am not calling for the total avoidance of conflict. Rather, I am calling for the use of constructive conflict instead of destructive conflict.
Constructive conflict is conflict that doesn't leave people damaged in its wake.
Civil discourse means learning how to disagree without being disagreeable.
- Use facts as much as possible. Don't blindly repost memes either for or against. Make the time to do a little research and try to verify facts before sharing them.
- When you move from fact to belief, state it as a belief. This clarity bolsters your use of facts and deprives opponents of the opportunity to justifiably call you out for substituting beliefs for facts.
- Do not use insults or name-calling (ad hominem attacks). When you resort to hurling insults at your opponents it is because you have lost your ability to use facts and reason and are resorting wholly to emotion to exert influence. While emotion has its place, all too often it leads people into indefensible and ill-considered positions.
- Engage with and support political candidates and parties that align with your views.
Consider Running for Public Office
Having run for office I can tell you it is no picnic. It takes some money, good support, and a lot of hustle. As nasty as it may sound, running for office is all about marketing, and you are the product.
Perhaps the worst aspect of running for office is the very negative views many people have about politicians. As soon as you run for office, you are now a politician. All those unkind things you may have said or heard about lying, dishonest politicians will now be said to you and about you.
Look local first. School Board, City Council, Mayor, County Council, County Clerk, etc.
It sounds trite, but it is true, the higher you go in politics the less you can actually affect. You can have the most significant impact at the local levels rather than at state and federal levels.
Summary
Two things you can do to make the world a better place today are to stop looking for a governmental solution to societal ills and make your influence felt in a positive way. These are pretty simple, but not particularly easy steps. However, you can do them and they will begin to immediately make your tiny corner of the universe a bit better.
See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard
Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).
The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.
(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.
If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
Godvernment: Government as God
