Playing
the Right Like a Piano
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Why
does the right seem so much stupider than the left? Maybe it's just
because I pay closer attention to the right, and know this movement
so much better, but it’s forever falling for political gimmicks.
By comparison, the left seems generally more serious about politics
and not as easily sidetracked by battles over symbols of nothing.
The
latest baloney distracting the right from serious engagement in
public affairs is the prospect that the Supreme Court may rule negatively
on the phrase "under God" in the pledge. For my part, I wouldn't
care if the entire pledge were scrapped. It has nothing whatever
to do with the history of America, and expresses no ideas that are
distinctly American.
Why
anyone is willing to put his hand on his heart and liturgically
speak these words is beyond me. Maybe in the Soviet Union. Maybe
in Mao's China, or Hitler's Germany, when everyone is looking down
the barrel of a gun, but in the land of the free? Forget it.
The
author of the pledge was socialist Francis Bellamy, who wrote it
for a boys’ magazine to promote loyalty to the federal government,
which he and his friends hoped would socialize the American economy
after crushing the South’s attempt to secede. Thus we were to swear
allegiance to "one nation, indivisible." Don't you dare think otherwise!
The
first major supporter of the pledge was the National Education Association,
which favored its adoption in all public schools as a way of punishing
Southern rebels and cementing the loyalty of Northern immigrants.
As
for the "under God" line, it was inserted under Eisenhower as a
sop to working-class nationalists who believed that the major problem
with communism was its atheism (unlike the US state?). Thus did
the US represent God on earth and the Soviet Union the Devil. In
short, the phrase had nothing to do with affirming the Almighty
but with shoring up and deifying the state. Does it violate the
separation of church and state? Inasmuch as it identifies the state
with the church, probably so.
Though
the history of the pledge is well known, and it has no real roots
worth preserving, we can count on the American right to go nuts
with frenzy to preserve this oath, which no respectable, educated
American should be saying in the first place. Pledge allegiance
to your principles, your family, your faith, but don't be foolish
enough to pledge allegiance to a gang of thieves.
If
the Supreme Court does rule against the "under God," there will
be an attempt to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency too,
and we can similarly count on the right to throw themselves into
preserving the fiat paper dollar as is, a currency that the founding
generation would have recognized as despotic trash. The right will
entirely miss the point, that the government is distracting us with
the name if not the reality of God, so we won’t notice that its
federal government has debased and debauched the money.
Onward
to another major issue currently distracting the dumb bunnies on
the right: the proposed amendment to the Constitution affirming
that marriage is defined as one man married to one woman. Maybe
the entire Webster's Dictionary should be made an amendment to the
Constitution too. It's not going to improve the vocabulary of anyone.
It will either be ignored or wrongly used. It will also give the
gay lobby a huge boost by reinforcing their sense of being a victimized
minority fighting for their supposed rights.
Congress,
the President, and the Court ignore huge swaths of the Constitution
everyday. Look at the 10th amendment. It says that what
powers the federal government is not given, belong to the states
or the people. That didn't stop the federal government from usurping
more and more powers of the people and the states, to the point
where now the right entertains the possibility of putting marriage
itself under federal jurisdiction.
In
a free society, marriage would be managed by the Church or other
private institutions, on a voluntary basis. Disputes would be handled
by private courts. Government would have no more to say about marriage
than it would any other contract or sacrament. What is really going
on here is that some political elites cooked up this cockamamie
idea to permit the American right to burn off energy so these people
won't notice that the Bush administration is bankrupting the country
with its crazed welfare schemes and murderous foreign wars.
There
are so many issues that the right focuses on that have nothing whatever
to do with genuine reform: the pledge, the flag, flag burning, constitutional
amendments, federal judgeships, White House staffing questions,
silly school reforms, tax shifting capers, the treachery of other
nations for not supporting Bush's wars, and on and on.
These
people are so busy with nonsense issues that they take no notice
of the fact that American liberty is slipping further away by the
day. Do they care? Or are they happy to live under tyranny so long
as it claims to rule in God's name and cracks anyone's skull who
employs the 4th versus the 1st definition
of marriage?
At
the White House, they must laugh and laugh at the American right.
There's a name for these people suckers and Barnum
government is greatly appreciative of their role.
October
16, 2003
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him
mail] is president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
Copyright
© 2003 LewRockwell.com
Lew
Rockwell Archives
|