Git’er done. We got’er done. Got what done? Well, my wife and I hung an interior door. Yep, we got’er done.
You see, we both wanted the door hung. Sure, we disagreed on certain aspects of the process – the means, but we both had the same end in mind. And, we are both satisfied with the outcome.
I bring this up in context of a political endorsement meeting I recently attended where candidates for county and state offices were seeking the support of the local party elite. Part of the process included an open mike so supporters could speak on behalf of their favored candidate.
There was a common theme throughout the meeting, and it went something like this: I am here to support candidate X. Though he and I disagreed on many issues, we were always able to compromise and get the job done.
That’s right, they got’er done.
Certainly my wife and I compromised during our door-hanging challenge, but we were pursuing the same end. Oh, sure, the door wasn’t hung in the manner I believed efficient, nor was it hung in the manner my wife desired. But it was hung nonetheless. We compromised, and we are happy.
But, what about the candidate – a current officeholder – and his supporters? What were their compromises and jointly desired ends? That question kept rolling around in my head throughout the evening.
If I am being robbed, having only $100 in my wallet, I might try to negotiate with the thief. Instead of losing the full $100, I suggest that we compromise on the outcome. I keep $50 and the thief gets $50, and we got’er done.
But, I am not about to stand in support of the thief and proudly state that he is a man of good intentions – a man worthy of support. No, I would vilify him and seek just compensation. And, I would look for ways to stop him from robbing me again.
Now, let's consider the political process in a git'er done world.
An elected official begins pushing a new program: intervention A. Since A is something which I do not support – something I consider theft, I quickly call the politician and demand to be heard. I don’t want A, he does. We argue and get hot. Neither of us is willing to move from our respective positions. Then, in a brilliant stroke of political genius, the politician turns the discussion from rancor to reconciliation, "Let's work together on this."
That comment awakens the years of indoctrination – classical conditioning – I received as part of a collectivist, public education. Positions and beliefs are to give way to consensus, as only the consensus opinion of the collective is right. Whether class or school, the collective body is more important than the individual. So, I acquiesce to his demand.
Where I should have redoubled my efforts to protect me property, I accepted the Fichtean view of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. I agreed to move from my position as my thesis melded with the politician's antithesis to arrive at the collective consensus – synthesis. So, we split the baby and called it a success. We got'er done.
Gone is my disgust over having my property stolen, being replaced by pride in working on a solution – in serving the greater good by defining and implementing the compromise based on the cherished ideal of consensus.
Soon, I will be the one racing to the mike in support of this elected official. We compromised and got'er done. For this reason alone, you must endorse this man's desire for power and prestige. He got'er done once, he'll git'er done again.
My wife and I wanted the same end – a door hung, but we were willing to bend on the means since the means were of little consequence to us. The politician and his supporter had initial stated ends that were diametrically opposed, but they compromised on the means since the means – collective consensus – is the core of their belief systems.
But, it's more than that. Both the supporter and the politician believe that the ultimate role of government is to do – something, anything. They laud those who push issues that create change. Action and decisiveness are always cheered, while adherence to limited and reduced government is laughed away as non-progressive and backward.
Sure, we fight over the specifics, but the fight is the cherished means called politics. With the agreed upon end always being more government, more interventions.
And, it doesn't matter whether the opponents are politicians or citizens; even the side of the aisle is of no consequence. The meeting I attended was held by those who claim to be for less government, lower taxes. But, that's just not the git'er done attitude anymore.
As for me, I don't want the nonsense to continue. I simply want a federal government that never exceeds its constitutional powers, and I want county and state governments that get out of my life and off my property.
I looked around the meeting and saw politicians who dream the big dream, and I saw the party elite and invited guests who want more action, all the while thinking, "let's fight over the specifics and git'er done."
So, there you have it: The means is collective consensus with the end being a government that moves and grows. A sad situation indeed.
But, that's not it. There is a man whose goals are my goals. Sure, we may occasionally disagree over the means – the best way to hang a door – but we both desire the same end: Liberty.
This candidate – my candidate – is Ron Paul of course. And, I'm ready to git'er done with Paul. Let's get the hammer, nails, and level to start putting up the door; the door that opens to a country blessed by a future of Liberty and Prosperity.
Let's rally for Paul and git'er done so we can tell our children that we got'er done.
November 15, 2007
