Liberty or death was the rallying cry of one Patrick Henry some two hundred and thirty three years ago at the meeting of the delegate's of Virginia when they took up the question of joining the American Revolution. So much has changed since those brave new days of revolution. And yet upon reading their words I find the very same questions being asked by many today. Though the tenor of their voices and the heat of their words are less respectful than they were, in spite of the fervor of spirit with which the American Revolutionaries of the 1770's spoke compared with those of the anti-everything revolutionaries of today.
Elegance and respect in their disagreements has been replaced by arrogance and hatred. The discord of the past was reasoned and passionate. Yet today too many on both sides are dogmatic and passionless. They make pleas about the plight of the "common man" and yet they know not one of whom they speak.
The real casualty in this is that of truth. Now you have members of both parties using lies and propaganda to win votes from people who don't even speak their language or salute the flag that symbolizes all that our noble fore-fathers fought and died to secure and in later generations like wise to protect from those who would tear it asunder.
I am a realist who loves the ideals upon which this nation was founded. I know that ideals are grand in scope and difficult at best to accomplish. Yet I find hope and comfort in seeking after truth to the full extent possible on a given topic.
As Patrick Henry, stated with energy of heart, "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?" I echo his plea though now it is not the British ministry we are aggrieved by but our own Senate and House.
The conduct of the last fifty years has been increasingly shameful in most respects. Our representatives have been readily engaged in wholesale-legalized plunder of all that is sacred and holy; and all that is right and proper. Few exceptions exist. The government's appetite for our money has grown and with it it's lust for our freedoms as well.
It seems as if liberty is no longer a priority to protect in this day of entitlements and "security". Patriotism no longer seems to include love and respect of God and Country. Rather it appears to be a simple politically correct statement used by the political elites and the media elites from both sides of the Right and Left debate. Sadly the founders are all too often referred to as "... just a bunch of dead white guys from England or something..." by high school graduates.
The presidential campaigns that have sprung up so early this cycle seem to remind me of high school popularity contests. The candidates who are talking earnestly about the issues of true import to the survival of this nation are glossed over by those who are more "presidential" which no longer means one who looks out for the nation but one who is "polished" in the media's eye. They taut how great THEY ARE; I am the first this or that... I am beautiful and rich so vote for me...
These things are not the qualities of the "elder statesman" tradition that used to be the hallmark of our political leaders. It didn't guarantee they were the best but it did mean they had more experience to draw upon; and they were civil to each other in their discord. I quote the opening line of Patrick Henry's speech, "No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve." There is a civility in his complete rebuttal of the preceding speaker. He did not call them names he simply stated that they differ in opinion.
It is the debate of the issue not the one up manship that currently is in favor. I offer yet another example from the noble statesman; and notice how he is honest in his opinion without vitriol or spite. "This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility, which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."
I would plead with us all to remember our history and to learn for our true hero statesmen of the past. Choose to be respectful yet honest. Do not sacrifice the integrity of the debate due to a perceived need to be "politically correct" or because it is "situationally expedient". I would remind us all that "Honor" and "Integrity" are neither!
Yours is the choice...
Choose Wisely! For your choices affects us all.
