Politics Is War

 

Editorial

John J. Pitney, Jr. wrote an excellent little book five years ago, The Art of Political Warfare, where he described the similarity between politics and war. Indeed, politics is war without weapons, or the pursuit of the same kinds of goals as traditional warfare with the reluctance to take up arms unless necessary.

War and politics both involve strategy, leadership with clarity of purpose and intelligent application, skillful coordination of all forces to concentrate on the goal, rallying the troops so they are committed to the cause, development of intelligence to understand the enemy, the practice of demoralization, deception, and stealth. In the conduct of politicians before the public, polite language is often used, “the honorable gentleman from Ohio,” “I yield the floor to my friend from Michigan,” and so forth. Some expressions are sincere, and some representatives are civil to each other outside the public chamber, even friendly, when they are not in argument; but gentle expressions of goodwill are temporary affectations. The two sides are enemies, as surely as if they were armed. President Clinton put it well:

If you give me a political context, I’ll just tell you that you’re not going to find what you out there in the world, civilians, think is friendship.

President Clinton, an excellent political technician, illustrates how defeat can be turned into success even as a general can counter-attack and wrest success from defeat. During the impeachment trial, Mr. Clinton turned the tables by shifting the discussion from his conduct to the conduct of the special counsel and his Republican enemies. In the words of George Stephanopoulos, “Clinton’s shamelessness is a key to his political success.” His shamelessness is forgotten now, and he is accepted by his former opponents in an atmosphere of mutual goodwill. He remains a general in the constitutional war that is before us.

Democrats and Republicans have opposing points of view, different strategies in the prosecution of the war being fought in Congress. There is a difference in the meaning of capitalism, the role of religion in society, and the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The chief emphasis at the moment is about the meaning of the Constitution. Republicans believe the Constitution “is established” and should determine our political behavior. The Democrats do not believe in the Constitution, though they say they do. They oppose President Bush’s nominees to any court because, it is said, they do not conform to mainstream belief. Senator Schumer is dogmatic on this point. What he means by “mainstream belief” is his point of view and the point of view of the Democratic Party. The fact that both houses of Congress and the majority of the governors are Republican denies that his point of view and that of the Democratic Party illustrate “mainstream belief.” To assert that judges are to be nominated to office or denied office based on their political point of view is improper.

Democrats say they are protecting the country from radical judges. Senator Reid says, “the president is at it again with extremist judges.” Kennedy promises, “I will resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president . . . for any federal court.”

The Democratic plan for constitutionalism is to elect judges who can rule by judicial diktat, bypassing Congress, or, in the words of Senator Sam Irvin, by judges “who interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if they, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it.”

Said Thomas Jefferson,

The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

 

*****

Religion is said to be destroying the republic by becoming established. Nonsense. A church, or a religion, is established when the government regulates that church, defines doctrine, and is responsible for its financial well-being. The Church of England in England is part of the state and illustrates religious establishment. In the early history of this country some churches were established, but this practice was discontinued. Thomas Jefferson resisted the establishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Neither the national or any state constitution in the United States establishes religion or a church. Jefferson wrote a letter in which he mentioned the separation of church and state, and that expression has become popular and is used to prevent religious expression. Its use is an inaccurate representation of Jefferson’s meaning.

Denial of the relevance of religious belief and its possible influence on legislation ignores American history, and the history of any country. All decisions in politics and law are based on moral values, and moral values define religion properly understood. George Washington did not have in mind the doctrine of the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception when he implored the guidance of God; he sought personal and political guidance in ultimate values, attempting to practice these for himself and his country. (Theologians have argued about trinitarianism and tritheism, baptismal regeneration, the incarnate logos, sacramental participation, atonement, consubstantiation or trans-substantiation. Ordinary people think religion has to do with behavior.)

Religion influences behavior, but it can be wicked as well as helpful. Present fanaticism by Islamic clerics is proof. Any religion that promotes murder is wicked. Islam has forgotten how to be intelligent, but we are not to be overly critical because the Christian church for almost two thousand years has been defined by theology rather than behavior—the same attitude we now see in Islam. Toleration in 17th century England, rationalism in 18th century France, and 19th century Biblical criticism in Germany undermined doctrinal interpretations of religion so that in the late 19th and early 20th century most clerics lost their traditional beliefs. They then lost a monumental opportunity for reformation. New and Old Testaments spoke of being “Christian” or “faithful to Judaism,” in both cases referring to Godlike behavior. The Psalms praised God and asked people to be godly. So did other books of the Bible. The opportunity for the church, with the decline of doctrinal dogmatism, was to return to basics and praise individual righteousness. Church leaders neglected this needed reformation and chose church union and social action. Church union meant combining differing churches into one legal body, a centralization of power, a perversion of religion. Social action meant using the power of the church to speak on political issues. The church decided that political action was more important than individual righteousness, or the two were the same. The practical consequence has been that church spokesman have promoted centralization and paternal attitudes, the same point of view as Democrats. Most parishioners ignore political statements by church officials while those who are members of independent congregations tend to support Republicans. Religious independents and Republicans are committed to individual responsibility, at least in theory.

*****

The U.S. Constitution was written to protect individuals from the state, a unique document. The present constitutional battle is to preserve our American tradition or to return to the European model as illustrated in France, where the emphasis is on paternalism. The effort in Europe is to establish a single European state, strong enough to counter the United States, where politicians will not be directly elected, and self-appointed European courts will determine the legality of parliamentary actions in member states. The U.S. Supreme Court has been interpreting our Constitution by decisions made in the self-appointed courts of Europe. This illustrates the seriousness of the present debate on judicial appointments and the differing philosophies of the two parties in the U.S. The intellectual leadership of Europe looks with contempt at our capitalism and prefers a paternal society; the opposition to American traditions by the Democratic Party is the same as opposition to America in Europe.

The French people voted down the proposed constitution of the European Union. Before we celebrate their good sense, however, we have to acknowledge that the average Frenchman voted “no” because he wanted more money and fewer working hours and criticized his government for lack of generosity. He was as much out of touch with reality as President Chirac. France may fade from history and become a Muslim state.

During the 20th century Germany, Russia, and Japan had the insane desire to rule the world, and they caused the loss of millions of lives. Japan has become civilized by turning to commerce; the other countries have the same point of view as in the 20th century, joined in their madness by France.

In times of war, and I suppose every age is a time of war, incredible abuse is the order of the day. President Lincoln was one of the great gentlemen of the United States, but he was opposed by the bulk of the media, political opposition, and members of his party. They wanted his job. During the campaign for his second term, only one of his party in Congress gave him support. He was called ape, gorilla, fool, filthy storyteller, despot, liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, tortoise, ignoramus, old scoundrel, perjurer, robber, swindler, tyrant, fiend, butcher, land pirate. He ignored his detractors and trusted the people. If they were informed, he believed, they would decide correctly. So they did in his time, in spite of detractors, and so they have in the years that have passed. His detractors are disgraced by his intelligence, virtue, and wisdom. It would be wisdom for politicians if their conduct were determined by sense and information rather than by ambition.     *

“It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.” –Edmund Burke

* The quotes following each article have been gathered by The Federalist Patriot, which can be reached at: http://FederalistPatriot.US/services.asp.