From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #159 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Thursday, July 9 1998 Volume 02 : Number 159 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 98 09:10:17 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: more on: Trading Rights for Politics (fwd) On Jul 8, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Jerry Stratton wrote: > At 9:00 PM -0400 on 7/7/98, you wrote: >=20 > >Interesting feedback from my earlier comments. I don't know that this is= the > >right choice for such a challenge, but the underlying concept is a good = one. >=20 > I think that this, assuming that Clinton goes ahead with his other > executive orders, would be a good opportunity to try and join up with oth= er > groups and put congressional oversight into EOs and regulatory unlaws. > Wasn't there some bill in Congress to require congressional approval for > all non-law laws? This is all a mute point. A bill was introduced that said all bills would have to define the legal foundation of is power from the Constitution. In other words where in the Constitution did the Congress have legal authority for this pending law. It failed. Congress was not about to stop all the illegal bills they pass. Also the Executive orders passed a Supreme Court case. Its power is codified in 50 USC United States Code, the war powers acts. This has been in effect from WWII and with the Red scare of 1950's was continued by Truman and every other Congress and Administration. Sorry dont have the case name but the court said that in effect it was a political not legal issue, that as long as Congress wanted to give the president these war powers they could and Congress always has the political power to take them back.=20 * U.S.C. TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE + CHAPTER 34 - NATIONAL EMERGENCIES o SUBCHAPTER II - DECLARATIONS OF FUTURE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES =20 =20 =A7 1622. National emergencies * (a) Termination methods =20 Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter shall terminate if - + (1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or + (2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency. Any national emergency declared by the President shall be terminated on the date specified in any joint resolution referred to in clause (1) or on the date specified in a proclamation by the President terminating the emergency as provided in clause (2) of this subsection, whichever date is earlier, and any powers or authorities exercised by reason of said emergency shall cease to be exercised after such specified date, except that such termination shall not affect - o (A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date; o (B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or o (C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date. * (b) Termination review of national emergencies by Congress =20 Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated. * (c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate + (1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays. + (2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays. + (3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays. + (4) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such joint resolution within six calendar days after the day on which managers on the part of the Senate and the House have been appointed. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed in the House in which such report is filed first. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within forty-eight hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. + (5) Paragraphs (1)-(4) of this subsection, subsection (b) of this section, and section 1651(b) of this title are enacted by Congress - o (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in the House in the case of resolutions described by this subsection; and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and o (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. * (d) Automatic termination of national emergency; continuation notice from President to Congress; publication in Federal Register Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 11:56:52 -0700 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Congressional E-mail addresses Jack, I have an ancient listing of congressional e-mail addresses which you put out a couple of years ago; however, the House and Senate have changed their e-mail format and these messages are no longer good. Do you have an up-to-date list handy for forwarding. I know I can look it up on the web, but I'm having problems staying connected with my ISP and I get cut off in the middle of all but the shortest web searches. Thanks in advance. Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:41:36 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: RE: Congressional E-mail addresses On Wednesday, July 08, 1998 11:57 AM, Skip Leuschner [SMTP:skipl@pacifier.com] wrote: > Jack, > > I have an ancient listing of congressional e-mail addresses which > you put out a couple of years ago; however, the House and Senate > have changed their e-mail format and these messages are no longer > good. > > Do you have an up-to-date list handy for forwarding. Sorry!No! Jack > > I know I can look it up on the web, but I'm having problems > staying connected with my ISP and I get cut off in the middle > of all but the shortest web searches. > > Thanks in advance. > > Skip. > > > > - Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming | 626 - 798- 6574 ----------------- | 1175 N Altadena Dr | ------------------- Jack@Minerva.com | Pasadena, Ca 91107 | FAX 398 8620 - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jul 98 18:19:51 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Gun Poll (fwd) On Jul 08, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] We are getting hammered here too http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:32:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: FWD: Why We Will Fight, #13 (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:09:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Subject: FWD: Why We Will Fight, #13 (fwd) Posted to texas-gun-owners by Paul M Watson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 04:34:42 -0400 (EDT) From: EdgarSuter@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: FWD: Why We Will Fight, #13 Why We Will Fight, #13 4 July 1998 In This Issue: ** Independence Day: The Declaration & What It Cost ** And From The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page of All Places: "Statesmanship and Its Betrayal" By Mark Helprin An Eloquent Indictment of An Administration and a Generation. *************************************** "The sentiments of men are known, not only by what they receive, but what they reject also." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1776. "Times like this call up genius which slept before and stimulate it in action." -- David Ramsey. Some Independence Day Musings from the Editor: There is a new fad abroad in the land, out past where the impulse of resistance to tyranny trips on the twin strands of intellectual barbed wire named inferiority complex and half-baked analysis. This fad, part defiance, part defeatist, is exemplified by individual "Declarations of Independence" as well as separatist movements such as the Republic of Texas and the "Great White Northwest" fallacy. Such public gestures of weakness and futility make for poor television (witness the ROT debacle) and even poorer principle. They presuppose that we, the defenders of the American Republic as envisioned by the Founders, cannot win the national political argument over whether the Constitution shall remain as the basis of our government (as opposed to the oligarchic statist empire the Clintonistas and their backers would impose upon us). We have lost the ability to win in the larger theatre, these defeatists seem to say, so let us retreat to our "redoubts" (of whatever kind) and die gloriously to the last man, the last woman, the last child, or at least, the last fax machine. The only thing surprising about such faux-Alamos is that their proponents are surprised that so few of their fellow Americans (who are, after all, mostly an eminently sensible people) are willing to follow them to defeatist glory or ignominious federal lockup. This is what comes of self-made "Generals" seeking personal Waterloos without first checking that they have an army to fight with. I have always been amused by that brand of Texan who declaims "Remember the Alamo!" when the call "Remember San Jacinto!" would be more appropriate. Of course it is easier to die in battle for your country and your cause than it is to stay alive, get organized and win the war for those very things. That is the seductive thing about such schemes. They play to our best attributes (courage, defiance against all odds, self-sacrifice) as well as to our darker qualities (self-doubt, laziness, inability to see the larger picture). Many's the Texan who knows every detail of Travis, Bowie and Crockett at the Alamo, yet gets a little fuzzy about Sam Houston, who despite disobedient subordinates finally won Texas independence at San Jacinto. I wonder why it is that no one then or today declaims "Remember Goliad!": where another disobedient Houston subordinate surrendered his command to Santa Ana only to have them all slaughtered as helpless prisoners. The commander who sees only the terrain and the enemy before him has already lost his own battle and contributes nothing to the successful conclusion of his cause apart from increasing the martyrs' list. Whether it is self-defeating separatist standoffs, criminal schemes wrapped in a "patriot" blanket such as the Freemen or individual breast-beating "Declarations of Independence" the result is the same-- a by-now-discredited practice of individual sacrifice without advancing the larger cause. It is the political equivalent of public masturbation: it may make the practitioner feel good temporarily, but it makes the neighbors stare, offends their sensiblilities and causes them to hide their children. In addition, they usually call the cops. It also makes no babies, if offspring are what you're after. I have no need of another Declaration of Independence, individual or otherwise, nor do any other Americans serious about restoring our constitutional Republic-- the Founder's took care of that for us, on another Fourth of July long ago. If I have need of reassuring myself as to Why We Will Fight to defend our right to the free exercise of arms, I will refer to that source document of American liberty, rather than presume to make up my own. The names have changed (instead of King George the Third of England, we now have King William the Worst of Arkansas, Master of the Executive Order), but the greivances of liberty-loving Americans and the means for their redress are the same. Such eternal principles, and what they cost, are the subject of the two articles reprinted below. The first piece was forwarded to me by Arlin Adams, who got it from Matt Anderson, who got it from Kenneth Emmanuelson (my thanks to all, and gee, ain't the Internet wonderful? And powerful? No wonder Al Gore wants to get his hands on it.) It should be read today of all days, not just to better appreciate our ancestor's sacrifices, but to gauge our own willingness to give all that their sacrifices shall not have been in vain. The second essay, a speech really, is by Mark Helprin and was originally given to the Shavano Institute of Hillsdale College. It was reprinted in the form below on Thursday's Wall Street Journal editorial page, of all places. It enunciates some of those timeless principles dealt with by the Founders, and is an indictment of the present Administration and the generation of Americans which tolerates and supports it. It is eloquent beyond the exquisite. I wish I could write half as well. It is a fitting gift to our readers on this Independence Day. - -- Mike Vanderboegh, 1ACR Editor, Why We Will Fight and The John Doe Times My Motto: "Trust in the Lord, Walk in the Light, Speak the Truth, Carry a 45, and Count On Competent Fire Support." 4th of July: What Happened to the Signers? Date: 98-07-03 04:16:37 EDT Reply-To: Kenneth Emanuelson X-Archives: As we head into the 4th of July it is important that we remember what the holiday is actually about... and what others gave up so we might enjoy freedom today. The story below tells what happened to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. What Happened to the Signers? Five signers were captured by the British and brutally tortured as traitors. Nine fought in the War for Independence and died from wounds or from hardships they suffered. Two lost their sons in the Continental Army. Another two had sons captured. At least a dozen of the fifty-six had their homes pillaged and burned. What kind of men were they? Twenty-five were lawyers or jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers or large plantation owners. One was a teacher, one a musician, and one a printer. These were men of means and education, yet they signed the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured. In the face of the advancing British Army, the Continental Congress fled from Philadelphia to Baltimore on December 12, 1776. It was an especially anxious time for John Hancock, the President, as his wife had just given birth to a baby girl. Due to the complications stemming from the trip to Baltimore, the child lived only a few months. William Ellery's signing at the risk of his fortune proved only too realistic. In December 1776, during three days of British occupation of Newport, Rhode Island, Ellery's house was burned, and all his property destroyed. Richard Stockton, a New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice, had rushed back to his estate near Princeton after signing the Declaration of Independence to find that his wife and children were living like refugees with friends. They had been betrayed by a Tory sympathizer who also revealed Stockton's own whereabouts. British troops pulled him from his bed one night, beat him and threw him in jail where he almost starved to death. When he was finally released, he went home to find his estate had been looted, his possessions burned, and his horses stolen. Judge Stockton had been so badly treated in prison that his health was ruined and he died before the war's end. His surviving family had to live the remainder of their lives off charity. Carter Braxton was a wealthy planter and trader. One by one his ships were captured by the British navy. He loaned a large sum of money to the American cause; it was never paid back. He was forced to sell his plantations and mortgage his other properties to pay his debts. Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he had to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Continental Congress without pay, and kept his family in hiding. Vandals or soldiers or both looted the properties of Clymer, Hall, Harrison, Hopkinson and Livingston. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Thomas Heyward, Jr., Edward Rutledge and Arthur Middleton, all of South Carolina, were captured by the British during the Charleston Campaign in 1780. They were kept in dungeons at the St. Augustine Prison until exchanged a year later. At the Battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the family home for his headquarters. Nelson urged General George Washington to open fire on his own home. This was done, and the home was destroyed. Nelson later died bankrupt. Francis Lewis also had his home and properties destroyed. The British jailed his wife for two months, and that and other hardships from the war so affected her health that she died only two years later. "Honest John" Hart, a New Jersey farmer, was driven from his wife's bedside when she was near death. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. Hart's fields and his grist mill were laid waste. For over a year he eluded capture by hiding in nearby forests. He never knew where his bed would be the next night and often slept in caves. When he finally returned home, he found that his wife had died, his children disappeared, and his farm and stock were completely destroyed. Hart himself died in 1779 without ever seeing any of his family again. Such were the stories and sacrifices typical of those who risked everything to sign the Declaration of Independence. These men were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." * * * The story comes from http://www.self-gov.org/liberator/ ================== Matt Anderson - Patent Attorney - anderson@airmail.net "Americans, indeed all free men, remember that in the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1953 ************************************************* Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 2, 1998 "Statesmanship and Its Betrayal" By Mark Helprin When Marco Polo entered Xanadu, the capital of the great Khan, he crossed.... (see attachment for complete file.) 
Why We Will Fight, #13 Attachment #1  The
Wall Street Journal Thursday, July 2,
1998 "Statesmanship and Its
Betrayal" By
Mark Helprin When Marco Polo entered Xanadu, the capital of the Great Khan,
he crossed ring after ring of outer city, each more splendid and
interesting than the one that had come before.  He was used to greatness
of scale, having traveled to the limits of the ordered world and then
twice as far into the unknown, where no European had ever set foot, over
the Hindu Kush and beyond the Pamir, and through the immense, empty
deserts of Central Asia.  And yet after passing through the world's most
ethereal regions he was impressed above all by Xanadu, a city of seemingly
infinite expanse, the end of which he could not see no matter in which
direction he looked. 

For almost 1,000 years, this city floated at the peak of Western
imagination.  Unlike Jersualem, it had vanished.  Unlike Atlantis, someone
had actually seen it.  Even during the glory of the British Empire,
Coleridge held it out for envy.  But no more.  Now it has been eclipsed,
with ease, by this, our country, founded not as a Xanadu but with the
greatest humility, and on the scale of yeomen and their small farms, and
as the cradle of simple gifts. 

This country was not expected to be what it became.  It was expected to be
infinite-seeming in its rivers, prairies and stars, not in cities with
hundreds of millions of rooms, passages, halls, and buildings a
quarter-mile high.  It was expected to be rich in natural silence and the
quality of light rather than in uncountable dollars.  It was expected to
be a place of unfathomable numbers, but of blades of grass and grains of
wheat and the crags of mountains, rather than miliions upon millions of
motors spinning and humming at any one time, and wheels turning, fires
burning, voices talking and lights shining. 

But this great inventory of machines, buildings, bridges, vehicles and an
incomprehensible number of smaller things, is what we have.  A nation
founded according to a vision of simplicity has become complex.  A nation
founded with disdain for power has become the most powerful nation. 

The Essential Qualities When letters took a month by sea and the
records of the U.S. government could be moved in a single wagon pulled by
two horses, we had great statesmanship.  We had men of integrity and
genius:  Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and
Monroe.  These were men who were in love with principle as if it were an
art, which, in their practice, they made it, They studied empires that had
fallen, for the sake of doing what was right in a small country that had
barely risen, and were able to see things so clearly that they surpassed
in greatness each and every one of the classical models that they had
approached in awe. 

Now, lost in the sins and complexity of a Xanadu, when we desperately need
their high qualities of thought, their patience for deliberation, and
their unerring sense of balance, we have only what we have. 

Which is a political class that in the main has abandoned the essential
qualities of statemanship, with the excuse that these are inappropriate to
our age.  They are wrong.  Not only do they fail to honor the principles
of statesmanship, they fail to recognize them, having failed to learn
them, having failed to have wanted to learn them. 

In the main, they are in it for themselves.  Were they not, they would
have a higher rate of attrition, falling with the colors of what they
believe rather than landing always on their feet-- adroitly, but in
dishonor.  In light of their vows and responsibilities, this constitutes
not merely a failure but a betrayal, and not only of statesmanship and
principle but of country and kin. 

And why is that?  It is because things matter.  Even though it be played
like a game, by men who excel at making it a game, our life in this
country, our history in this country, the sacrifices that have been made
for this country, the lives that have been given to this country, are not
a game.  My life is not a game.  My children's lives are not a game.  My
parents' lives were not a game.  Your life is not a game. 

Yes, it is true, we do have great accumulated stores-- of power, and
wealth, and decency-- against which those who pretend to lead us can draw
when as a result of their vanity and ineptitude they waste and expend the
gifts of previous generations.  The margin of error bequeathed to them
allows them to present their failures as successes. 

They say, "As we are still standing, and a chicken is in the pot, what
does it matter if I break the links between action and consequence, work
and reward, crime and punishment, merit and advancement?  I myself cannot
imagine a military threat (and never could), so what does it matter if I
weld shut the silo hatches on our ballistic missle submarines?  What does
it matter if I weld shut my eyes to weapons of mass destruction in the
hands of lunatics who are building long-range missles?  Our jurisprudence
is the envy of the world, so what does it matter if, now and then, I
perjure myself, a little?  What is an oath?  What is a pledge?  What is a
sacred trust?  Are not these things the province of the kinds of people
who were foolish enough to do without all their lives, to wear ruts into
the Oregon Trail, to brave the seas, to die on the beaches of Normandy and
Iwo Jima and on the battlefields of Shiloh and Antietam, for me, so that I
can draw from America's great accounts, and look good, and be
presidential, and have fun, in all kinds of ways?" 

Blood Onto Sand  That is what they say, if not in words then, indelibly, in
actions.  They who, in robbing Peter to pay Paul, present themselves as
payers and forget that they are also robbers.  They who, with studied
compassion, minister to some of us at the expense of others.  They who
make goodness and charity a public profession, depending for their
election upon a well-mannered embrace of these things and the power to
move them not from within themselves or by their own sacrifices but, by
compulsion, from others.  They who, knowing very little or next to
nothing, take pride in eagerly telling everyone else what to do. They who
believe absolutely in their recitation of pieties not because they believe
in the pieties but because they believe in themselves. 

Nearly 400 years of America's hard-earned accounts-- the principles we
established, the battles we fought, the morals we upheld for century after
century, our very humility before God-- now flow promiscuously through our
hands, like blood onto sand, squandered and laid waste by a generation
that imagines history to have been but a prelude for what it itself will
accomplish, More than a pity, more than a shame, such a thing is
despicable.  And yet, this parlous condition, this agony of weak men, this
betrayal and this disgusting show, are not the end of things. 

Principles are eternal.  They stem not from our resolution or lack of it
but from elsewhere, where in patient and infinite ranks they simply wait
to be called.  They can be read in history.  They arise as if of their own
accord when in the face of danger natural courage comes into play and
honor and defiance are born.  Things such as courage and honor are the
mortal equivalent of certain laws written throughout the universe.  The
rules of symmetry and proportion, the laws of physics, the perfection of
mathematics, even the principle of uncertainty, are encouragement,
entirely independent of the vagaries of human will, that not only natural
law but our own best aspirations have a life of their own.  They have
lasted through far greater abuse than abuses them now.  They can be
neglected, but they cannot be lost.  They can be thrown down, but they
cannot be broken. 

Each of them is a different expression of a single quality, from which
each arises in its hour of need.  Some come to the fore, as others stay
back, and then, with changing circumstance, those that have gone unnoticed
rise to the occasion.  Rise to the occasion.  The principle suggests
itself from a phrase, and such principles suggest easily and flow
generously.  You can grab them out of the air, from phrases, from
memories, from images. 

A statesman must rise to the occasion.  Even Democrats can do this.  Harry
Truman had the discipline of plowing a straight row 10, 12 and 14 hours a
day, of rising and retiring with the sun, of struggling with tempermental
machinery, of suffering heat and cold and one injury after another.  After
a short time on the farm, presumptions about ruling others tend to vanish. 
It is as if you are pulled to earth and held there. 

The man who works the land is hard put to think that he would direct
armies and nations.  Truman understood the grave responsibility of being
the president of the United States, and that it was a task too great for
him or anyone else to accomplish without doing a great deal of injury-- if
not to some, then to others.  He understood that, therefore, he had to
transcend himself.  There would be little enjoyment of the job, because he
had to be always aware of the enormous consequences of everything he did. 
Contrast this with the unspeakably vulgar pleasure in office of President
Clinton. 

Truman, absolutely certain that the mantle he assumed was far greater than
he could ever be, was continually and deliberately aware of the weight of
history, the accomplishments of his predecessors, and, by humble
projection, his own inadequacy.  The sobriety and care that derived from
this allowed him a rare privilege for modern presidents, to give to the
presidency more than he took from it.  It is not possible to occupy the
Oval Office without arrogantly looting its assets or nobly adding to them. 
May God bless the president who adds to them, and may God damn the
president who loots them. 

America would not have come out of the Civil War as it did had it not been
led by men like Lincoln and Lee.  The battles raged for four years, but
for 100 years the country, both North and South, modeled itself on their
characters.  They exemplified almost perfectly Churchill's statement that
"public men charged with the conduct of the war should live in a continual
stress of soul." 

This continual stress of soul is necessary as well in peacetime, because
for every good deed in public life there is a counterbalance.  Benefits
are given only after taxes are taken.  That is part of governance.  The
statesman, who represents the whole nation, sees in the equillibrium for
which he strives a continual tension between victory and defeat.  If he
did not understand this, he would have no stress of soul, he would be
merely happy-- about money showered upon the orphan, taken from the widow. 
About children sent to day care, so that they may be long absent from
their parents.  About merciful parole, of criminals who kill again. 
Whereas a statesman knows continual stress of soul, a politician is happy,
for he knows not what he does.

It is difficult for individuals or nations to recognize that war and peace
alternate.  But they do.  No matter how long peace may last, it will end
in war.  Though most people cannot believe at this moment that the United
States of America will ever again fight for its survival, history
gaurantees that it will.  And, when it does, most people will not know
what to do.  They will believe of war, as they did of peace, that it is
everlasting.  The statesman, who is different from everyone else, will, in
the midst of common despair, see the end of war, just as during the peace
he was alive to the inevitability of war, and saw it coming in the far
distance, as if it were a gray wave moving quietly across a dark sea. 

The politician will revel with his people and enjoy their enjoyments.  The
statesman, in continual stress of soul, will think of destruction.  As
others move in the light, he will move in darkness, so that as others move
in darkness, he may move in the light.  This tenacity, that is given to
those of long and insistent vision, is what saves nations. 

A statesman must have a temperment that is suited for the Medal of Honor,
in a soul that is unafraid to die.  Electorates rightly favor those who
have endured combat, not as a matter of reward for service, as is commonly
believed, but because the willingness of a soldier to give his life is a
strong sign of his correct priorities, and that in the future he will
truly understand that statesmen are not rulers but servants.  It seems
clear that even in these years of squalid degradation that having risked
death for the sake of honor is better than having risked dishonor for the
sake of life. 

Hunger for a Statesman

No matter what you are told by the sophisticated classes that see virtue
in every form of corruption and corruption in every form of virtue, I
think you know, as I do, that the American people hunger for acts of
integrity and courage.  The American people hunger for a statesman
magnetized by the truth, unwilling to give up his good name, uninterested
in calculation only for the sake of victory, unable to put his interests
before those of the nation.  What this means in practical terms is no
focus groups, no polls, no triangulation, no evasion, no broken promises
and no lies.  These are the tools of the chameleon.  They are employed to
cheat the American people of honest answers to direct questions.  If the
average politician, for fear that he may lose something, is incapable of
even a genuine yes or no, how is he supposed to rise to the great
occasions of state?  How is he supposed to face a destructive and
implacable enemy?  How is he supposed to understand the rightful destiny
of his country, and lead it there? 

At the coronation of an English monarch, he is given a sword.  Elizabeth
II took it last, and as she held it before the altar, she heard these
words:  "Receive this kingly Sword, brought now from the altar of God and
delivered to you by us, the Bishops and servants of God, though unworthy. 
With this Sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy
Church of God, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that
are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and
reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order; that doing these
things you may be glorious in all virtue, and so faithfully serve our
Lord." 

Would that we in America come once again to understand that statesmanship
is not the appetite for power but-- because things matter-- a holy calling
of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice.  We have made it something else. 
Nonetheless, after and despite its betrayal, statesmanship remains the
manifestation, in political terms, of beauty, and balance, and truth.  It
is the courage to tell the truth, and thus discern what is ahead.  It is a
mastery of the symmetry of forces, illuminated by the genius of speaking
to the heart of things. 

Statesmanship is a quality that, though it may be betrayed, is always
ready to be taken up again merely by honest subscription to its great
themes.  Have confidence that even in idleness its strengths are growing,
for it is a providential gift given to us in times of need.  Evidently we
do not need it now, but as the world is forever interesting the time will
surely come when we do.  And then, so help me God, I believe that, solely
by the grace of God, the corrupt will be thrown down and the virtuous will
rise up. 

(Mr. Helprin, a novelist, is a contributing editor of the Journal.  This
is adapted from a speech delivered to the Hillsdale College Shavano
Institute.)
- -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #159 *************************