How Shall We Then Vote?: A Case for Freedom Over Zealotry

By Brett Mers

In the semi-chaotic flux of what passes for American politics these days, what does an individual vote really mean? Perhaps more than you have ever thought! A vote is considered by some as an oft-dismissed nuisance, but from my perspective, it is a sacred privilege, and, specifically, a guide for the use of government force. When you vote, how do you decide among the options? Is it a Party affiliation? Religious identification? Or do you have a litmus test of a particular policy position?
The American society and government is the classic manifestation of Churchill's dictum that democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for everything else. It often seems that we focus more on that which divides us than on that which unites us. The zealots among us, found on both the far left and far right sides of the political spectrum, attempt to use those culturally divisive concepts for their own purposes. Hear any differing opinions on marriage, abortion, economics, gay rights, or political correctness lately?
To preserve and expand the gift of freedom, vote to protect the personal liberty of all Americans, not just those who live their lives within your personal cultural, philosophical, and religious standards.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Jul 7, 2022
• ISBN: 9781458351005

Book preview

How Shall We Then Vote?  For Freedom!

A Case for Reason & Freedom vice Revelation & Zealotry

Preface

Imagine that you are the undisputed king of the world.  If I was, Mondays would start at noon and Fridays would end at noon so you could ease out of and into the weekend, but I digress.  If you were the aforementioned monarch, how would you organize society?  We’ll keep the general laws of physics and biology intact, so no calorie-free desserts, cancer-free cigarettes, or idiot-free political campaigns.  But within the bounds of known reality (whatever they may be), what would your society look like?

You have all the power.  What would you do with it?  All wealth and power would be in your hands.  All people would do your bidding…or suffer your consequences.  Would you be a benevolent dictator, a dictatorial despot, or a gentle shepherd kindly guiding your flock?  Would you allow uncouth or unethical actions or displays?  Would you allow spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking?  Would you prescribe the death penalty for removing the tag from a new pillow?  Would you require religious obeisance and prohibit blasphemous actions to your preferred piety?  Would you allocate resources to your favorite causes and restrict them from those you find distasteful?  Would you create a society which is a physical manifestation of your internal vision of cosmic perfection?  You could.  You’re the ultimate authority answerable to no other human.

In reality, you have such power, limited only by the fact that every other human being on the planet has the same power.  It is the constant and dynamic balancing of the sum total of individual psychic and natural forces which produce human society as it is.  Imbalances of these powers, vortexes, and shifting foci combine to produce chaos which yields organization in a continual cycle of decay and renewal.  As many individuals occupy the same space and time, the logical limit on personal activity is when one individual’s choice(s) prevents another from realizing the impact and benefits of their own choices.  This is historically known as the harm principle and will be examined more fully later.  The trick for society is to manage the cycle such that the total of the body of knowledge and human civilization continues to develop.  However, a cursory look at human history will reveal that this, indeed, is quite the trick.

One of the first keys to such a goal is for each individual to rise above their own viewpoints and realize that no matter how sure they are of their perspective on X that everyone else has the same freedom and right to their perspective as well.  This is obviously an ideal that has little in the way of practical historical application but serves as a theoretical beacon in the psychic darkness, nonetheless.  Remembering that in the aggregate, we are all human, no better and no worse than any other individual goes a long way toward providing balance in societal forces.

The second key is to understand the concept of zero-sum.  In a zero-sum proposition for one party to gain is for another to lose, by definition.  All too often in life, we confuse non-zero-sum equations for those and that are and consider that another’s gain is necessarily our loss.  This produces a defensive mind-set and limits our creativity in designing positive options.  An understanding of our own limitations and respect for the value and perspective of all individuals goes a long way toward defining problems in non-zero-sum terms and opening creative options.

Understanding these simple observations can help in keeping the forces of society in enough balance to prevent outbreaks of violence in the process of societal process and flow.  In America, the Constitution provides structure designed to maintain societal balance and limit the need for organized violence in the discussion and settlement of various disputes.  Is it a perfect document or system?  No.  But in historical comparison to other attempts, it is an effective, peaceful, and productive process to manage the challenges of blending the individual perspectives into a whole as we ride the third rock around the sun and the solar system around the galaxy and await whatever the deities, the aliens, or the mindless random universe has in store for us.

This book is written as my contribution to assist in the preservation of the experiment in self-government began in the United States over two centuries ago.  It is (nod to Franklin) to help us keep the republic which the Founders bequeathed to us.  Its message is for the 80% of us in the middle and a warning about the 10% on either end of the spectrum.  Because, with all its problems, issues, and failures, to paraphrase Churchill, representative democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for everything else.

Most of us (the 80% in the middle) are normal, reasonably decent people…not perfect in any way…but we know it.  We generally tend to attempt to learn and make new mistakes vice the same old ones over and over again.  We want safety and security and are willing to work for it.  We have our beliefs, our passions, our recreations, our hopes, desires, and dreams, and at the end of the day we want to go home, spend time with our family and friends, and enjoy our lives free from unnecessary interference.  We are decent people and honest citizens.  We help those in need and are grateful to God, the Universe, or the Great Nothing, for what we have.  We want to live our lives and let others do the same.  But that’s us.

In the US, as in most all societies, the ends of the societal spectrum are populated by those who for personal, psychological, and neurotic reasons unspecified are not satisfied to live their own lives but feel compelled to spend their time and energy telling us how to live ours.  They are gifted (their perspective) and burdened (my perspective) with a Vision of Ultimate Reality (VOUR) that includes your time, money, and behaviors.  This VOUR is clear, correct, and definitive.  It is usually quite black and white in relief.  There are no uncertainties.  They know exactly how society, life, and reality should be organized, produced, discussed, consumed, and experienced.  They are the theistic religious fundamentalists (on the right wing) and the atheistic religio-socialist-political ideologues (on the left wing).  Their VOUR includes how you should think and how you should live your life.  They are self-assured, laser-focused, and salivate at the scent of power.  Do not let outward identifying marks and the words used confuse you, these groups, theistic or atheistic, are of the same essence and connected to the belief that they know better than you how you should live your life.

Let’s be honest, we all feel like protesting some people and some things.  I feel that way about kombucha.  My kids love the stuff.  I can barely stomach the smell.  Why anyone would choose to assault their taste buds with such a culinarily vile substance, I can’t fathom.  But my reticence stops well short of violence to prevent such imbibement.  Nor do I campaign for the government to enact anti-kombucha regulations.  I respect the right of individuals everywhere to produce, sell, and consume kombucha.  For them to do so does nothing to cost or harm me, save for a few confuzzled brain cells.  I might be considered a somewhat passive kombucha protester, but I am not an anti-kombucha zealot.  Zealotry is not protest, passive or otherwise. 

Protest is an expected process in the ebb and flow of society and the individual.  Protest is not only understandable, but also provided for in the Constitution.  Via several avenues, e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc. the right to protest and hold forth one’s view is protected.  Zealotry, however, crosses line from potent persuasion into corporeal coercion. The use of violence, the threat of violence or the leverage of government to do the same is what separates the protestor from the zealot.  The former is an indispensable nutritive for a free society the latter is a lethal poison for it.  The zealot mouths respect for the rights of others but the zealot’s actions speak otherwise.  They will use force and/or leverage government force to enact their cosmic visions.  They brook little opposition and will use nearly any tactic to achieve their ends because they are self-justified in their own moral views and confidant in the superiority of their own designs.

This book is a warning about zealots (the 10% on either end) of all stripes, theologies, and political persuasions.  The zealots among us know what is best for all of us or at least they are sure they do, and they are all too willing to use force and/or government make life better for us.  They know how to live your life and spend your money.  Look around you right now.  How many people within your view (or mind if you’re alone) would you want to serve as the defining moral conscience buttressed by the force of law for you?

Zealotry has a long, if not illustrious history in human politics.  One example is the chaos of the Seleucid Empire around the turn of Common Era. When Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the Jewish Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple in 167 BCE, the righteous had had enough.  Judas Maccabee (the Hammer) led a guerrilla campaign that began a series of conflicts which saw the area turned into a free-for-all shooting gallery (well, sword, spear, and arrow gallery) for the next 250 years.  The history of the era and area is one bloody, nasty, and disgusting fight after another.¹

While there were assuredly economic and ethnic oppressions destabilizing first-century Palestine, according to at least one historian, those that kept stirring the pot to boiling were the zealots, in this case a Zealot Party.  This group was dedicated to God’s law and God’s law said that the Romans shouldn’t be in the Holy Land. The real destroyers of the Jewish state, as Jesus had foretold and as Josephus himself at times sees, were the Zealot Messianic party with its following among the poorer classes. They deliberately sought to found a kingdom of God upon earth with the dagger and the sword.² Since the Romans marched into Palestine in 63 BCE to settle violent disputes as to the holder of the office of the High Priest, there had been an undercurrent of political espionage.  The next century saw Palestine as the theater for one violent clash, war, and assassination after another.  This group, also called the Sicarii, meaning dagger (another nom de plume for the Zealots), had a nasty habit of carrying small daggers, slipping up close to Roman officials or members of the Sanhedrin.  These were the Jewish Priests who ran the Temple sacrificial system and supported the Roman political machine in Jerusalem.  The individual would quickly stab or slit the throat of their target and then blend into the crowd, start yelling, and demand official action.  They were among the religious fundamentalists of the day (the 10% on the right wing).  In modern terms, all these groups were religious terrorists and their VOUR was not being fulfilled therefore, lethal violence in the name of God was the order of the day.

Initially, those opposing the Seleucids and ultimately the Romans, the various zealot parties stoked the fires of violence and war. There were the the fanatical Chasidim, and the patriotic adventurers constituting the party of the Asmoneans or Maccabees. Between these two parties in the approaching civil war was the great mass of the people, doubtless at heart favorable toward Judaism, but indifferent to calls to heroic sacrifice, poor and unarmed, certain to be oppressed whichever side won, and consequently ready to submit to whichever party might for the moment be the victor.³  The 80% suffering for the visions of the extremists has had a long, if not illustrious, history.

Eventually, the zealots got the war they apparently wanted, though it didn’t turn out quite the way they envisioned (no angelic army of the Almighty on their flanks). In the latter part of the 1st century CE, two Roman legions marched northeast from Egypt and two south from Syria.  They scorched the earth.  When they reached Jerusalem, they built a wall around the city and waited till the people were 2/3 starved.  Then they kicked in the gates, marched in, and killed everything that moved.  Next, they turned their attentions to the rocky fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea where the fanatics had retreated to watch the Romans destroy their country.  The Romans then built a ramp up to the top and the only thing that saved the zealots from being butchered by the legions was the fact that they committed mass suicide the night before the final assault.  Religious wars tend to end with extreme violence, not infrequently genocide, and no real solution to the motivating questions.  Even if it takes centuries, both sides will lick their wounds, remount, and reload, and prepare for the next round.

As the first-century historian, Flavius Josephus upon returning to Palestine, from Rome I believe, writes of the mood and perspective of some of his fellow Jews,

I found revolutionary movements already begun, and great excitement at the prospect of revolt from Rome. Accordingly, I tried to stop those preaching sedition … urging them to place before their eyes those against whom they were fighting; and to remember that they were inferior to the Romans, not only in military skill, but in good fortune. Although earnestly and insistently seeking to dissuade them from their purpose, foreseeing that the results would be disastrous for us, I did not persuade them. The great insanity of those desperate men prevailed.⁴

Lest we Americans consider the story just ancient history, look around and consider what motivates much of the political wrangling and recent violence in this country.  The issues stem from VOURs and the extremists on either end of the spectrum seem willing to sacrifice us all for their particular version of vision.  Whether their VOUR derives from God, Father Marx, or Brothers Engels, Lenin, and Mao your personal liberty will suffer the same.  Lest by reading this work you conclude that I think there is nothing in this world worth fighting for, let me assure you, as a retired military officer, that is not the case.  There are things worth fighting and dying for in this world.  But I have seen the face of war and not only is the cost not worth most of the vociferously and righteously debated issues in this country, but war will never settle the questions over which we seem so currently animated.

On the wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC is the quote from President Thomas Jefferson, for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man⁵  We should all take Jefferson’s perspective here to heart and quit allowing the loudest and most boisterous among us to determine how we think.  We must know ourselves, know each other, and know our environment to effectively meet the challenges and craft a positive way ahead.  The ideal answer is for the 80% to tell the 10% on either end to shut up, calm down, have a drink, meditate, pray, or go live quietly in the desert to find enlightenment, but leave the rest of us to live, solve our problems, and enjoy ourselves in peace.  If we are not careful, the zealots among us will destroy the lives we enjoy as a sacrifice to realize their own personal vision of ultimate reality and when the smoke clears and the dust settles, we will bitterly and futilely long for the lives that were lost and the world that was.

At another tense and critical time in US history, newly elected President Abraham Lincoln closed his First Inaugural Address with the following.  His advice was needed and relevant then…and now.  We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely, they will be, by the better angels of our nature⁶

The purpose of this work isn’t to change your position on nearly anything.  I simply want you be informed and think for yourself.  If, as you read through this material, you find yourself alternately laughing and snorting in self-righteous derision, I will have accomplished my goal.  I’m not trying to induce pro-choice advocates to become pro-life or vice-versa.  I am not arguing that you should believe that capitalism is the greatest thing since economically sliced bread or that there is no racism left in US.  Nor am I trying to convince you that marriage isn’t a holy sacrament from God or that being overly consumed with booze, drugs, or porn may not be the best way for you to live your life.  I am not trying to achieve those goals because, frankly, I don’t know what is best for you in your life.  That’s for you to analyze, consider, grow, and decide for yourself.  I know.  It stinks, doesn’t it?

What this book is specifically designed to do is to argue that in a free society under the US Constitution, not many of those things and a lot of others, are not the business of government and law to guide, monitor, and regulate.

This is not a work of original research.  Sources used are cited accordingly.  This is not a work of technical philosophy.  I mention several philosophers for their insights but make no attempt to produce a coherent philosophy of government.  Such ground has been aptly and amply plowed for centuries.  Neither is it a partisan polemic.  I really have no preference as to anyone’s political identity other than as a citizen of the United States.  It is a statement derived from my education and experience as a Political Affairs Officer, Assistant Professor of Military Strategic Studies, voter, citizen, pianist, and Harley rider.  It explicitly is designed to establish the fact that in the US many of our current social and political arguments have ancient roots and are not likely to ever be resolved to everyone’s complete satisfaction.  It will present history with which most are already familiar but perhaps juxtaposed in a manner which, hopefully, sparks new insights in the reader.

Author’s Note I:

For the academicians among the readers, let me say that I have provided copious citations of the works I have consulted for this essay.  The format is my own mix of Chicago-ML-APA.  The function of providing information for the reader to source the material has, I believe, been met.  The proper format was of lesser importance to me.

Author’s Note II:

Spelling and grammar in cited material has been kept as quoted.

Author’s Note III:

If there is anything approaching a unique thought here, I probably spelled it wrong anyway.  I am in complete debt to my family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, teachers, clergy, and random bar tenders over the years for my views, thoughts, and perspectives.  I have learned wonderful things from all of them.

Author’s Not IV:

You may find themes and even phrasing repeated throughout this work.  It may be that I have used an advised communication method of repeating a message to support greater memory retention.  Or it could simply be that I am old and absent-minded and forgot that I had already mentioned it.  I leave it to the reader to decide…and chuckle as appropriate.

Author’s Note V:

I am truly indebted to several long-time friends and colleagues that graciously donated their time, intellect, and energy to offer cogent advice, relevant improvements, and assistance with finding clarity of thought.  Their comments were invaluable as I worked through the research, writing, and copious cups of coffee that went into this effort.  I have omitted their names because 1) there were many, and 2) I wouldn’t want them to get caught in any negative fallout.  The responsibility for this work rests solely with myself.

Table of Contents

Section I: Voting – Promises to God or An Exercise in Power?

Chapter 1 – The Basis and Impact of Voting

Section II: The Context of American Politics

    Chapter 2 – Zealots Make Lousy Roommates

Chapter 3 - The Nature of Government and Power

    Chapter 4 – The Nature of Freedom and Constraint

Section III: Variant Applications of Freedom In Three Americas

Chapter 5 – America #1, 1776-1860: The Nature of Freedom and Constraint

Chapter 6 - American #2, 1860-1964: Moralism Continues to Rise

    Chapter 7 - America #3, 1964-Present:  Moralism Leans to the Left

Section IV: Major Arguments of the Cultural Wars

    Chapter 8 - Cognitions About Law

    Chapter 9 - Cognitions About Religion

    Chapter 10 - Cognitions About Economics

    Chapter 11 – Cognitions About Marriage

    Chapter 12 – Cognitions About Abortion

    Chapter 13 – Cognitions About Vice

    Chapter 14 – Cognitions About Race

    Chapter 15 – Cognitions About the Press & Education

  Section V: What Do We Do?

Chapter 16 - Implement the Harm Principle

    Chapter 17 – Damn the Dogma

    Chapter 18 – What’s the Reason?

Conclusion

Introduction & Prologue

The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn – The Gulag Archipelago⁷

In July 2020, I went to Denver, Colorado where I attended the Back the Blue rally to support the local police.  This event was truly relevant in 2020 as there were loud calls for defunding police departments from many quarters.  However, this event was not specifically in response to such calls.  This was the 6th annual iteration of the event which had taken place every year in Civic Center Park, downtown Denver between the Denver City Hall and the Colorado State Capitol.  This year an activist group, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and other Black Lives Matter supporters, including the Afro-Liberation Front, had let it be known that those of us supporting the police were not to be allowed the freedom to meet and that the pro-police event would not be allowed to proceed.

The socialist group met about an hour earlier and a couple of blocks away from the pro-police event.  I attended the socialist rally.  I stood in the back and listened to several different speakers.  To be honest, I didn’t hear a lot that made much sense nor much with what I politically agreed.  However, I listened quietly and politely.  Then I went over to the amphitheater in the park where the pro-police event was to take place.  A band was setting up their instruments and equipment on the stage and people were milling around.  Some were holding signs supportive of law enforcement, and some were purchasing snacks from a local food truck.  The band finished their sound check and the event got underway.  But not for long.

About 10 minutes or so after the event started, a large crowd of people from the socialist rally flooded into the amphitheater and onto the stage physically assaulting some of the band members and speakers.  The rest of the socialist crowd banged pots and pans and chanted Go Home Racist continually.  Their eyes began to glaze over as they seemed to be almost self-hypnotized by the chanting.  A line of Denver police tried to stand between the opposing groups but to little avail.  As I understand it, the Denver leadership had told the police to stand down, but the on-scene Commander told the police to stay (I don’t have any official information to the effect either way).  I do know, as an eyewitness, that the police did little to intervene and only when someone was being physically beaten.  It was impossible for the pro-police event to continue.  This event had been lawfully permitted and was meant to be a family-friendly time supportive of law enforcement.  It was completely impossible to continue due to the harassing, intimidating, and illegal actions of the socialist group.

I wandered among the disruptive and violent protestors and got 15-20 of them to quit banging and chanting for a moment and talk with me.  I mentioned that I had attended their rally a few minutes before and while not agreeing with most of their positions I listened quietly and respected their right to be heard.  Then I asked them why they did not do the same at the pro-police event.  To a person, they all gave the same answer.  All used the exact phrase noted here or words to the effect but gave the same answer.  We have the morally superior position; therefore, you have no right to be heard.

One of the petite blond 20-something females was carrying a sign that had Reform or Revolution written on it.  I asked her if she knew what that meant.  I told her that a revolution meant battle and that where she lived would be a battlefield.  Then I asked her if she had ever seen a battlefield.  She stared at me blankly.  I told her that had seen a few battlefields and that she didn’t want to live in one.  She stared blankly for a few more seconds and then went back to chanting and beating on her pot.  How can you argue with logic like that? Make no mistake boys and girls, we are in the midst of a war in the United States.  It does not involve tanks, planes, and foxholes…at least not yet.  But it is a war, nonetheless.

But the war isn’t ultimately between groups of citizens.  Groups will tend to gather around various components of the issues and it seems as if it is religion against secularism, politically left against politically right, immigrant against native-born, and American against American.  But the real issues are much more abstract and psychologically core.  The crux of the matter lies with a view of freedom and respect.  Too many of us give lip service to idea of freedom because it smacks of human rights and ethically noble sentiments.  But what we mean by freedom is often not what some others do.  Freedom is realized when the individual possesses the right and responsibility of making and executing their own choices from the options available to him or her prioritizing within the value system each finds most appropriate.

Like the point of manifestation of an electrical current into physical space effect is the spark, so the space-time manifestation of the abstract idea of freedom is the individual.  The collective is an abstract grouping that works for theoretical analysis and planning scenarios but when it comes to exercising freedom, the collective does not do that…the individuals comprising it do.  For one individual to limit or prevent the free exercise of the rights of another because they find the choice distasteful, uncouth, ill-advised, or immoral is unjustified by the harm principle.  Whether the restriction is motivated by Woke-ness, a desire to bring equity to society, or a desire to bring the nation back to Godliness, it is a logically unjustified restriction of extant freedoms and rights held by all humans and guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution.

BLUF – Bottom Line Up Front

The BLUF is a term and process widely used in briefings in the US military.  Time is usually of the essence in such circles and succinctness in getting the point across is always appropriate, if not appreciated.  So, here is the BLUF.  Personal liberty is the answer where agreement is not required to protect life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness, and Compromise is the answer where it is.  This is the proffered ratio finis (ideal goal).

    This essay is designed to suggest for consideration of a way ahead which protects Americans from the progressive and aggressive policies of abortion rights, gay rights, queer gender-bending, drug rights, excessive taxation, and anti-God disrespect for the traditional American and God-fearing way of life.  That way ahead is also designed to protect Americans from regressive, white-privileged, economically, and socially unjust speech, and insensitive politically incorrect policies of anti-feminism, institutional racism, homophobia, opposition to universal income and the capitalist road to communism and disrespect for the emotional trauma of woke individuals striving for a more safe and just society.  It is to remind the reader that the freedom to allow something to be done is not the same as a requirement to do that thing.

First, the goal is to demonstrate that where agreement is not required for safety and security, personal freedom and not government dictate is the more preferred choice.  Secondly, where agreement is required for said safety and security, compromise is preferable to combat.  If you have any doubt about that last statement, you’ve never been in combat.  Go find someone who was and ask them about it.

This work is not done in the spirit self-righteousness or rancor.  The imp of sarcasm, however, has had his way with it…despite some of my most strenuous analytical efforts to the contrary.  If you haven’t detected it yet, the writing is specifically not in a formal academic style.  It is, rather, more conversational.  If you know me or meet me, I would hope that something of my personality, desire, and spirit would resonate with you from these pages.

It is written in the spirit of hope as expressed by Lincoln’s vision of our better angels.  In truth if you are reading this, we are bonded.  We are the same species, and our neural structure operates on the same frequency.  We are connected…scary thought is it not?  If you understand these words, we have a linguistic connection of sorts.  We may even share tastes in English Breakfast Tea and single malt scotch.  To my Evangelical and Fundamentalist friends, Spurgeon (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, well-known 19th century British minister, evangelist, and theologian) enjoyed a good stogie and a scotch and soda quite regularly.  So, at least I’m in good company there.  The point is, and that which I hope to make clear, is that we are all human and riding this cosmic rock together for a while and from my view, politics and personality are not the same concepts.

I am something qualitatively different than my particular selection of policies just as I am different than my menu selections at a restaurant.  Are both somewhat illustrative of who I am as a person?  In theory, yes.  But just like I won’t avoid you because you selected the steak tar-tar, I won’t avoid you because you voted for X or Y differently than did I.  I may find your propositions or positions logical or laughable, intellectual or unintelligible, righteous or reprehensible, but you are not your positions.  So, Republican or Democrat, Black, White, Brown, Yellow (or some mixture of all the above), Socialist or Capitalist, Theist or Atheist, Carnivore or Vegan, Straight, Gay, Bi-sexual, or Queer, Male, Female, or Non-Binary individual, let’s marvel at the scenery, have a discussion, compare notes of our experiences, and try to leave the place as suitable as we can for the next round of riders.

Compromise is Not a Four-Letter Word.  Count Them and See!

Compromise is anathema to the zealot, of any stripe.  To question is the worst of sins for a fundamentalist (religious ideologue) or an ideologue (secular fundamentalist).  Billy Sunday, a famous (in certain circles) fundamentalist evangelist of the early 20h century when asked about whether playing baseball on Sundays should be allowed commented that it should not and further pronounced that I never compromise with the devil⁸ (I never knew Satan enjoyed baseball.  I always thought he would be more of a rugby sort).

In a similar frame, Eric Kaufman writes in American Affairs that Viewing wokeness as a highly decentered liberal religion helps us understand the movement’s extremism, its witch hunts, and its awakenings. It explains why high-status people and elite institutions mouth its mantras, why its moderates can’t stand up to its fundamentalists, and why it is both the product of, and an engine of, polarization.⁹  Existing in a mental state of metaphysical certainty can convince one that they know nearly everything.  Some of us, failing to find certainty in politics, religion, or the traditional Big Mac recipe, feel constrained to invent it for themselves.  Applied to politics, this tends to produce moralists and activists, neither of which should be allowed to approach the levers of political power over the rest of us, in my assessment.  A healthy respect for the benefits of ambiguity comes in handy for the abstract reasoning necessary to governance in a free society.

On the US political spectrum, the far-right is largely enervated by moralists.  They are self-righteous individuals convinced that they have the divine and divinely imparted revelatory knowledge of how we all should live. They also have the hubris to believe they have the right to impose this vision on the rest of us.  The far left of the spectrum is largely enervated by activists.  They are self-righteous individuals convinced that they have the pure knowledge of how we all should live.  They derive this from some sort of more enlightened natural reason.  They also have the hubris to believe they have the right to impose this vision on the rest of us.  Moralist or activist, both are united in finding the meaning of life by imposing their will on the rest of us…all for own good, of course.  Whether it is for our soul, the soul of the nation, God’s will, fairness, the greater good, etc., both moralist and activist will attempt persuasion but slip seamlessly into coercion to bring their abstract and esoteric visions to life.  This unyielding mindset, from either the left or the right, is counter-productive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness except as in such detail as they in their hubris deem suitable for the rest of us.

Despite the appearance of emotional tantrum-throwing by some, there is a logic to the flow to human disagreement.  Differences over chicken, beef, or tofu for dinner usually don’t end up in violence.  But that is because neither party cares enough about their position to push it that far.  Differences in politics, religion, or visions of ultimate reality (VOURs) usually come with a little more attachment and energy.  In either case, if the parties cared enough about their position, defined it in zero-sum terms, could not (or would not) compromise, and there was no over-arching authority capable of enforcing agreement, then logic points them toward physical violence and passions often drive them there.  Wars are usually started with visceral feeling, but they are successfully prosecuted with analysis and application of force.  Absent compromise, frustrations rise, impatience ensues, and emotions flare.  That is why war is all too often the unintended destination of sustained political difference.

There are, undoubtedly, things worth fighting and dying for in my assessment.  In my assessment, they are quite few in number but extant, nonetheless.  The problem in sustained intercultural conflicts, in the likes of which the American populace currently finds itself is that there is a disconnect between the emotion that often impels us into war and the intellect that is required for a successful conclusion.

The Final Argument of Kings and the Father of All Things

War is known in international relations as the ultima ratio regum, the final argument of kings.  Heraclitus called war the father of all things.  But war is often a misunderstood concept.  The people in the US most often equate war with physical battle.  But that is a core misunderstanding of the term.  Battle is a competition of targeted physical energy.  Whoever puts the most energy on the most relevant target-set first, via swords, bullets, bombs, etc wins.  War is a psycho-social conflict of the human soul.  It is broadly defined as a state of human conflict in which two or more parties cannot agree to a common protocol vis-à-vis a particular issue or set of issues.  Instead, they resort to confrontational, sometimes physically violent means to settle their differences.  The content of the disagreement, the parties involved, and the procedures used or not used are tangential to the essence of the definition.  Two individuals could argue over possession of a wallet.  Two countries could argue over a resource base or social policy implementation.  But the essence of the issue remains constant: one party imposing that party’s will on the other.¹⁰

That conflict exists along a spectrum of violence from words and psychological pressure to global thermonuclear war.  Baron Carl von-Clausewitz, mid-nineteenth century German Officer and theorist, famously noted that war is policy by other means.¹¹  This gave a purpose to the idea of war but still was weighted toward the use of physical force.  The ancient Chinese General Sun Tzu (pronounced Soon-Za) understood and described war as a concept that far exceeded physical battle and encompassed a far greater aspect of human relations.  He famously noted, To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.¹² It takes a lot of time and energy to kill people…they usually resist dying.  War, at its finest and most efficient, is psychological and bloodless.

We are not yet divided into groups engaged in pitched physical battle with one another (and hopefully we will never be again).  But make no mistake.  The American society is in the midst of a war.  It’s a war between views of religion, social interactions, culture, and worldview, and is currently being fought mostly with words, censorship, and political maneuvering.  But if we are going to avoid continued and growing organized oppression on the one hand and open combat on the other, we must craft a principled and informed middle path.  This entails some historic understanding of the interaction of politics, religion, economics, and culture, how they have interacted within the flow of US history, what may have gone awry and some ideas on how to fix it before we are all either in chains or digging fighting positions in the front yard.

I Have to Agree to What?

Ever gone to dinner with friends, maybe even a larger group?  Let’s say that you must organize a dinner for 20 people.  What do you all have to agree on (as a minimum) for the event to occur?  I submit that the list is pretty short.  You will need to agree on time, place, and who is going to pay.  That’s really about all that is needed for the event to proceed.  You don’t have to agree on everything politically, socially, sexually, or religiously.  You might like the event or be horribly offended at menu, dress, language, and deportment of your fellow diners.  But you can meet, eat, and depart sans violence with agreement on the basis of time, place, and payment arrangements.  In a nutshell, that’s the original American brilliance of governance…to agree to disagree about personal, cultural, and religious issues.  Unfortunately, that idea seemed to have a rather short shelf-life.

Currently (and for most of this author’s life), we have endured protests and riots and loud, often self-righteous disagreement over a range of political and cultural differences in the United States.  The disagreements are not new.  They are rooted in injustice and variances in perspective on a large range of cultural issues.  Racism (real and perceived), prayer in school, blasphemous art in public, gay rights, abortion rights, transgender individuals, pornography, economic disparity, and the list goes on.  It seems as if there is currently more that divides us than unites us culturally and this is something that needs to be understood and figured out if we are going to survive as a single nation-state.  We don’t all have to go to the same church or economics class to live in peace together, do we?

Genuine Concern for All of Us

As many in the country today, I have become quite concerned for American society.  It seems as if Americans have lost an understanding of the beauty that is personal freedom.  We fight and argue with those of other perspectives as if freedom were a zero-sum game, i.e., the more you have the less I do.  The truth is the less freedom I have the less you have.  Every restriction on personal liberty by one wing of the zealots will be realized in a logical application of that restriction by zealots on the other side to curtail personal liberty on another issue that is nearer and dearer to their hearts.  What passes for political discourse these days is largely ad hominem attacks between the religious fundamentalists on the one side and the political fundamentalists (ideologues) on the other with a class of permanent politicians taxing us as serfs while imbibing the heady atmosphere of political power and the king’s court. Unfortunately, this type of behavior has been going on for a while in the US.

When it comes to oppressive political positions, the biggest difference between Cary Nation of the 19th-century Women’s Christian Temperance Union and Anacostia Cortez is that AOC probably doesn’t handle a hatchet as well. The greatest divide in American society isn’t between the right-wing fundamentalists and the left-wing ideologues but between the wings of the political spectrum (the zealots) and the large majority of us in the middle.  It’s between those who live in their unquestioned superiority and mission (whether arrived at by divine revelation or by hubris of the infatuation with their own brilliance) to ensure that we live our lives and freedom as they see fit and those of us who hold dear our individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

When I became a commissioned officer, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Well, I have found the enemy…and it is us.  It is our collective failure to understand our own history and respect the views of others.  It is a history of ignoring the parts of the Constitution and law that restricted us from lording it over our fellow-Americans but holding hypocritically to those laws and interpretations which restricted them.  It is repeated attempts by groups on both sides of the aisle to leverage the force of government power against actions, habits, and lifestyles of those they found offensive, reprehensible, and immoral.  It is our failure to understand ourselves and our positions well enough to persuade our fellow humans of those positions and resorting to government power to enforce our beliefs.  It is our self-righteousness and self-centeredness.  It is our failure to respect the ultimate and enervating of all moral goods…human freedom.

Justice Louis Brandeis opined in 1927 in Whitney v California, They [American Founders] believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.¹³  It is only by a return to understand and respect the personal liberty of all Americans, regardless of faith (or lack thereof), race, creed, or political perspective that we will hopefully be able to scope government back to its original purpose of protecting the freedom of each of us from all of us.

Sections and Topics

Overview

The overview of what to expect in these pages begin with a section defining some of the terms used (nod to Mr. Voltaire).  Much time is wasted in communication attempts simply because the participants aren’t speaking the same language and don’t even realize it. Ever knocked up a Brit for a round of bangers and mash?  Following that will be a list of assumptions inherent in the analysis.  They will not likely be full and complete…but I promise to do my best to understand and express my own bias and perspective so that the reader can judge the evidence for themselves.

This book is divided into three primary divisions.  I follow the Bottom-Line Up Front (BLUF) model and put a discussion of voting first.  Then, I conduct an overview the nature of zealotry, government and liberty, and discuss some of those impacts on law, religion, and economics.  This is done to provide some context for the next section.  Next, US history is divided into three overarching periods.  It considers some of the critical events in the political and cultural history of that period with each period defined by a prevailing view of the justification of the use of government force.  These segments are notional with specific events anchoring the point of the shift.

The conceptual basis of the justification of government force has a lot to do with how America has developed over the course of its 244-year history.  Differences in the justification of political power break the history of the country into 3 macro-cultural paradigms.  America #1 runs 1776 to 1865.  America #2 runs from 1865 to circa 1964 and America #3 runs from circa 1964 to the present.  Each of these cultural paradigms are distinct and largely antithetic to one another while occupying the same state structure and geography.  The views noted in each period are not intended to be all encompassing of every group or individual of the time but rather a possible explanation for some of the major events and overall flow and development of culture and polity and some illumination as to a way ahead. Following will be a section discussing some of the major flashpoints of the culture war with through a liberty lens or how the various positions impact the freedom of the individual.  The final section of the work provides my analysis and suggestion of how we might craft that middle position between oppression or battle.

The Function of the Force

There are many bases for government use of force and the basis selected has much to do with how a culture, nation, and society develops.  The basis selected for use of force in the United States was to be secular in nature and not stemming from any particular religious basis, faith tradition, or ecclesiastical authority.  It was a good idea.  We should try to remember it.

But currently, many if not most, of the questions currently dividing us are rooted in religion, culture, and economic worldview and have their ultimate foundations in the faith of the adherent in their preferred outcome.  These questions have never been resolved in human history because there is no objective evidence or rationale basis to prove them.  It is the belief of the adherent that is the proof…and my belief is different than yours. There are two basic methods of settling these sorts of differences without resorting to violence.  The one more based in logic and the other more based in history that may provide some balance and protect us from ourselves.

The first relates to agreement, as illustrated in the dinner party noted earlier.  We simply (right, simply) agree that most of the things we are fighting about are not matters of law.  John Stuart Mill opined that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.¹⁴  Enshrined into modern political theory as the Harm Principle (didn’t see that term coming), it simply points the concept that government shouldn’t be used for the support or protection of the moral or cultural positions of anyone, unless there are clear and present dangers presenting from said positions.  I can’t kill you because my religion says that I should kill all unbelievers.  Nor should I be able to restrict your Constitutional freedoms because my religion says that your behavior is unhealthy or immoral.  Nor should I be able to appropriate your property and redistribute because it better fits my vision of a more just world.  How many of our current laws are based in some group’s (both on the left and right) moral vision or cultural tradition?  Perhaps getting rid of such prohibitions and requirements may move us toward a more peaceful union and promote the general welfare.

The second method is based in history and founded in critical thought vice zealousness.  Life is full of error.  Entropy affects all the essence of our being, and the quanta of every action  Truth is something to be striven for, not something to hold or a weapon to be used against an opponent.  Dr, Carl Sagan cogently and aptly noted that Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science—by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.¹⁵  Such a perspective is both an accurate recitation of the history of human knowledge and a guiding light to the future.  Damn the dogma!

The subdivisions of our polity are called states (and not provinces) because they are sovereign entities in the Westphalian system.  They are banded together in a concept known as federalism whereby a central government is delegated certain responsibilities and the rest are kept by the individual state or the people per the 10th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.¹⁶  A great deal, if not the large majority, of issues which so divide the American culture today deal with issues that are not the business of the federal government and yet the decisions on those issues often emanate from inside the Beltway requiring acquiescence if not agreement.  Religion, marriage, abortion, these are not Constitutional concerns of the federal government and perhaps should not be concerns of government at any level.  Government in the United States was never supposed to be in the business of supporting or protecting one culture (or business) over another anyway.

The last few paragraphs will likely convince the conservatives that I am approaching the status of something like a commie-pinko-progressive liberal.  But wait.  I assure you that there will be statements later that will convince the liberals that I am a fundamentalist-Bible thumping-reactionary.  If I can navigate that middle path of the American political spectrum, I will have placed myself in company with some great minds of history and participated in some small attempt to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.¹⁷

Objective – The Easier Part of the Equation

This essay is designed to promote a vision and rationale for voting that would attempt to maximize the personal political, social, and economic freedom for all.  In military planning terms, this essay proffers a strategic objective, a goal to motivate and guide US policy and American society.  At best, it remains an objective.  The further planning steps of applying resources, training, and time-phased actions (termed operationalizing) does not occur here.  This is not because I think these items would be simple.  To the contrary, I understand something of the complexity involved. Yet to many people the right and proper rules by which to organize society seem as obvious as seawater is salty.

John Stuart Mill noted well over a century ago that The people of any given age and country no more suspect any difficulty in it, than if it were a subject on which mankind had always been agreed. The rules which obtain among themselves appear to them self-evident and self-justifying. This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the magical influence of custom, which is not only, as the proverb says, a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first.¹⁸  The trick is to realize that every citizen has the same rights as any other and no individual’s moral or ultimate view of existence is self-evident to anyone other than themselves.  But to some of us old dogs, such a trick comes harder than to others.

Don’t Let Your Mouth Write Checks Your Glutes Can’t Cover

Another relevant question for those who proudly fight the culture wars, is more personal but I afraid not very often considered.  What are you willing to die for?  If you’re not willing to either die or kill fellow citizens for your objective, then find a way to compromise.  One way or another, find a way to live together in peace.  Because policy disagreements that are understood in terms of cosmic morality have a historic tendency to eventually end up in oppression and/or war whether hook, crook, or blind, stumbling stupidity.

In 44 BCE, on the Ides of March, a blow was struck for freedom, for the republic, or so said the assassins who cut down Julius Caesar on the steps of the Senate.¹⁹  They stabbed him 23 times in an ostensible attempt to save liberty and democracy.  What they got was about 20 years of internecine civil war and in 27 BCE, the dictator they supposedly wished to avoid in the person of Octavian Augustus, Julius’s adopted nephew.  But Augustus was the consummate maestro and played the Senate and people well.  He didn’t accept the title of Emperor.  "He was a very shrewd politician…He had a lot of tricks, and one of them was to pretend that what was happening wasn’t really happening. He said that he restored the republic and never used the terms dictator or king, instead calling himself princeps, Rome’s ‘first citizen."²⁰  When havoc is cried and the dogs of war are loosed, no one knows what the end will be.  Beware the siren song of the zealot’s cosmic visions that promise the paradise of the Kingdom of God or the divine communist utopia after the conflict and cost. Because when the blood dries and the dust settles all you are your left with is bloody dust.

When one wears a military uniform, you are willing to die to fulfill the oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  What about you?  What government policies do you feel strongly enough about to vote for, that is to direct a government agent to use coercion and violence to achieve?  And yes, that’s what you are saying when you vote for something to be a matter of law.  If that policy doesn’t change, are you willing to use violence yourself to execute it or to defend yourself against the opposing party if they decide to fight?  Are you willing to see your home and neighborhood destroyed, your family relocated to a refugee camp or perhaps killed or die from malnutrition or lack of medical care over whether your neighbor gets taxed to redistribute more of her wealth, can use marijuana or heroin legally, or get an abortion?  I’ll bet a lot of people in the 1840s and 1850s probably felt strongly about slavery and state’s rights but didn’t quite understand the intensity of the chaos they voted to unleash on themselves.  Beware what ask for.  You just might get it.

The last civil war between the states tallied up around 1.5 million casualties (killed, wounded, missing).  Given a similar tally today would rack up around 15 million casualties (as a consistent percentage of current population)²¹ and that’s without factoring in any advances in weapons technology.  Sir Winston Churchill aptly noted, War is bloody, filthy, and disgusting, and most of all, unpredictable.  Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the Master of Policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.²²  Because when the dogs of war are loosed, the only certainty is that havoc will result.

The effects and results just noted are all too common characteristics of war and war is policy by other means.  War is expensive in terms of both blood and treasure.  Before starting, or stumbling into a war, deciding how much it might cost before you cast the vote to support it is wise.  Failing to do so may lead to your mouth writing checks that other parts of your anatomy can’t cover.  While we all agree with Benjamin Franklin when he said I hope...that all mankind will at length…have reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats."²³  It should be obvious to anyone that is alive that we aren’t quite there yet.

The rule of thumb in military planning was expressed pithily by General of the Army and President of the US, Dwight D. Eisenhower, when he said, Plans are nothing…Planning is everything.²⁴ Like, the Golden Rule, the idea is so simple a young child can understand it, but so complex that the greatest ministers, priests, teachers, and philosophers have difficulty to find agreement in application.  The devil always resides in the details.  But if the goal of living in security and peace where one can enjoy his or her life, exercise his or her liberty, and pursue his or her happiness is worthwhile, then the effort surely is as well.

Zealous Tyranny is the Enemy

The purpose of this work is to stimulate discussion.  If I had all the answers, I would be living on my own personal Starship Enterprise and touring space…the final frontier…with my new alien friends.  But alas, I do not have all the answers and I am currently constrained to live here on terra-firma as all the other members of the species (at least as far as we know).  We are all riding this spaceship earth for the time we have in these dimensions.  We all need to make the best of it.  In a nutshell, that’s what this book is about…making the best of it.  There is no heaven, nirvana, fully-flowered communism, free-lunch, or utopia in this world.  Entropy is constantly increasing and that includes all human endeavors of which governing is one.  There are no magic solutions herein to solve all our social and political problems.  Truth be told, some of them have never in human history been solved and perhaps we should quit trying.  Let’s agree to disagree, have a drink, have a laugh or two, and get a good night’s sleep.  The world always looks better in the morning after such an evening.

Your faith in the ultimate purpose and meaning of reality (your VOUR) is your own.  The truth you experience and in which you find solace and meaning is real and palpable for you but is alien and beyond the experience of one who shares not your vision.  Your pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam doesn’t envision or experience God exactly as you neither does your neighbor and none of them are constrained by any requirement, regulation, law, or logic to do so.  Your philosophy and economics professor doesn’t read Marx and envision racial equality and the communist utopia exactly as you do.  Equity and fairness seem to mean different things to different people.  Ironic, is it not?  Such abstract visions and projections belong to each of us as individuals.

It was Thomas Aquinas who wrote in his Summa Theologica that "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith,