Git'er Done With Ron Paul

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Git’er done.
We got’er done. Got what done? Well, my wife and I hung an interior
door. Yep, we got’er done.

You see, we
both wanted the door hung. Sure, we disagreed on certain aspects
of the process — the means, but we both had the same end in mind.
And, we are both satisfied with the outcome.

I bring this
up in context of a political endorsement meeting I recently attended
where candidates for county and state offices were seeking the support
of the local party elite. Part of the process included an open mike
so supporters could speak on behalf of their favored candidate.

There was a
common theme throughout the meeting, and it went something like
this: I am here to support candidate X. Though he and I disagreed
on many issues, we were always able to compromise and get the job
done.

That’s right,
they got’er done.

Certainly my
wife and I compromised during our door-hanging challenge, but we
were pursuing the same end. Oh, sure, the door wasn’t hung in the
manner I believed efficient, nor was it hung in the manner my wife
desired. But it was hung nonetheless. We compromised, and we are
happy.

But, what about
the candidate — a current officeholder — and his supporters? What
were their compromises and jointly desired ends? That question kept
rolling around in my head throughout the evening.

If I am being
robbed, having only $100 in my wallet, I might try to negotiate
with the thief. Instead of losing the full $100, I suggest that
we compromise on the outcome. I keep $50 and the thief gets $50,
and we got’er done.

But, I am not
about to stand in support of the thief and proudly state that he
is a man of good intentions — a man worthy of support. No, I would
vilify him and seek just compensation. And, I would look for ways
to stop him from robbing me again.

Now, let's
consider the political process in a git'er done world.

An elected
official begins pushing a new program: intervention A. Since A is
something which I do not support — something I consider theft, I
quickly call the politician and demand to be heard. I don’t want
A, he does. We argue and get hot. Neither of us is willing to move
from our respective positions. Then, in a brilliant stroke of political
genius, the politician turns the discussion from rancor to reconciliation,
"Let's work together on this."

That comment
awakens the years of indoctrination — classical conditioning — I
received as part of a collectivist, public education. Positions
and beliefs are to give way to consensus, as only the consensus
opinion of the collective is right. Whether class or school, the
collective body is more important than the individual. So, I acquiesce
to his demand.

Where I should
have redoubled my efforts to protect me property, I accepted the
Fichtean view of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. I agreed to
move from my position as my thesis melded with the politician's
antithesis to arrive at the collective consensus — synthesis. So,
we split the baby and called it a success. We got'er done.

Gone is my
disgust over having my property stolen, being replaced by pride
in working on a solution — in serving the greater good by defining
and implementing the compromise based on the cherished ideal of
consensus.

Soon, I will
be the one racing to the mike in support of this elected official.
We compromised and got'er done. For this reason alone, you must
endorse this man's desire for power and prestige. He got'er done
once, he'll git'er done again.

My wife and
I wanted the same end — a door hung, but we were willing to bend
on the means since the means were of little consequence to us. The
politician and his supporter had initial stated ends that were diametrically
opposed, but they compromised on the means since the means — collective
consensus — is the core of their belief systems.

But, it's more
than that. Both the supporter and the politician believe that the
ultimate role of government is to do — something, anything. They
laud those who push issues that create change. Action and decisiveness
are always cheered, while adherence to limited and reduced government
is laughed away as non-progressive and backward.

Sure, we fight
over the specifics, but the fight is the cherished means called
politics. With the agreed upon end always being more government,
more interventions.

And, it doesn't
matter whether the opponents are politicians or citizens; even the
side of the aisle is of no consequence. The meeting I attended was
held by those who claim to be for less government, lower taxes.
But, that's just not the git'er done attitude anymore.

As for me,
I don't want the nonsense to continue. I simply want a federal government
that never exceeds its constitutional powers, and I want county
and state governments that get out of my life and off my property.

I looked around
the meeting and saw politicians who dream the big dream, and I saw
the party elite and invited guests who want more action, all the
while thinking, "let's fight over the specifics and git'er
done."

So, there you
have it: The means is collective consensus with the end being a
government that moves and grows. A sad situation indeed.

But, that's
not it. There is a man whose goals are my goals. Sure, we may occasionally
disagree over the means — the best way to hang a door — but we both
desire the same end: Liberty.

This candidate
— my candidate — is Ron Paul of course. And, I'm ready to git'er
done with Paul. Let's get the hammer, nails, and level to start
putting up the door; the door that opens to a country blessed by
a future of Liberty and Prosperity.

Let's rally
for Paul and git'er done so we can tell our children that we got'er
done.

November
15, 2007

Jim
Fedako [send him mail] is a
homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and
maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare