By Publius Huldah.
In a previous paper, I explained the shift from the philosophy of our
Framers, which was based on Logic, Fixed Principles & Judeo/Christian
Morality, to the pragmatist/existentialist mindset of today. With our
mindset of today, we are “freed” from the notion that some things are
True, other things are False; some things are Right, other things are
Wrong; and that there exist fixed Standards and Principles such as the
U.S. Constitution and the moral laws to which we must conform.
Today, we have nothing to guide us but our own feelings: “I like it”, “I
don’t like it”, “I agree”, “I don’t agree”, I “believe” or “I don’t
believe”. That is the essence of the existentialist mindset: we make
“choices” on the basis of no standard except for what we “like”. Or don’t
like. When people disagree, those with The Power decide on the basis of
what they like.
Our politicians ignore Our Constitution. They do whatever they want. Every
day, the President violates the Constitution he swore to protect; and
Congress does nothing about it. How could Congress do anything about it?
Since they too abandoned the Constitution, they have no Objective Standard
by which to judge the President. All they can say is, “I don’t agree”.
And WE THE PEOPLE don’t hold our politicians accountable for their
violations of Our Constitution. We keep re-electing them! Why? Because
we too have abandoned the Standard by which to judge their acts: Have you
read Our Declaration of Independence and Our Constitution? Do you
understand the concepts of “enumerated powers”, “federalism” and “rule of
Our Existentialist U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio
All our politicians fall short of the mark. None of them seem to
understand that they are obligated to obey Our Constitution; and that they
have no right to elevate into law their own personal views. They all
illustrate the intellectual and moral collapse of our time even the
charismatic Tea Party star, Sen. Marco Rubio (R, Fl). Consider his speech
of August 2, 2011 before the Senate. 1 You can read it here, and watch it
A few paragraphs into his speech, Rubio says:
I would remind many like myself that were elected in the last election
cycle, tightly embracing the principles of our Constitution… [boldface
Oh! A tea party candidate who will “tightly embrac[e] the principles of
our Constitution”! We in the Tea Party are all for that, aren’t we?
But then, Rubio goes on to speak of the dispute “between two very
different visions of America’s future”.
One group, Rubio tells us, “believe that the job of government is [to]
deliver us economic justice, which basically means: an economy where
everyone does well or as well as possibly can be done.”
The other group believes “it’s not the government’s job to guarantee an
outcome but to guarantee the opportunity to fulfill your dreams and
He’s doing OK so far. But then, he goes on to say, respecting the two
views: “By the way, one [is] not more or less patriotic than the other.”
And, “One is not more moral than the other.” 2
No Moral Distinctions?
WHAT? He sees no moral distinction between, on the one hand, a government
which takes by force property from one group of people and gives it to
other people to whom it does not belong; and, on the other hand, the free
country with a federal government of limited and enumerated powers created
by Our Constitution? No moral distinction between legalized plunder and a
federal government which respects the private property of The People? 3
When one abandons the moral Principle, “Thou shalt not steal”; then there
is no impediment to stealing assuming you have the power to do it. So,
stealing is just fine when the federal government does it because they
have the power to do it.
Making a Choice By What Criteria?
Rubio goes on to say:
…America is divided on this point … we must decide …what kind of
government do we want to have and what role do we want it to have in
Folks! WE THE PEOPLE have already decided this issue: Our decision is
enshrined in Our Constitution the Constitution whose Principles Rubio
promised to “tightly embrace”. Our Constitution does not permit the
federal government to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Besides, on what basis would we decide? Rubio has already told us that
there are no moral distinctions between a government which robs Peter to
pay Paul, and a government which respects the private property of Peter.
Rubio has already told us that those who advocate legalized plunder are
“patriots” to the same extent as those who oppose such plunder.
So! If there are no moral distinctions between the two “very different
visions”, and we all go along with Rubio’s abandonment of his promise to
“tightly embrace” the Principles of the Constitution, then on what basis
do we decide? We have no basis for making a decision other than our own
“likes” and “dislikes”.
And THAT is the existentialist mindset. A mind “freed” from all standards
other than, “I want” or “I don’t want”. “I like” or “I don’t like”.
So! Now that Rubio has come to the point where the only standard is what
we “like” and “don’t like”, he tells us what he likes:
I believe and we believe in a safety net program, programs that exist
to help those who cannot help themselves and to help those who have
tried but failed to stand up and try again, but not safety net
programs that function as a way of life…
WHERE does the Constitution permit the federal government to redistribute
peoples’ private property? WHO can lay his finger on that Provision of
the Constitution which authorizes the safety net programs Rubio “believes
Rubio told us near the beginning of his speech that he was elected on the
basis that he would “tightly embrace” the principles of the Constitution.
The Moral Law requires him to live up to his promise! The People in
Florida must push him to do just that.
And who decides whether we continue these “safety net programs” Rubio
“believes in”? People in Congress like Rubio and Rep. Pete Stark (D. Ca.)
voting for what they “believe in” the Constitution be damned? 5
And as to THE PEOPLE who don’t want to be robbed to pay for other peoples’
handouts, and who object to being enslaved so that Rubio can continue
safety nets he “believes in”: Rubio has stripped them of any moral or
legal basis for objecting.
How to Fix This
I do not accuse Rubio of being a bad person. But he has absorbed the
prevailing dogma of our time existentialism and may not even be aware
of it. The first task of man is this: Ask yourself, “What do I believe,
and why do I believe it?” You may find that you believe it for no other
reason than that you have always believed it. 6
And as a People, we have lost the ability to think and to analyze.
Rubio’s speech [like the speeches of all politicians] reflects this
inability to think and to analyze, as well as an existentialist mindset.
If he had argued from Principle if he had applied the Constitution he
promised to embrace he would have said that Our Constitution prohibits
Congress from spending money on anything other than its enumerated powers.
If he understood “federalism”, he would have understood that the power to
create “safety nets” is reserved to The States or to THE PEOPLE. If he
understood “the rule of law”, he would have understood that the obligation
of people in Congress is to obey the Constitution.
And WE THE PEOPLE must return to our Founding Principles. We must start
choosing our candidates on the basis of their conformity to our Founding
Principles not good looks and charm. We in the Tea Party are every bit
as silly as the foolish Democrats & Independents who voted for Obama for
the reason that he too was good-looking and charismatic. PH
1 I focus on Marco Rubio because he like all other politicians
illustrates the philosophical problems of which I write; but Rubio is also
a Tea Party “star”.
2 Rush Limbaugh understands the significance of Rubio’s moral blindness. I
first heard of Rubio’s speech on Rush’s show.
3 Frederic Bastiat’s essay, “The Law”, explains the evil of legalized
plunder and the moral superiority of limited civil government. It is one
of the masterworks of Western civilization, and the best thing to ever
come out of France. It is clear, and easy to understand. Someone! Give
Rubio a copy!
4 Our beloved James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, couldn’t
find the provisions either. He said:
The government of the United States is a definite government, confined
to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers
are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the
government. James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives,
January 10, 1794 [boldface added].
The Economics Department at George Mason University provides this quote
(among many wonderful others) on its page, Constitutional Limitations on
5 Watch this magnificent woman point out to Congressman Pete Stark that
obamacare makes SLAVES in violation of the 13th Amendment of those who
are forced to provide medical care to others. And watch Stark ignore her
moral and constitutional argument against slavery and tell his
constituents that “the federal government can do most anything”.
6A bit of personal history illustrates this point: I was raised a secular
humanist by parents who were secular humanists. When not much older than
Rubio, I asked a Christian pastor, “How can you believe all that stuff?”
He answered, “I have preconceptions; you have preconceptions. Examine
yours.” I did. And discovered that I was a secular humanist simply
because I had always been a secular humanist. I had never examined it.
When I examined it, I found there was no evidence to support my world
view. So! I abandoned it and learned a new world view based on Fixed
Principles those laws which are woven into the Fabric of Reality.
Let us pray that Sen. Rubio will do the same, and consign his
existentialist worldview to the trashcan (where it belongs). The Laws of
Morality and the Laws of Logic are among those Laws woven into the Fabric
of Reality. And he promised to “tightly embrac[e] the principles of our
January 10, 2012
Comment by Joyce Romano | January 11, 2012 | Reply
Very clear, yet so hard for people to grasp! We constantly hear the
candidate proclaim allegiance to the Constitution. You would think it
is the last thing they read at night and the first thing they pick up
in the morning. They make pledges to those whose vote they want, to be
different than all who have gone before them. They will be the true
follower of the Constitution. They will be a light on The Hill. They
win the confidence of the Right and get sent to D.C. where they take
the pledge to defend the Constitution. Then, it seems as if they never
consider the Constitution for the rest of their political term.
But, it is not as it seems. It is not that they pledge and sware to do
one thing and then ignore that very promise, at least in some cases.
It is that they do not know the Constitution any better than the
average person on the street. For some reason, we think that we know
the Constitution just because we are Americans. We had a class in 8th
grade about such things and we have not read it again since then. We
have the mindset that this document has been grafted into our brains
just because we talk about our “Constitutional Rights” whenever
someone attempts to shut us up or take away our guns.
Folks, we are personally reasponsible for knowing the Constitution! We
cannot afford to just claim to have an understanding, we need to KNOW
it! How can we properly eliminate the candidate from being elected,
who does not know the Consititution, if we do not know enough about it
to question him or her and be able to tell whether or not they
Cleaning up this mess starts with each one of us. Get busy learning
because time is of essence.