The Case Against Activism

CaseAgainstActivism.com

Updated: 5/22/09

Congratulations! You have found one of the most culturally important, academically unconventional, and politically incorrect e-books on the internet.

Jihadist terrorism poses the greatest external threat to American lives, but activism is the greatest internal threat to the country’s long-term survival.

This site reveals factionalism’s true essence and activism’s long-term effects

on America’s education system, political economy, and overall culture.

It also discloses how Americans are losing their sovereignty, and why they are about to relinquish complete control of their nation to the federal government.

When Americans elected Barack Obama, they chose an eloquent and charismatic populist President like Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). Populists’ pursue the needs and wants of the “common” people (i.e. lower and perhaps middle classes) as opposed to those of higher socioeconomic status. This means they do not focus on the interests of all citizens equally. Populism thus casts groups against groups or the majority. It is a form of factionalism.

Faction: A group working in common against other groups or the majority; partisan or self-serving dissent and/or conflict.

However, Obama is not FDR. He is the product of an upbringing, an education, and prior work experiences that are deeply rooted in the hyper-factionalism and activism infused by the Counter-Culture of the 1960-70s.

Activism: The doctrine and practice of taking aggressive or forceful action to impose certain ideals and/or sociopolitical ends on other people, as well as oppose those of others.

For example, Obama’s early career was spent in various community activist and reformist activities. Although half White, he defines himself and induced others to see him as a Black minority. As a Senator and President, rather than seek to suppress factions consistent with the nation’s founders’ views and

Constitution’s design (see below), his actions reveal that he sees special interest activism as not only protected, but sanctioned by the Constitution—which it most definitively is not. In other words, Obama perceives life in general and how he can and must govern through a prism of factional activism.

Like 1932, America has also elected a majority of both Houses of Congress from the same political party, most of whom share the President’s basic perspectives and mission. That mission has proven not to be to “change” the political climate in Washington and recover from a major recession in a fiscally responsible manner as promised in the campaign. It is to centralize control of the nation by the federal government and redesign its political economy and culture based on populist ideals.

The Administrations’ objectives center on three massive, culturally invasive spending and debt-laden programs that include: (1) taking control of the nation’s energy resources; (2) nationalizing its medical delivery system; and (3) taking over its entire education system. The four pretenses for pursuing these fiscally irresponsible and potentially catastrophic programs include one major partial truth and three flagrant falsehoods. While dependency on foreign oil was causally related in the sense of vast domestic cash outflows, ² that lone truth in no way justifies nationalizing the nation’s energy resources. Global warming, heath care costs, and education had no substantial causal connection at all.

The Obama/Democratic Administration will also fill several life-tenured vacancies in the Supreme Court, “packing” the Court with like-thinking jurists. Like FDR’s Social Security and “progressive” political philosophy, Obama’s massive social programs are irreversible and the psychological, social, political, and economic changes they embody would permanently alter the American culture.

Factions and activism have been gradually making inroads and dramatically changing the American culture since the Counter-Culture of the 1960’s. It is vital to realize that the original U.S. Constitution (i.e. through the 10th Amendment) only protects individual citizen’s rights and generally implies their collective or “majority” liberties. It is more accurate to say that it protects individual citizen’s rights and liberties, not only from factions, but also from the majority and pluralities. In other words, the Constitution neither identifies nor intends to provide any group-based rights or liberties whatsoever.

America’s founders were students of history, whom established a system of government and law-of-the-land that disenfranchised factions and suppressed activism because allowing such forces to function unbridled led to divisiveness, polarization, anarchy, and the inevitable demise of every pure democracy throughout history since Ancient Greece. Thus they refused to form a direct democracy, and instead created a tripartite representative constitutional republic in which sovereignty indirectly, but ultimately resided solely with its citizens, through their respective states.

Most Americans are unaware that factionalism now dominates their culture to the extent that its citizens are about to turn over what remains of their sovereignty to the central planning and control of a nationalized government. Who has the greatest impact on policy decisions today? Is it “we-the-people” or activists and lobbyists that now control the content of the day-to-day legislation passed by Congress? Which most determines the Executive branches’ ongoing administrative actions? Which most prescribes the culture-shaping rulings of the Supreme Court on both legal and moral issues? Do the states direct and regulate the federal government, or do special interests dictate to the former through the latter? Are the people individually and as a majority still in charge of their federal government—or is it the inverse?

But wait a minute! Doesn’t Congress frequently do what serves their member’s priorities, regardless of most Americans’ preferences on issues as well? Does the Supreme Court render rulings that were not contemplated in the Constitution? Has it also produced a vast matrix of precedents that are now more legally determining than the actual content of the Constitution? Are the Court’s rulings at times contrary to the founders’ intent and the current population’s will? Do federal agencies routinely interfere in; assume responsibility for; and control people’s private affairs? Do those agencies often infringe on the state’s authorities; the liberties retained by the people; and the rights preserved for posterity in the Constitution?

During the 20th century the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive branches of the federal government have cooperated in incrementally reinterpreting the Constitution to create nonexistent group-based protections, preferences, entitlements, and various quasi-quota actions. These fabricated group “rights” now take priority over individual freedoms and majority liberties. However, the Constitution is effectively THE PEOPLE’S STATUE LAW. It is not the federal government’s or the legal profession’s “common law”, and thus innately subject to their periodic reinterpretation and expansion or “modernizing” and “progressive” rulings that alter or add to the framer’s original meanings and its explicit language. Why? Because any authority not specifically delegated in the Constitution is retained exclusively by and for the determination of the people—not the federal or state governments and lawyers.

In other words, the Constitution does not authorize the Supreme Court to adapt and modernize its content or “legislate from the bench”; it does not empower Congress to confiscate the people’s sovereign power through legislation or administer from Capitol Hill; it does not allow the Executive Branch to legislate and adjudicate via the regulations its agencies publish; and it does not delegate the President and political parties the authority to redesign the nation’s political economy and culture from the Oval Office.

All three federal branches now routinely perform unconstitutional and extra-legal functions that infringe on the other branches’, states’, and peoples’ authority. These acts are typically justified by “group-driven” logic, but there are also unstated explanations for such actions. One reason is official’s very human and often unconscious inner drive to attain personal power and control over others. A second motive is their quest to “make history”. Yet another is the desire for personal gain outside or after leaving office. The number of millionaires produced as a result of office holder’s public service and connections is astonishing; wealth they acquire as authors, lobbyists, or from businesses serving the government. Activists and lobbyists, of course, cleverly exploit these innate human characteristics and situational factors as well.

America has reached this turning-point in history from a sociopolitical, economic, and cultural perspective because, during the 20th century, like Obama, most of its educators, communicators, and officials have come to believe in the legitimacy and merits of factional activism. As a result, typically well-educated professionals fail to teach and continually reinforce the fundamental principles of political economics that have created and sustained the prosperity and continuity of the American people to date. It is clear many American’s no longer grasp the differences among the major theories of political economy.

If its people finally relinquish what little remains of their sovereignty to the centralized planning and control of a massive bureaucracy in Washington, it will inevitably undermine the quality of life American’s have come to know and enjoy. The nature, size, and scope of programs pursued by the Obama/Democrat Administration creates widespread expectations, the momentum of which has consistently proven in the past to be unalterable once implemented. The nation’s leadership may change four or eight years in the future, but a different administration will be unable to reverse those vectors unless their primary mission is to eliminate factional activism, repair the impact it has had on the nation’s culture, dramatically diminish Washington’s power, and return the people’s full Constitutional sovereignty to them.

By thoroughly analyzing of activism, this site reveals how factionalism has reached a critical mass today, as well as offer insight into what might be done to solve the problems activism creates. This site explains how and why activism has effectively taken control of much of America’s education system, media, legal system, and government. Factions have many aliases: a righteous cause; an equality movement; a special interest group; an idealistic “ism”; an innocuous organization that hires lobbyists. Activism has wide ranging affects on its individuals, groups, and the broader public.

Factions typically exhibit most, if not all of the following nine characteristics of activism:

Activism: (1) distorts people’s perceptions of fact, truth, and reality; (2) inflames people’s emotions, overpowers logic, and disables reason; (3) distracts people from attending to the all-sides-of-the-story and the overall picture; (4) incites group members to blame others and obscure outside forces for their “lot-in-life”, (5) inhibits members from facing up to their shortcomings and understanding what they can and must do to change their circumstances; (6) foists its leaders’ will and personal-interests on members, other groups, and the public; (7) causes inequitable and even devastating reallocations of the public attention and resources; (8) subordinates seeking equality/justice to the pursuit of sociopolitical/economic power; and (9) usurps individual freedom and the majority liberties with group “rights”.

Examples of the last item include group demonstrations that obstruct other people’s freedom-of-action; collective shouting; or individuals continuing to talk to “silence” other people’s “voices”; and activists demanding new rights or entitlements that supersede the majority’s will, liberties, or best interests.

Many special interest groups are explored here, including movements and ideologies based on race, homosexuality, and religion. To fully understand factional activism requires the in depth critical analysis of at least one popular movement, which renders the probe subject to censure by its most avid supporters. Since everyone is one sex of the other, the cause with which people are the most intimately and thoroughly familiar is feminism, thus it has been chosen as the central focus of this examination.

This site therefore requires curiosity, an open-mind, and willingness to consider information that repudiates much of today’s academic and intellectual community “conventional wisdom” and popular “politically correct” thinking.

It seems appropriate to mention upfront that I am a political independent. I have not joined or contributed to a political party, and have voted for candidates as diverse as Kennedy, Goldwater, Reagan, Clinton, and McCain. Prior to the turn of the 21st century I proactively supported racial equality, implemented discrimination laws in corporations, and opposed no popular cause. It also seems important to note that 35% of Americans report being “moderates” and 6% “unsure” (i.e. 41% are independents), 35% say they are “conservatives” (implying belief in the nation’s founding principles), and the final 24% refer to themselves as “liberals” (implying support for “progressive” ideologies and activism). ¹ Depending on how the questions are asked in opinion polls, the independent 40% are split between the two major parties somewhat liberally skewed. The same is true at election time because the only option is not voting.

It is also important to note that my basic position is shared by more American’s than either of the two major parties. A Rasmussen poll in April, 2009 was headlined: “Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism”. The media reported the data with the same diminishing implications about people’s belief in free-enterprise. However, the study also reported “20% say socialism is better” and 27% say they are “not sure”. Most opinion surveys are not well-thought trough ballots cast in an election. They are typically causal momentary reactions. But what does this data actually say about today’s American culture?

The conclusion that “only 53% believe in capitalism” totally misrepresents this survey’s real messages. What the data actually reveals is only 20% of American’s prefer socialism while 100% of its people now have a President and dominant political party busy converting their nation into that 20% minority’s preferred government. The study also discloses that America’s schools, its media, and governments have failed to teach a shocking 27% of adults enough about a topic crucial to their nation’s continued prosperity and survival for them to form a well-thought-through position. This data does not mean American’s desire for a free-market based political economy is at any real risk: 53% “capitalists” plus half or more of a better-informed 27% equals a two-thirds to three-fourths popular majority. 

What does 20% saying they prefer a government that has failed everywhere it has been tried in its purest version (i.e. communism in the Soviet Union and China) and eroded the economies and quality of services where it has been partially employed (i.e. European socialism) tell us? What does 27% being so clueless they have no opinion reveal? Considering the shoddy education and information we-the-people now receive, does the 20-33% claiming to prefer socialism actually understand their answers? Doesn’t this data primarily divulge the failure of the nation’s education system to teach students what they need to know about their political economy? Doesn’t it also disclose the failure of mainstream communications and governments to reinforce that knowledge, and thus defuse the anarchy accompanying factional activism?

NAVIGATING THIS SITE

The website is organized in two major sections. The first section begins with Activism 101 and then successively expands upon various dimensions of the topic thereafter. A menu is provided at the top of the page for navigating within the first section. The recommended sequence for reading the various webpages for the first time is from left to right as they appear on that menu. The second section reports an exchange of correspondence on a male sex-discrimination and FOIA complaints against a college and an agency of the federal government between March, 2005 and January, 2008. Please note that these pages are written from a laymen’s and private citizen’s perspective. I am not an attorney (passing Business Law 101 40-years ago is not a credential), and this content has not been sanctioned by an attorney.

The site is copyright protected, but subject to “fair-use”. It can therefore be freely cited for reporting, research, or educational purposes. Reproduction is also authorized for use in not-for-profit-group discussions in schools, churches, or service groups with appropriate references.

Go To: Activism 101 or Table of Contents.

Website http://CaseAgainstActivism.com/ — Copyright © 2005-09. Doug Baker. All rights reserved.

1. If America was far less dependent on foreign oil, its domestic prices would likely follow that of the major global oil producers. Energy independence is a national security concern, as well is an overall cost and vast overseas cash flow issue.

2. NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of 1,005 adults, 4/23-26/09 by Hart & McInturff. This data is reinforced by how people way they would “generically” vote at any given time—e.g. ~40% Dem., ~40% Rep., and ~20% undecided. See Rasmussen.

A “Tea Party” Primer