A recent article by Utah attorney Jerry Salcido touched on the battle many patriots face when they realize the magnitude of our awful situation: do we focus our time on outing conspiracies and pointing out corruption, or do we study and advocate correct principles to win people over to the cause of liberty?
Salcido’s article, also published here, elicited a flurry of responses both of support and opposition. Many commenters had a problem with his seeming abandonment of the fight to expose conspiratorial individuals, and felt that his advocacy for learning philosophy and principle instead of focusing on conspiracy and corruption was only aiding the enemy’s efforts by not joining in the fight against them.
John Birch Society President John McManus himself jumped into the fray, penning a rebuttal to Salcido’s article. Contesting Salcido’s central claim that conspiracy theories (and the effort to expose them) are counterproductive to the cause of liberty, McManus states:
There’s nothing wrong and plenty beneficial with knowing and preaching the philosophy of liberty. But that’s not enough if an enemy has the same understanding yet works round the clock in shadows to impose his very opposite view.
This perception of where one’s efforts of persuasion and influence are best spent is not new. Over two centuries ago the same pattern manifested itself in the works of both Thomas Paine and John Adams. Paine, a master essayist known for his vitriolic and passionate pamphlets excoriating monarchy, oppression, and a government out of touch with its people, used his rhetoric to convince the reader of the need to dismantle the reigns of unjust government.
John Adams was initially impressed with Paine’s Common Sense and felt flattered when some suspected that he was the author of the originally-anonymous document. But as biographer David McCullough notes, “the more he thought about it, the less he admired Common Sense.” Writing to his wife Abigail in 1776, Adams commented that Paine was “a better hand at pulling down than building.” Adams’ uneasiness with some of Paine’s proposed ideas fueled the desire to propose his own:
But it was Paine’s “feeble” understanding of constitutional government, his outline of a unicameral legislature to be established once independence was achieved, that disturbed Adams most. In response, he began setting down his own thoughts on government, resolved, as he later wrote, “to do all in my power to counteract the effect” on the popular mind of so foolish a plan. (John Adams, p. 97)
A decade later in a changed world, Adams reiterated his assessment of his relation to Paine’s efforts in a letter to James Warren. “It is much easier to pull down a government, in such a conjuncture of affairs as we have seen, than to build up at such season as present” (p. 373-4). A few short years later on the issue of the French revolution, he opined in similar fashion in a letter to revolutionary Samuel Adams:
Everything will be pulled down. So much seems certain. But what will be built up? Are there any principles of political architecture? … Will the struggle in Europe be anything other than a change in impostors? (p. 418)
On this last line more than any other, Adams pinpoints the underlying issue in the discussion between Jerry Salcido and John McManus. Conspiracies do exist, evil men wield power, and corruption is rampant. But while some dedicate themselves to tearing down these individuals, their work, and the heavy burdens of tyranny increasingly being imposed on a once-free people, many of these well-intentioned “truthers” lack any principled, philosophical foundation upon which to build a solid structure. This can easily be noted in comments on discussion forums, blogs, or other venues in which these topics are addressed. This is not to say, of course, that all those who focus on such material suffer from this intellectual dissonance. Indeed, many who realize the scope of the problems facing our nation, and their darker implications, are often compelled to better understand true principles and dive into a serious study of history and government. In this sense, Paine is a precursor to Adams.
America’s successful future requires a type of patriot who is part Paine and part Adams—one who will expose evil and fight tyranny while continually studying history, political economy, and the philosophical aspects of government and society. Studying conspiracies and philosophy need not be mutually exclusive, but rather can and should complement one another in a study and advocacy of improving our communities and government at all levels.
This is a very good response. I especially like the angle about tearing down and building up. Thanks Connor!
A good article, but the problem I see with it is at the very beginning. I read Salcido’s “Philosophy vs. Conspiracy” and do not see where it creates a division between Paine and Adams. If anything, Salcido’s article was consistent with exactly what Connor is saying here.
Yes, I think absolutely everyone agrees that both a knowledge of philosophy and conspiracy are necessary and that the principles of good government should of course be our foundation.
It’s not either/or – and I do not think anyone has said it should be.
I certainly studied both as I became aware of our “awful situation”, and my foundation has always been upon the principles.
The Book of Mormon clearly states that becoming aware of these conspiratorial forces can (and should) “awaken” us. That is an important part. The person who ONLY understands the principles but not the forces arrayed against him will not be in a position to defend those principles as well as someone who does understand the nature of the forces arrayed against those just and holy principles. On the other hand, one who is steeped in a knowledge of conspiracy but understands not the sound principles of government is subject to being deceived in what he supports in replacement of such machinations, and also is treading a path where only negative thoughts exist in his heart and mind…
In the Church we rightly teach of the Adversary but we do not dwell upon him – I take this to mean that we should spend most of our effort and time on the positive, and it is just so with politics.
Having said that, I believe there is a tendency to the extremes – in the Church many people ignore or avoid understanding the Adversary at all; and in politics some people can spend all their time studying and tearing down conspiracy…
I find judgmentalism a good measure – or the lack thereof. Somehow we must discern wickedness but not hate. When that begins to happen then we need to put more focus on the positive. Let’s face it, when the conspiracy is fully understood there is a great deal of temptation to be enraged. Faith, doctrine and sound principles and philosophy must be our home.
Fully agree with Darren.
Unless we emphasize education of our citizens regarding what has been done to them over time by the secret combinations they will not be as committed to working for current causes to protect our liberties. They will, on rhe whole, either remain complacent, or they will simply rant and rave swinging wildly with no reall focus because they have not properly identified the enemy and how chameleon-lke they are having infiltrated tentacles into the highest places of government in lands throughout the world..
D&C 38:
27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.
28 And again, I say unto you that the enemy in the secret chambers seeketh your lives.
29 Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land.
30 I tell you these things because of your prayers; wherefore, treasure up wisdom in your bosoms, lest the wickedness of men reveal these things unto you by their wickedness, in a manner which shall speak in your ears with a voice louder than that which shall shake the earth; but if ye are prepared ye shall not fear.
31 And that ye might escape the power of the enemy, and be gathered unto me a righteous people, without spot and blameless—
Darren, I find that anger at times is a good thing. We can be angry yet not sin. The founding fathers were angry. Wild unfocused rage is sinful. Anger that motivates for positive change is a good thing. Heavenly Father organized us with the ability to feel anger. It is the misuse of anger that is wrong. It is GOOD for the people to know the history of what has been done to them and by whom. Knowledge of these things is ths catalyst that will stimulate a righteous anger that motivates them to take focused action. Without it there will simply be two avenues: apathy or wild unfocused rage. Education is extremely important. The Lord said the people perish for lack of knowledge.
Yes, there is a “good” kind of indignation I believe. In the scriptures the Hebrew word translated as jealous (as in God being a jealous God) means “possessed of deep feeling”. Deep feelings are godlike, and they can be that of righteous indignation. We need to take our raw emotions and through education and the Spirit learn how to purify them into deep righteous feelings.