This is a working document which I will make public in the interests of doing better work. I’ll use this post to collect some thoughts about how to conduct oneself in an ethical resistance to the creeping plagues upon our Republic.
First and foremost is that no matter how it is formulated I am not interested in any resistance which does not begin and end with an ethical stance toward the job at hand.
One thing that is clear is that there are a lot of well-intended people out there who step in poo in some form or other, and stink the party up. These folks reveal themselves early, as they are not hiding. There are also some bad actors, who go malignant after wheedling their way in to apparent positions of trust in the social/conversational circles of the right.
I view an ethical stance grounded in principles, distilled through great effort into guidelines which take little effort to remember, as one of the most valuable things we can have right now in this struggle to defend and restore our Constitution.
The Constitution itself, not the President, not the Presidency, not the government.
I am a federal employee, which doesn’t matter much at all, and I bring it up here only in a sense of full disclosure, so that accusations of deceit or misrepresentation for or against the government cannot be wielded against me or the government which employs me, based upon my actions. See? Ethics in action–transparency is almost always good.
For purposes of the Hatch Act, I am a “Less Restricted” employee, which means I have considerable leeway, as long as I do not attempt to turn a government position into influence, or use the government facilities in the course of “partisan political activity”. Fair enough. If anybody knows how to turn a job as a minor-league SQL weenie into something like political influence, please keep it to yourself.
I oppose this President’s policies with a defiance and a resolution that border on fanatical. This is because I think that what he is doing is bad for America, not because I dislike him on face value. Our remarkable Constitution and the unique system of government it describes are wonders of the modern world, accomplishments to be held in reverence, and certainly to be defended. Now, as much as I adore our system of government, I also believe that it has grown far too large and powerful–it is now a threat to itself in a way that has not existed before. Naturally, I oppose policies which I feel threaten our American way of life.
There is some debate about “wanting the President to fail” being equated with an anti-American position, but this is clearly horsepoop. You see, if the President changes his mind on some things, then I would very much want him to succeed. It’s not personal. But so long as his policies turn the US into a more socialist, less free nation, I am under no obligation to support him or his policies. I do faithfully and with fidelity work at my job which would be important and worth doing regardless of administration. No conflict there.
So I work faithfully at my little job, which I like very much despite being CRUSHED by the exchange rate (I have lost 40% of income JUST to the declining dollar vs Yen, in which I pay my mortgage), and I know that my work is good stuff which helps my particular outpost of government employment to meet its goals of supporting important actions undertaken at great military risk and taxpayer expense. So no matter who’s in charge, my job is not a moral issue for me, except that failing to do it would be a bad thing and a breach of faith. It is a privilege to work for the American people in a civilian capacity no less than it was in a military capacity, and anybody who feels differently certainly need not stick around.
That said, I had frankly hoped for a government shutdown this last time around (March 2011), despite the fact that it would have probably left me without a paycheck for the duration. This is because A) I view the longer-term pain as an even worse thing, and B) I try not to put my exclusively personal concerns too far above what I feel is right for the country. We all have our decisions to make, and our priorities to juggle, but I think I do pretty well (not perfect) on this score. Anyway, enough rambling about this. I think that people can see where I’m coming from. I invite the curious to read my disclaimer at the bottom of each page. I mean what it says.
More later.
Ethical Resistance to Communism in the U.S. Government
The “Foreign or Domestic” Issue
This dovetails in with arguments about “wanting the President to fail”. Yes, I want him to fail, because I think he is doing things which harm America. This does not make me anti-American, and I do not see an ethical conflict between wanting American to endure and wanting the current President to fail in his plans. There is a reason that the duty of those in government service (for example) is to the Constitution not the incumbent President and not even to the office of the Presidency, and times like this are that reason.
This does not however mean that we should each dust off the “all enemies foreign or domestic” clause and limber the guns of insurrection. Lemme tell you a little story. Years ago, I called for the death of 1LT Ehren Watada, the US Army officer who developed a sudden case of “I’m not going to Iraq to lead my men in G. W. Bush’s illegal war.” The problem is that even if he were serious about his stance, he has a huge burden in rebelling from the level of a 1LT. He’s not serious, because he did not take appropriate action when he had time and location to do so–he waited until he had been ordered to deploy. So he was happy enough to take the checks. But even if he had been genuine, the fact is that the primary value of the military is fidelity, and he breached fidelity with a presumption of concern and competence on the part of his entire chain of command by declaring that they must all either be stupid or evil, and that he, 1LT Ehren Watada was the only man in the Army big enough to do the right thing.
This was not only a staggering conceit on his part, whether he experienced it as such or not, but a terrible ethical failing. He failed to connect his actions to his views to his values in a manner consistent with his responsibilities, and that is what officers get paid for.
So I thought that the articles he violated were ones for which the punishments may include death, and I also know that you simply cannot run an army with this sort of thing going on in the officer ranks. To have shooting him on the table, as an option in play, would have done a lot of good, and I laid out a small case for how and why this might be accomplished under the UCMJ. Note, I was quick to point out there as I will here, that I am NOT talking about lawlessness; rather its opposite.
Where this bears on today’s situation is in the realm of duties. If you feel that the Constitution is under attack, then you have a duty to defend it. But if you think this is something new, then you suffer from a conceit of “now-ism”, and should take a step back, look at the sweep of history. Not only has this sort of thing been going on for a long, time, but those who cannot “hold their liquor” in interesting times are shown the door rather quickly. An ethical resistance to the advance of Communism throughout the government of the United States rests upon the steady, firm application of principles which are true in good times as well as bad.
None of us here is the only fellow within earshot who is smart enough or ethical enough to have realized a sudden need for action to rescue the government from its situation. The ethical laziness which would lead to a moron in a clock-tower crazed by his belief that he is defending the Constitution is exactly the thing to be avoided in its earlier phases, where it begins with sweeping statements and broadband condemnations.
…To Be Continued…
EOF
