How to Overthrow the Government: Preliminary Thoughts
I’m going to go all the way here and say what I think and what I feel in my heart. The United States does not have a legitimate, constitutional government anymore. To use John Locke’s language, it dissolved its own authority – not all at once but step by step. Many hoped that the new administration in 2008 would decisively reverse these steps, but that didn't occur.
If you believe the government operates outside the law, both domestically and internationally, then arguments about whether other countries can trust us with their secrets don’t make any sense. If you cannot rely on the U. S. government to honor the most basic of human rights – such as not torturing people or not initiating unprovoked attacks – you should not rely on it for anything. It does not deserve any of the privileges or considerations one would accord a legitimate government.
I didn’t come to these thoughts easily, and I’m not happy with what they imply. They do underlie the arguments I’ve made about the leaked cables, and several other articles I’ve written. Right now a lot of commentary assumes that for all the troubles and extraordinary times we’ve experienced, our government still operates as a lawful force. I just can’t see it that way, and I think a time is coming when more citizens will see what has happened. When they do see that we have to replace our government to make it constitutional again, I hope we have leaders – all over the country – who know how to guide such a change.
In Revolution in the Air, I talk briefly about these changes and why they ought to occur. In the next book, I want to lay out a lot more thoroughly how a change of this nature can take place. To be successful, I believe the change has to be non-violent, or largely non-violent. A non-violent restoration of constitutional government would mean the break-up of the United States, or a clear move in that direction. That kind of transition would require extraordinary leaders: some in Washington perhaps, but most critically in the states, cities and towns. We don’t have leaders like that now, and I don’t know where they would come from.
The unknown for me is whether these things could occur while I’m alive. In a way I wish these changes would wait, because the chance for things to go wrong is great. On the other hand, waiting too long means irreversible tyranny. That is, citizens will have passed the point where they can do anything to save themselves. I think we’re in that state now: if we don’t act soon – within the next decade – we’ll have passed the point where we can undertake effective action. Tyranny, once established, takes centuries to uproot – much longer than the 225 year lifespan of our republic.
I honestly don’t like to be a pessimist. I also know our republic has been through hard times before. Things looked worse in 1860 and 1861 when the Confederate states seceded. We’re a much older country now, though, one that’s sclerotic and less able to adapt. Now we have a limited range of actions we can take to replace a government that can’t change. These actions have to come from the states, and they amount to a strategy of civil disobedience and divorce.
The states have to act as if Washington doesn’t exist, except where Washington forces assertion of its authority and tries coercion. Then the states have to resist. One could say it’s naive to expect state governments to be better or more lawful than national authority. National authority grew in part because state and local governance was often so poor. Perhaps, but concentrated power far away is worse than the devil you know next door.
Following that strategy, with discipline and with our sights on a clear set of outcomes, would have unpredictable consequences. The end of every empire has been unique. The growth of every democracy has been unique as well. What isn’t unique in its pattern and outcomes is the growth of tyranny. The outcomes we’ll see if we don’t do anything are predictable, and those outcomes are not good.
The unpredictable outcomes that follow from effective action cannot be worse than life without freedom. They cannot be worse than life under a government that pretends to be constitutional but is not. If these changes follow from effective, collaborative action, they'll bring about what Lincoln called "a new birth of freedom." We can't let self-government fail, or let perish the liberties we have enjoyed.
I didn’t come to these thoughts easily, and I’m not happy with what they imply. They do underlie the arguments I’ve made about the leaked cables, and several other articles I’ve written. Right now a lot of commentary assumes that for all the troubles and extraordinary times we’ve experienced, our government still operates as a lawful force. I just can’t see it that way, and I think a time is coming when more citizens will see what has happened. When they do see that we have to replace our government to make it constitutional again, I hope we have leaders – all over the country – who know how to guide such a change.
In Revolution in the Air, I talk briefly about these changes and why they ought to occur. In the next book, I want to lay out a lot more thoroughly how a change of this nature can take place. To be successful, I believe the change has to be non-violent, or largely non-violent. A non-violent restoration of constitutional government would mean the break-up of the United States, or a clear move in that direction. That kind of transition would require extraordinary leaders: some in Washington perhaps, but most critically in the states, cities and towns. We don’t have leaders like that now, and I don’t know where they would come from.
The unknown for me is whether these things could occur while I’m alive. In a way I wish these changes would wait, because the chance for things to go wrong is great. On the other hand, waiting too long means irreversible tyranny. That is, citizens will have passed the point where they can do anything to save themselves. I think we’re in that state now: if we don’t act soon – within the next decade – we’ll have passed the point where we can undertake effective action. Tyranny, once established, takes centuries to uproot – much longer than the 225 year lifespan of our republic.
I honestly don’t like to be a pessimist. I also know our republic has been through hard times before. Things looked worse in 1860 and 1861 when the Confederate states seceded. We’re a much older country now, though, one that’s sclerotic and less able to adapt. Now we have a limited range of actions we can take to replace a government that can’t change. These actions have to come from the states, and they amount to a strategy of civil disobedience and divorce.
The states have to act as if Washington doesn’t exist, except where Washington forces assertion of its authority and tries coercion. Then the states have to resist. One could say it’s naive to expect state governments to be better or more lawful than national authority. National authority grew in part because state and local governance was often so poor. Perhaps, but concentrated power far away is worse than the devil you know next door.
Following that strategy, with discipline and with our sights on a clear set of outcomes, would have unpredictable consequences. The end of every empire has been unique. The growth of every democracy has been unique as well. What isn’t unique in its pattern and outcomes is the growth of tyranny. The outcomes we’ll see if we don’t do anything are predictable, and those outcomes are not good.
The unpredictable outcomes that follow from effective action cannot be worse than life without freedom. They cannot be worse than life under a government that pretends to be constitutional but is not. If these changes follow from effective, collaborative action, they'll bring about what Lincoln called "a new birth of freedom." We can't let self-government fail, or let perish the liberties we have enjoyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment