Immediately after the 2012 election Bill Whittle experienced a catharsis. He produced a one and a half hour video he titled “A New Beginning.” Instead of allowing himself to lapse into a state of despair, Whittle looked ahead.
Whittle calls himself a journalist. In doing so, he helps to give what has become a dreadful profession some hope of restoring its reputation. What he does in the video below is use his skill as a teacher. He provides a cogent explanation of the results of the 2012 election. That includes explaining, without blaming anyone except the winners, why Conservatives lost. Then he offers hope for the future by charting a course for us.
Because it offers a realistic, imaginative, and virtuous path on the journey ahead, the video is both worth watching and worthy of high praise.
Unlike Whittle, I experienced my post-election catharsis more slowly, and I waited until late into the evening of the next day to post anything. Unlike Whittle, I had no ready-made plan of my own for a post-election lost. Instead, I have studied what others have offered, and I have taken refuge in the Bible. Therefore, when I give my comments on Whittle’s new beginning, I have the advantage of being a critic. Hopefully, because I like Whittle’s proposal, Conservatives view my criticism as constructive.
What Whittle hopes to do is to spur a movement to build structures that parallel and compete with what are currently government monopolies. That is, we pay twice. We pay to support the government monopolies, and then we pay again to buy something that actually does the job in the private market.
Actually, what Whittle proposes has happened before. Even though the USSR was a totalitarian state, because the government-run farms performed so poorly, much of the USSR’s high quality agricultural produce came from small farm plots the state suffered to exist (see Agriculture in the Soviet Union). The survival of those small farms show that Whittle proposes is possible. However, unless you listen to his whole presentation, you will not appreciate why his idea is so important. You will not understand what Whittle thinks our conflict is about, whether we will survive as a virtuous people.
As Whittle suggests himself, what he proposes still needs refinement. So I have offered a few refinements. Here is a comment I left at Bill Whittle Weighs In on a New Beginning.
Like Bill Whittle. Got about halfway through. Sounds excellent! Only problem so far is that I think he underestimates one problem and over estimates another.
As our economy continues to decline, we will have less disposable income. If it is already difficult to get people to pay twice (for parallel private structures), hard times will make it even more difficult. Nonetheless, we don’t have a choice.
We also have no choice except to fight the government tooth and nail. When we start setting up parallel private structures, government regulators will step in order to destroy the competition. Then we will have to fight ferociously to protect those parallel structures. That could easily involve civil disobedience. At the same time, we will have to fight to starve certain parts of the government of money to render it less dangerous.
What we may experience something the early church experienced, persecution. When Whittle talks of ignoring the government, he strikes me guilty of hoping to play it safe. In a sense, he is ignoring his own advice. When we stand for virtue, those without virtue will hate us because we have what they do not have. Will their government officials benignly neglect us, people they see as dangerous competitors? Whittle’s own experiences suggest otherwise; it’s not a realistic expectation.
If we fight for virtue, then we must do what virtue requires. That is, first we render unto God what God’s. Then we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Anyway, those are early observations, and so perhaps unfair. On the other hand, I like what I saw, and I will definitely watch the rest tomorrow evening. (from here)
My initial observations survived listening to the rest of Whittle’s interesting presentation. What else have I to add?
- Whittle’s definition of government is ambiguous. However, he only talks about replacing certain types of government institutions with parallel structures. Those are the Socialist institutions. When government is doing what it is suppose to do (and not engaging in Socialism), it exists to protect our rights. Protecting our rights requires judges, juries, policemen, and military forces. There is no practical way to build parallel structures to replace those government institutions. That is why Conservatives cannot simply abandon participation in the government. Therefore, we must take part in government. Otherwise, we will not able to protect the rights of our family, friends and neighbors.
- In his video, Whittle speaks of what we deserve. Whittle intends no harm. Nonetheless, when someone tells me what I deserve, I find such presumption grating (See YOU DESERVE IT? WHY?). I know better! What I deserve is what God decides I deserve, and is that not true for everyone? Therefore, we must look to Him for guidance, and we must obey His commands.
With respect to the aftermath of the 2012 election, what does God require of us? In FINDING PEACE IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE 2012 ELECTION — PART 5, I will offer what I think the Bible says about this matter.