The "Chest Thumper" Position

Incrementalism, or more clearly, compromise, is the very mechanism by which this country is being (or has been) brought down. Whether it is THE way to restore and then further enhance liberty remains to be seen, but if that is to be the case, a firm hold on the fundamental principles, as our guides all along the way, will be an absolute requirement.

Instead, what I see happening is, the “pragmatists” eventually start to believe that some compromised position is the ultimate ideal. Maybe they believed it all along. You know who they are. They’re the “pro gun” guys who work at it for years, even winning a few victories along the way, and then end up lashing out at their own for being too “extreme”, etc., just as John McCain eventually cracked and lashed out at the Tea Party types, calling them “Hobbits” in a hateful screed.

It’s a mental state, and it’s so common that I would call it “rampant”. Look into what Oregonians are now saying about a proposal to allow them to pump their own gas, for example– Many of them hate it, being shocked at the idea that they may “have to” pump their own gas! Reading some of their comments, you’d almost think that the freedom to pump gas was an imminent holocaust. They’re full-on Marxists and probably don’t even know it! Certainly they make all the standard Marxist arguments.

Somehow we tend to start loving the little cages we’re put into.

There are some who are now very proud of themselves for being adept at maneuvering through all the restrictions and requirements involved with owning various firearms and accessories. Then there are those who literally profit from second amendment infringements. The mere act of imagining all those restrictions and requirements going away, entirely, now that they’re comfortable with them and good at dealing with them, or making money because of them, will make them angry. They will turn on “the fundamentalists” and “extremists” and try to prevent them from getting their way. We’ve already seen examples, even with regard to very small incremental steps toward liberty. Some of those in the industry are benefitting from the infringements. “Regulatory Capture” is the term there, which must be fully understood. The biggest corporations benefit from regulatory capture in a myriad of ways, but mostly because it limits the entry of new competitors into the market.

All of this, by the way, pretty well defines the Republican Party. I doubt there is a Republican alive would allow, if he could make the decision alone, for the second amendment to take on its full meaning and be enforced accordingly. They would fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

And, while incrementalism may indeed be a useful tactic (I’m not saying that it isn’t), we must be very careful! It’s fraught with the dangers above, and more. And when compromise (of the principles of liberty) becomes a way of life unto its own, it is near impossible for any individual to break free of it– If and when that day should come when it is time for the full implementation of the second amendment, “the cult of compromise”, as I’ll call it, will be among your worst enemies.

Should that be the case, we can only hope for another kind of incrementalism. It’s the kind which allows a revolution to happen, one quiet retirement at a time. But if THAT revolution were to happen, there would be a critical need for a large number of “fundamentalists”, else the revolution has just failed– There will be no one left with any principles– The “pragmatists” will have seen to it, having convinced their peers that the principles of liberty are the way to certain failure, that (to use a football reference) the end zone must be avoided at all costs!

So which is it? We must all ask ourselves whether we would dash into the end zone with the football if there were a chance, or would we stop, turn around and pass the ball backward, to a fellow “pragmatist”? Or perhaps more importantly, do we even truly know what the end zone looks like anymore? Would we even recognize it, never having seen it before? Or, in the off-chance of recognizing it, would we feel comfortable stepping over that goal line, or would we hesitate, getting slammed by a 350 pound linebacker and fumbling instead? No one wants to get slammed by a 350 pound linebacker, and so it’s much safer to drop the ball first, or stay out of the game entirely and just try to live with the infringements, or find a way to profit from them.

And so there comes another question. Why should anyone keep espousing the principles of liberty, knowing that he will be attacked by both “sides”?

Regarding the charge of “fundamentalist” as an epithet;
When you want your car fixed, I assume you look for someone with the best, most firm grasp of, and even love for, the fundamentals of auto mechanics. When you want to fly somewhere, I assume you hope that the pilot has the best, most firm grasp of the fundamentals of mechanized flight, etc,, etc. Granted, your mechanic may only be doing a partial repair, or just changing your oil, but you know that if he has a full grasp of the fundamentals he’s the guy you want! Somehow though when it comes to lobbyists or politicians we’ll glom onto a clown in whore makeup, so to speak, so long as he knows a few buzz phrases and doesn’t insult us too much until after he’s in office.

Lyle in the comments here: 

I think he's got Miguel's number good and hard there.

Migs is extremely happy at two tiny little pro-gun bills.  Better versions died in committee, but at least nobody openly carried while fishing!