So, here's my take on what I experienced in Austin yesterday. I would love to read your feedbacks, especially those who disagree with what I'm about to say. If you do, please bring in your arguments and experiences, so that we can enrich such a relevant discussion in our days.
I know that the vast majority of those reading these following lines deem themselves to be conservatives. So, despite kind of knowing the general answer to the following question, I will risk asking it anyway.
"Which do you think is better/worse: to use moral coercion and succeed in advancing an agenda; or do not succumb to coercion, think for yourself, stand alone or with a small group, even if in a disunited way, and never move an inch ahead with a general agenda?"
I also know that the risk of generalization on my next statement is very high, but I will say it anyway.
If there is one issue I have always observed anywhere in the political world, regardless the country or culture, is this:
On the one hand, those located on the left side of the political spectrum tend to respect and tolerate diversity of thoughts. Yet, whenever any middle ground is achieved, in whatever type of issue it might be, or whenever their "cause" is at risk, they tend to immediately stop the internal fights, let go of personal/small group thinking, and ALL jump in whatever bandwagon resulting from their discussions (of course, many times merely responding to coercion, fear and threats).
On the other hand, although those located on the right side of the political spectrum also tend to respect and tolerate diversity of thoughts, whenever they need to meet and agree at any middle ground, or whenever their "cause" is at risk, they tend to cluster even more strongly in groups along with like-minded people, and are much more likely to blow whatever bandwagon comes out of their final discussions, thus reaching weakened general agreements, since they would never give in to any sort of coercion or threats by anybody.
Well, that's what I sadly experienced in Austin yesterday once again.
I counted six different folks with their own megaphones AND agendas. From the beginning, those closer to one of those with a megaphone would naturally tend to pay attention to what that person was saying. Therefore, unity was just an impossibility!
One was yelling "open Texas now". The other one was screaming "Texas is open". The other one started singing the national anthem. Another was rebuking Satan from the White House and blowing a shofar non-stop. Yet another was telling the personal story of how his forefathers came from Mexico and fought Santa Anna. Another was telling us all that Trump and Obama did not mater, what mattered was freedom. Another was screaming "Fire Fauci" and performing an opera almost at the same time. Gee! It was as closer one could get to Babble!
The only 15-20 minutes of some unified attention took place when Schroyer and Alex Jones finally made their way there. Not to say, however, that they were a unanimity, because several folks started booing them, too.
So, I came back home with two burning issues in my head.
1) Yes, Texas finally woke up! I saw it in the CD11 campaign trail and I saw it again yesterday. People are more willing now than they were two months ago to carry out civil disobedience because of the understanding of how much their first constitutional amendment has been defiled right now, at every level.
2) On the other hand, nonetheless, I was shocked by the factions colliding against and even fighting each other. The defense of Liberties and Freedoms was supposed to be a banner of the event. It was not. Work together to reopen Texas was supposed to be a banner of the event. It was not. Motivate businesspeople to reopen their businesses on their own, without bovinely waiting on the mercy of the government, was supposed to be a banner of the event. It was not. Now, Trump was. Anti-trump talk was. Obama was. Anti-Obama talk was. The NWO was. Satanism was. And so forth and so on.
Earlier today I was chatting with my dear friend Bruce Pridgen about all of that mess. I asked him the initial question of this post. He warned me, quite correctly, that I could risk perverting the very nature of everything I believe in and teach by even supposing that any accomplishment achieved by threat or coercion should be a seen as a possibility.
Let me state clearly that I do not believe that, ok? Those who know me enough by now understand that that is not where my heart and mind are.
However, I will insist with the question as a way of forcing ourselves to think and inspiring the beginning of a discussion:
Which do you think is better/worse: to use moral coercion over people and practically succeed toward advancing an agenda; or think for yourself, never build consensus, and never move an inch ahead with your agenda? What should we Conservatives, who believe we have the best answers and the best values and the best principles, do to break this dangerous mold of division once and for all? Should we do anything at all?
I end with another thought. I heard several of our old preachers say that Satan, so many times, does not even need to move a finger to advance his agenda against us. He is busy laughing and eating popcorn on his couch while watching us kill each other.
ELIEL ROSA has built a solid career in the urban planning and public policy arenas in Brazil, Latin American countries, Portuguese-speaking African nations, Spain and in the US for the past 20 years. However, instead of keeping a long list of professional credentials and accomplishments, there is a special, top feature he would want you to retain: he is a diehard America-loving legal immigrant!