Who Doesn’t Have a Plan?

October 22, 2008

Last Updated on October 4, 2021 by Constitutional Militia

Usually, I do not wield some other Internet columnist’s article as a foil for one of my own pointed commentaries. But Naomi Wolf’s recent offering, “Why Barack Obama Got My Vote,” provides such a “teachable moment” in cyberspace that I cannot resist.

Most of my readers are aware that Naomi Wolf is a shining star in today’s universe of political commentary. She has warned Americans that their country is rapidly turning into a fascist state. That this observation requires no great insight is apparently beside the point where instant celebrity among the intelligentsia is concerned—but, even so, it is useful and praiseworthy. Her latest piece, however, falls disappointingly short of that mark. Wolf tells us that,

we are fools to assume that if the government makes a dramatically violent move * * * that anyone will know clearly what to do or how to implement what should be done in response. * * *

We need to consider this right now when we think about our own country: In a sudden sharp move on the part of the US government, * * * there is nothing a democracy is prepared effectively to do; that is the nature of democracy. There is no War Room for democracy; no one has an organizational chart detailing who would do what; no one would have a master strategy.

When people think about the many laws that invite this kind of overreaching now in the US—the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51), for instance, that would give the President control over all branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—in the event of an emergency—they just assume that, gosh darn it, WE WON’T TAKE IT. And it may well be that we wouldn’t want to take it and we would be willing in great numbers to run to the ramparts. But here is what I have to report to you * * * : in a crackdown, even in the best-case scenario, NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE RAMPARTS ARE.

Resistance? Sure, but how? The trouble with an aggressive move * * * on the part of the government is that THEY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN and we have not. They aren’t surprised or shocked; we are. They have a plan; we don’t.

So surely, better to roll back these terrifying laws. Just in case.

What is leadership? Leadership means getting out in front of where people are and waking them up. Right now, given these violent possible threats to us and our families, we are sleeping.

Which is why I am formally coming out of the closet with my support for Senator Barack Obama. Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law.

Well, when Naomi Wolf writes that “NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE RAMPARTS ARE” and “[t]hey have a plan; we don’t,” she should speak only for herself. I hardly expect that she has read my commentaries here at News With Views, or my first book-length treatment of the subject, Constitutional “Homeland Security”—which, poor as it may be, is nonetheless “a plan,” based upon a knowledge of “where the ramparts are” that I have tried to impart in my commentaries. But for one who concludes that, “[o]f all the candidates running now, [Barack Obama] is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution,” she might find it helpful first to consult the Constitution as to what it (rather than Obama) tells Americans is “the plan” for retaining their freedoms in the face of oppression from rogue public officials.

The key declaration, of course, is contained in the Second Amendment: namely, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” This is what America’s “democracy [should be] prepared effectively to do.” This is the “War Room for democracy.” This is the “organizational chart detailing who would do what.” This is the “master strategy.” Shall I repeat it? I suppose I shall have to, the message not having penetrated very far into the ether in the years I have been broadcasting it: “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” … “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” … “[a] well regulated Militia” …and so on.

But is revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” in full accord with constitutional imperatives and principles any part of Barack Obama’s platform for “change we can believe in”? If so, the evidence for that conclusion is at best exiguous and ambiguous. (See my commentary “Awaiting Obama’s Call.”) Worse yet, Obama plainly does not understand—and certainly has no plan to deal with—the dangers posed by the imminent collapse of America’s monetary and banking systems, in anticipation of which debacle rogue public officials have been steadily constructing the police-state apparatus Naomi Wolf has so properly criticized. To the contrary: If his complicity in the recent $850 billion bail-out provides any evidence, Obama seems to be firmly in the hip pocket of the Dark Forces that created the problem and are now trying to profit from its exceedingly expensive solution at common Americans’ expense. (Of course, the same can—and should—be said of John McCain, as well as the Presidential candidates’ comical sidekicks, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin)

So, what we have in Naomi Wolf’s column is yet another appeal, not to constitutional principles, but to “the Leader Principle”—the linchpin of Italian fascism (il Duce), Hitlerism (der Fuhrer). Stalinism (the Vozhd), Maoism (the Great Helmsman), Castroism (el Maximo Jefe), et cetera ad nauseam. The right “leader” will solve all problems—provided he is given enough power. Presumably, as an opponent of fascism, Wolf is not consciously embracing this pernicious doctrine. But the Leader Principle being so thoroughly the subtext of all politics for at least the last hundred years, for her or anyone else unconsciously to think in those terms is hardly surprising. Indeed, who can guarantee that, once in office, even Obama himself would not succumb to the temptations of the Leader Principle, and rather than “restor[ing] the rule of law” would further degrade it in pursuit of his own political agenda?

If Americans are “to restore the rule of law,” they must reject the Leader Principle in all of its manifestations, and depend upon themselves alone. The Constitution does not even suggest that some “leader” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” Or some political party. And experience teaches exactly the opposite. The only thing—the only thing—the Constitution declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State” is “[a] well regulated Militia,” composed of We the People themselves. If one really “understand[s] the threat to the Constitution” posed by the national police state a-building in the Disgrace of Columbia and every other city, town, village, and hamlet throughout the United States, one also understands the remedy for that threat which the Constitution itself points out, and for which it provides all the powers We the People need to save America.

If one does not understand—and promote in political practice— the Constitution’s prescription for “a free State,” then one is not a constitutionalist, whatever aspirations to “leadership” he (or she) may have. And, not being a constitutionalist, such an individual is not qualified to be President of the United States— because he (or she) could not honestly “take the * * * Oath or Affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”