|
In my travels today, I picked up a book. Seemingly an innocent book, however, once I picked up it up, I couldn't put it down.
What I couldn't read, I skimmed.
It is a MUST READ for any political aficionado, of any political stripe.
"A Republic, If You Can Keep It", written in 1972 by former Chief Justice Earl Warren.
All I can say is WOW! I was fortunate enough to find a First Edition, however, you would do yourself justice to just pick up a copy, any old copy.
CJ Warren goes into detail on many issues that are plaguing our country today and warned us about them 34 years ago.
Excerpting:
Justice Brandeis: "Those who won our independence believed...that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people, that public discussion is a political duty and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American Government...They eschewed silence coerced by law."
On party afiliation:
"Old and respected words defining political philosophy have been distorted to a degree that makes them controversial and a liability. The time-honored terms "liberal" and "conservative" have become epithets rather than than philosophical designations, and have become almost synonomous with "leftist" and "reactionary". Those who oppose our engagement in foreign wars are characterized as "fair-weather patriots", "appeasers", "peacenicks" or "doves". Those who dissent, even peacefully, from the status quo in any area are advertised as "revolutionaries", "troublemakers", or "submersives".
>>>snip
Extremists frame their entreaties for support in terms of slogans and epithets--or use derogatory symbols designed to overwhelm those who are not in agreement with them.
As a result, almost every issue is polarized by various catch phrases, creating divisiveness that leaves little room for adjustment to constantly changing conditions.
On immigration:
Many of the poor who came here struggled out of ghettos to a more favorable position in life for their children. But there are still more recent arrivals who who have not yet been able to escape their sordid surroundings. What a breach of trust it is--as well as a betrayal of a committment to our own ideals--whenever any of these people, because of their race, or color, or creed, find hostility here instead of hospitality, or are awarded not light and warmth from the "lamp beside the golden door" but a badge of inferiority for conditions they are powerless to change.
On war:
War is always demoralizing and leaves in its wake a lowering of moral standards.
>>>snip
First we must work our way to peace both abroad and at home, recognizing that we cannot expect our young people to peaceable and humanitarian at home while we go conscripting them and teaching them to kill abroad.
On dissent:
To dissent from the status quo whenever and wherever he desires, is every man's privilege. His contribution, however, should never be judged solely by that dissent, but rather by what he does to correct the evils of his time.
Where everyone is in favor of something, it takes no particular strength of character to go along with it. But to oppose the status quo for a good cause, facing the barbs of the majority, takes fortitude. And when diligently pursued through the years, such opposition is a builder of character.
I can't wait to read this book cover to cover, and suggest that you do the same. It is enlightening and gives you hope.
The last thing that really stuck out is this:
There are neither rights nor freedoms in any meaningful sense unless they can be enjoyed by all. In their own countries the Nazis of Hitler had their rights; the Fascists of Mussolini had theirs; and the Communists of Stalin had theirs. Yet millions in Germany, Italy, and Russia died in concentration camps or purges or from other acts of sadistic cruelty. The important thing to remember is that in none of these nations were these cruelties put upon the people by foreign conquerors. They were initiated and executed by their own leaders when the people abandoned to them the unbridled power to rule. This mindless abandonment of power by the people was accorded in the belief that these tyrants would eliminate prevailing economic evils. Thus, it was the evasion of responsibility--not the subjucation by force--that led to the erosion of rights, and eventually, to catclysmic disaster.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
