In the current pseudo-logical semantic thrust of the conservative party line, the Constitution decrees that the United States of America was and is and should be a republic. Now that alone is no great concern for panic, not even for staunch Liberals and Democrats. The Constitution does in fact say, "republic." But that is not, in itself, the problem. Read any good dictionary on the definitions of and between democracy and republic: little difference. But if you listen to the conservatives, the rhetoric active behind the "republic" screen subtly shifts … they are actually advocating oligarchy which, coincidentally, they fail to qualify in terms of constitutionality. This dance is, in fact, a very neat trick. They know that their definitions are not precise (or for that matter, agreed upon), and that they are using the term “republic” as a cover for the oligarchy which they would really like to have.

That they should so wish is interesting. It is best understood as an astute reading of their voting base; and their voting base doesn’t have any idea what they are actually voting for, or what bending of the U.S. tradition and liberty it might allow!

Average Republicans will and do deny this, but with some study the truth will out. Specifically, the current cant is that in a Republic, the legislators (which, co-incidentally but unacknowledged, are elected democratically) are not to be subject to the will of the people; rather they are subject to the rule of “law.” Oh yes … but which law? No one actually says. This semantic slight of hand is that “patriots” (read conservatives) know what the law is, and that what they are proposing and promulgating has been here since the founding of America. The usually un-verbalized (but assumed and injected) con is that the “Law” is always apparent, and that all “good Patriots” know what the “law” is!

Once their assumption of the “obviousness” law is posited, then next sequential conservative shuffle step is to totally avoid and ignore the source from whence the law (remember, we are not discussing religion) would come! Nor do they explain how, when needed, the law can, would, and/or should itself be changed "by the rule of law.” Can't you just see the “conservative conservatives” waving the flag of “Law” against the “not quite so conservative conservatives.” Doesn’t this remind you of old church ladies arguing about who is “Holier than Thou?” In arrogance, the conservatives are sure that they know how many angels can dance on the point of their pen!

Let's think a little about law. It is very much like theology, but we need to think about it. In a "republic", what would the "law" dictate? Is it, the “pertaining law" Christian, Muslim, Judaic, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu or … or what? And in whichever pertains, which sect, branch, division, split, or denomination has the best understanding? Is the "law" white, yellow, red, brown, black or mixed? Is it immutable or changeable? And if so, who is to interpret its immutability, and/or who determines the essence of the change? If “changeable,” who gets to do the changing. If “unchanging,” Who knows best to explain? Do these arbiters just "happen" or do we select them? Who determines that they are correct in their interpretation? ... who judges the judges, and who elects and un-elects those judges?

If the "law" is changeable, do men change it? If so, can those we elect change or is it changed from on high. And if from on high, who’s on high delivers the interpretation and by what vector? How do we know that they are from … “on high?” If it is changed by men, is voting on it how it is changed? If so, is it done democratically by vote? If not, how do we determine? Democratically? How? Do we go back to monarchy? Bow to dictatorship? Submit to slavery?

In America, most politicians would, at least publicly, agree that “we the people” vote. But, most of the time “we” vote through “our representatives” but other than wisdom and honesty, what and who watches over our “representatives?” The answer, of course, is our vote reigns over their head … but our vote may be years away. And, more to be feared, our votes may be suborned.

Unfortunately, the authors and propagandists of current conservative party lines immediately gloss by such questions. They loudly proclaim their want for the stability of "law," but if questioned about the nurturing and maintenance of the "law" they assure us it will be done "by the rule of law." The hidden proviso? That they, the conservative comrades, are, in their minds and plans, to be the oracles of that law. They reassure and promise and attest and explain what the law wants. They find “patriotic” rules to tell you what to do, how to act, what to think, what you can expect and, at all times they assure you that they are right. They, these conservative representatives, will tell us what they want us to know.

Unfortunately, even if they are totally faithful to their own lights and job, they still may not be adequate. Sometimes their vote will be based upon error, or in ignorance, or both, or worse. All they know, may not be all they need to know, and sometimes even these self proclaimed commissioned from on high “conservatives” will change to support personal agenda. Their standard reassurance is that what they want is what the "law" wants. But, fair warning, even if they are totally honest, their understanding of "law" may be wrong, and, politics being politics, may even be different than they portray and promise.

I find all this and its political agenda amazing … so strange, in fact, that it would be funny were it not such a fundamentally important thing for and in our lives. Don't ever forget that we, the people in concert, by vote, and often in compromise, have the right to determine and mold "law." Most politicians will readily acknowledge that when we vote for them, but they frequently forget when it is time for them to vote … for us.

To those of “conservative” proclivity, this all suggests that “patriotism” is doing what our leaders tell us. I disagree, patriotism is our job of directing our leaders? This is most specifically and frequently needed when our “leaders” use their position to impose their will for “party” (or their own selfish benefit…) rather than for the mutual benefit of our country.

We, the people, are the nation. Our elective representatives and the government functionaries exist at our will and for our collective well being. They can be and are a part; but they are a part of “we!” Their job is not their power “over” us … rather, it is the representation of the “collective” us.

Do you want to live in a truly “free” society and country? That is possible and happens only when "We the people" are also we the “law.” As assignment, our representatives should not be our “leaders;” in fact, they were hired to follow us. They are paid to be our hired hands.

Jim Lyle is a previous Lake County Poet Laureate. He now lives in Yountville.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}