canceled

  We hear about cancel culture as the new buzz word. The latest example being Dr. Seuss. To be fair and honest about that the people that control Dr. Seuss are the ones that decided to quit publication of certain volumes. I do question just why they choose to do that? Is it a desire to be politically correct or a moral decision on their collective parts? I'm certain it took a decision by an entire board of directors. But whatever the case may be, it was their decision to do so. Personally I view it as a form of censorship. I can't see where the removal of any of that will benefit anyone at all. The past is there to learn from, to understand, and to apply in our future. Cultural context is what we are really talking about. That's what cancel culture is all about, establishing a new culture by canceling the old. It's nothing new, it has been going on since man first formed communities. 

 In the case of America what culture did we cancel in 1776? We canceled the culture of government controlling the people! It was explained beginning with these words, "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" and it goes on from there to fully explain the thinking. The people were just sick and tired of being told what they could and could not do as it regarded their "fortunes" and government imposing taxes on everything and anything. And so a government of the people, by the people, and for the people was established.  A new culture was established! A culture of freedom. The issue was, and remains, how to regulate freedom. The objectives seem counter to one another. But we all know that government is necessary, there has to be a final authority, whether that authority be God or Government!  John Locke wrote extensively on that subject. A great deal of our government is based on the ideas John Locke wrote about. He said the "consent of the governed" and "majority" rule were the basis for a Democracy. He also said that " no government is legitimate unless it enjoys the consent of the governed, and that consent can not be rendered except through majority rule." I would say that Government forms the culture of the country. Ours is a Republican form of government. It is not a simple democracy in which a simple majority rules. The "consent" of the governed requires a greater majority to be instituted, a 2/3 majority is required in most of the "core" values established by our republic. 

 It is my feeling that is the culture some would want canceled in our republic today. Now this really isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing, not at all, there are those in both parties working toward the objective of a simple democracy. The reason is obvious. It is far easier to obtain a simple majority vote than to secure a two thirds vote. So while government, and others, are busy canceling the cultural norms many of us have enjoyed, the end goal is a simple one, power. Yes a simple democracy gives the illusion of choice. The idea of one person, one vote, does appeal to anyone that has lost by a few ballots. The objective is the accusation of power. The "canceling of cultures" is a means to an end. If I can "cancel" you I can silence you. Isn't that the purpose behind all this canceling of "whiteness?" It's a vehicle for those wishing to solidify their positions in government by canceling your vote. By giving the illusion of embracing "counter cultures" the hope is to secure the votes from that "counter culture." Yes, fifty years ago it was called "counterculture" with the hippies, beatniks and whatever. The proposals then were the rejection of societal norms. Free love, what was that all about? Really it was just the idea of having sex with anyone or anything for the pleasure of the act alone, no emotional attachment required. Do your own thing! In short, ignore cultural norms, reject that philosophy altogether. Well, life is  just a drag man. Communes were established, remember those? And what happened to them? The same thing that is happening in our society today, they collapsed because of a lack of structure and norms. Some had "leaders" that eventually led them to destruction and some had "leaders" that failed to lead at all. The consent of the governed was lacking without an authority to enforce that.

 The authority in the American culture is the Constitution with all its' amendments. That document is the foundation of our culture. All laws are measured against that. The constitution is the final authority. During the counter culture movement the objective was to use that constitution to support their ideals. The constitution doesn't say I can't do this, therefore I can do it. That extended to everything. We just applied a label to whatever we wished to change. We labeled it "prejudicial." What does prejudicial mean? Pre judged, established as being right or wrong. The constitution doesn't say I can't wear the flag as a piece of clothing, or burn the flag, so I should be allowed to do that. What is being said today? Everything is prejudicial, even Mr. Potato head. The difference this time is the idea that we should change the constitution to say, anything we don't like is prejudicial to our individual identity and therefore shouldn't be restricted! A two thirds majority vote is prejudicial! That's what some are saying. That's the ones constantly insisting we live in a democracy. And then teaching that a democracy is majority rule. They aren't lying, that's what a simple democracy is, the 51 ruling the 49. Is that really the consent of the governed? It is if you are the deciding vote, not so much if you are not. And that is the very reason we have a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is the authority. It is that document that many would cancel today. Why? Lack of knowledge and promises. Yes it is a tempting concept isn't it? I can do whatever I like and the government will back me. Today it is really an attempt to cancel the constitution. The issue? What would you replace that with? Ben Franklin said, a Republic, if you can but keep it.