One of the great problems that is created by abdication by political leaders is that it unleashes forces it cannot control. When this starts to happen, the leaders (who have been grossly irresponsible) start lecturing the forces they have created on their duty to “be responsible.” That is, as they say, the icing on the cake.
In short, when the responsible are irresponsible, they ought to think twice about lecturing those who were not responsible, but who are now stepping in to remedy some disaster or other, about the need to show great responsibility and care. The sorcerer’s apprentice ought not to lecture those who are scrambling to clean up his mess.
The Bible teaches that we live in a world full of consequences, and those who set those consequences in motion are not the people we ought to be hiring as consultants on how best to manage the disaster they created. “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” (Hos. 8:7). I don’t want wind-sowers to be my whirlwind consultants. People kicking rocks at the top of the cliff ought not to lecture the irritated people trying to deal with the avalanche mound at the bottom.
Three current examples come to mind — the Arizona immigration law, the establishment view of the tea parties, and the hysterics that mainline conservatives show when confronted with any new signs of Ron Paul’s popularity.
I have seen sensible conservative types lecturing the people of Arizona about their new draconian immigration law — and it seems draconian to me as well. But if you don’t like that kind of thing, then fix the border. We don’t need the irresponsible responsible people in Washington telling the people who have to live with the consequences of their abdications to “just be patient.” It doesn’t work that way. Those exhorting us all to be responsible should start by showing us how.
With tea parties, every effort is being expended to make these good people seem extreme. Their problem is that their central tenet appears to be that you shouldn’t spend money you don’t have, and this is clearly extreme. Like, really out there. Those who have been spending decades voting for bipartisan ba-ba-billions are deriding the tea-partiers as rubes and cornpones, whose main talent appears to be an ability to make their shouted racial epithets not register with recording devices. There is clearly some witchcraft involved as well.
And last, a little closer to conservative home. Ron Paul is making a strong showing in a number of unexpected places . . . and some neocon voices are freaking out about it. Let me, for the sake of discussion, grant that Paul leaves something to be desired in some of his positions and associations. The question for all those “responsible” conservatives out there is this: who made this Ron Paul really popular? It wasn’t his charismatic speeches. Who did that? Was it not you with your go-along-get-along conservatism?
I am not like some paleo-conservatives (Paul included) who underestimates the threat of Islamist terrorism internationally. There have been about 15,000 terrorist attacks since 9-11. It is a real thing. Nor do I think it is just swell if Iran gets the bomb — that’s a problem too. Okay, great. But this is where we have to keep things in perspective. My grandchildren are growing up in a world where they have a 1 in 100,000 chance (give or take) of having the quality of their lives negatively affected by a terrorist act. They have a 1 in 1 chance of having their lives negatively affected by the spending cokeheads in the U.S. Congress.
A note to conservative shepherds. If you want real conservative sheep to listen to you, then show some horse sense. Stop saving the flock from the flies, and think more about the wolves.