Out here in the Heartland of America, I have heard from Conservatives who are bumfuzzled by the actions (specifically, the lack thereof) of the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate, in regards to the full throttle offensive battle being waged against America by its own president, Barack Hussein Obama.
I believe that the GOP Establishment have ordered the rank and file to shuddup and practice “Passive Resistance” in an effort to show the party as being “bi-partisan” and able to “reach across the aisle”.
Merriam-Webster Online defines “Passive Resistance” as
resistance especially to a government or an occupying power characterized mainly by noncooperation
Examples of passive resistance are easily found in many societies in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Student protestors occupied Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. Nonviolent movements across Eastern Europe brought down Communist governments in the same year. In 2000 a nonviolent movement in Serbia ended the dictatorship of Slobodan Milošević (1941–2006). Civilians on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have periodically employed the technique. Indigenous peoples forced the collapse of the government in Bolivia in 2005 with protests and work stoppages.
The most important development of the concepts of passive resistance came from Mohandas Gandhi and the Indian campaigns for independence. As a young lawyer in South Africa at the turn of the twentieth century, Gandhi organized Indians to resist discrimination and unequal treatment. Claiming their rights as citizens of the British Empire, they refused to carry passes and held public acts where they burned the government-issued passes. Out of these experiences, Gandhi developed his idea of satyagraha, which is often translated as “soul force” or “truth force.”
One of the key principles of Gandhi’s use of passive resistance was to find opportunities to publicly confront unjust laws or authority. Protestors, or satyagrahis, defied the laws, but sought to maintain a posture that treated the agents of authority with respect and even compassion. Gandhi argued that the means of struggle must be morally compatible with the ends being sought. Protestors often submitted to arrest and even violence, but did not resort to violence themselves. In a protest march to the gates of the saltworks in Dharsana in 1931, for example, protestors willingly walked up to the waiting police, who beat them brutally.
Passive resistance gained a broad public recognition in the United States as the civil rights movement exploded in the 1950s and 1960s. Throughout the movement years, techniques of passive resistance were used both to assert a moral position about rights and equality and to apply economic and political pressure. Martin Luther King Jr. drew on Gandhi and his own Christian tradition to formulate a strategy of nonviolence. Like Gandhi’s satyagrahis, civil rights activists marched peacefully and publicly in Birmingham, Alabama, in Selma, Alabama, and elsewhere. They also accepted upon themselves the costs of their actions, including discomfort, arrest, beatings, and even death.
Nonviolent actions often also exerted economic and political leverage. Boycotts of busses and department stores pressured private business to end their policies of exclusion. Sit-ins at segregated lunch counters disrupted business until owners relented. Defiant demonstrations often led to mass arrests, which encumbered the police and judicial systems. Provocations of the police to brutality gained national and international political sympathy for the movement.
In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the uses of passive resistance in many conflicts around the world became more overtly strategic and less concerned with the moral character of the tools. Passive resistance, one of many forms of nonviolent action, provides a source of power to those disenfranchised from traditional politics. When used as part of broader strategy, it has contributed to powerful movements for social change.
The Republicans have got the “passive” part down pat. The problem is…the Republicans are not resisting.
Sure, they are talking a good game, but, that’s about it.
Does the term “Vichy French” ring a bell?
The Franco-German Armistice of June 22, 1940, divided France into two zones: one to be under German military occupation and one to be left to the French in full sovereignty, at least nominally. The unoccupied zone comprised the southeastern two-fifths of the country, from the Swiss frontier near Geneva to a point 12 miles (19 km) east of Tours and thence southwest to the Spanish frontier, 30 miles (48 km) from the Bay of Biscay.
Pierre Laval joined the government the day after the armistice was signed and became the main architect of the Vichy regime. It was he who on July 10, 1940, persuaded the National Assembly (summoned at Vichy to ratify the armistice) to grant Pétain authority to promulgate a new constitution (569 votes in favour, 80 against, 18 abstentions), so that Pétain was able, the next day, to assume in his own name full legislative and executive powers in the “French State.” The Vichy governments in fact survived for four years by never promulgating a new constitution. Their policy changed in tune with the fortunes of the war. When close collaboration with the Germans proved impracticable, a plot was formed at Vichy against Laval, who fell from power in December 1940 and was succeeded as premier by Pierre Étienne Flandin and then by Admiral Jean Darlan. Backed by Charles Maurras’s Action Française (a newspaper that advocated traditionalist, semiroyalist doctrines), Pétain and Darlan embarked on a period of attentisme (“wait and see”) in their dealings with Germany. Vichy became, at least superficially, a corporative state. The republican slogan of “Liberty, equality, fraternity” was replaced by “Work, family, fatherland.” A labour charter was passed, and there was much talk of a Pétainist “national revolution.”
In April 1942 Laval returned to power and contrived to convince the Germans that they could get more active collaboration from him. Germany was now engaged in massive war with the Soviet Union and with the United States and needed greater security in western Europe. But six months later the whole basis of Vichy’s position was transformed. U.S. and British forces landed in North Africa; the main units of the French fleet were scuttled by their crews at Toulon to prevent their falling into German hands; and on November 11, 1942, Germany occupied the whole of France and disbanded the “armistice army” of Vichy.
If these Vichy Republicans do not “man up” soon and start “‘resisting” the plans of Obama and his minions to turn the “Shining City on the Hill” into a Third World Barrio, they are going to find themselves out of a job after a Mid-Term Election in 2014, that will make the political bloodbath of 2012 seem like a squirt gun fight.
Do not forget, GOP: You serve at OUR pleasure. Not yours.
Until He Comes,