Friday, January 6, 2012

Just When Did Rules Become Optional??

OK, forgive me if I sound un-American - or at least old fashioned - for a moment.  But when exactly did it become wrong to do the right thing?  When did obeying the rules become an optional exercise?

The patriot in me wants to believe it's a holdover from our colonial fathers dumping tea into Boston Harbor.  But lest we forget, those same folks wrote up maybe the greatest man-made document ever written: the US Constitution.  But these days even that is optional (more on that later).

Seriously, when did it become OK for mob rule to rule the mobs?

Occupy _____ (fill in your location) exists to protest those whom they believe did not obey the rules of society, if not the rule of law. But in so doing, their protests frequently break the law and disrupt the lives of those who try to live by the rules.

Thousands of foreign nationals can stream across our borders without obeying the rules of immigration, and then are celebrated and defended for doing so.  From a practical standpoint little can be done now, and sending them back would be cruel and unrealistic, but pity the fool who dares imply that perhaps they should not be here in the first place.

Fox News, that defender of all things American, routinely broadcasts stories of patriotic men and women who, in "damned the torpedoes" fashion, insist on their rights to wear a pin or display a flag even after they are made aware that the rules of their employer or subdivision prohibit such acts.  Once again, the rules don't apply if someone thinks that in breaking them they accomplish some greater good.

Lastly, and perhaps most egregious, rules no longer apply to our politicians (if they ever did in the first place).  With the advent of internet news, we hear more and more reports of instances where laws have been written to apply to the average citizen but not the politician.  For example, the public is forbidden from trading on inside information or getting special stock deals, but congress does so routinely, as first reported last year by 60 minutes:


And the most current example of disregard of rules (disclaimer: the day is still young), our President, yes that man who swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" now chooses to ignore the Constitution and the resistance he gets from congress by appointing recess appointments when congress isn't in recess.  This is hardly new, as from day one he has appointed cabinet level positions without calling them cabinet level positions, thus getting around that pesky Senate confirmation process once again. 

The beauty of this nation has always been that it is a nation of laws.  Alexander Hamilton once said that our most sacred duty and greatest source of security was "an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws."  And it is this constant in our culture that has not only defined us, but protected us from would-be despots of either party.  

When did rules become optional?  It's hard to tell whether the people follow our leaders or our leaders follow us.  But once "we the people" decide we will only obey the rules that we ourselves like, nothing is left to consider constant but chaos.  For what you may consider wrong, I may consider noble, and if given the chance I may just impose my will on you, regardless of any rules against it.

No comments:

Post a Comment