To Rule versus Govern

To rule or to govern.


1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (also intr) to direct and control the actions, affairs, policies, functions, etc., of (a political unit, organization, nation, etc.); rule


1. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.

George Washington’s Farewell Address, speaking on political parties (from

“They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.”

Since the political shift of 1994, with Newt Gingrich and his Contract for America, bitpartisanship has become a dirty word in the conservative vernacular.

This disdain for anything that smacks of compromise intensified exponentially with the advent of the Tea Party and their candidate’s successes in the 2010 elections.

What we have now is an attempt by the Tea Party Republican ‘faction’ to rule as a minority. They have little interest in governing, if the difference between ruling and governing implies a requirement for political compromise.

This is exactly what our first President warned us of. He foresaw those ‘small and artful’ politicians with their ‘ill-concerted and incongruous projects’ trying to force their vision of our country instead of attempting any ‘common counsel’ or ‘mutual interest’.

So what to do in counterbalance to this force dedicated to foisting its policies and dictates on the American people?

My answer would be to do whatever it takes to remove them from their temporary seat of power. I would remove them as a statement that our founding fathers fully intended, by virtue of the checks and balances they carefully crafted into our governmental system, to forge a system based on compromise.

Every major crises with the exception of the Civil War has been resolved by the two major parties, regardless of the rancor of the debate, crafting a give and take answer that at least temporarily put the issues to rest.

We can’t afford to lose sight of the precedent and traditions that have served us so well since our founding some 220 plus years ago. We must send the Tea Party packing.

4 thoughts on “To Rule versus Govern

  1. Thanks for the timely post, RUC.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

    Right there’s your asinine obstructionist.
    Isn’t going to allow the Black man to stay in the White House. Even at the cost of tipping the country over the cliff…
    Spit on you, Mitch, worm-infested grey-matter.

  2. There’s a massive difference between ‘rule’ and ‘govern’, and your summation is both current and real. To rule is the GOP/Republican/Teabagger mantra, i.e. to impose their ideas on everyone, to force compliance with everything including their warped sense of “morality.” To govern is the opposite, the thesis popular amongst this nation’s founders that the people decide. The Dems, while not there all the way, are by far closer to observing the govern-not-rule philosophy.

    Now if only we could convince ALL potential leaders to drastically reduce the military … perhaps then the ‘rule’ philosophy would finally take a back seat to ‘governing’?

  3. “So what to do in counterbalance to this force dedicated to foisting its policies and dictates on the American people?”

    One philosophy would say, do nothing. Let them have their way. The more they succeed, the more they will be despised, leading to the ultimate destruction of their philosphy (read, “christianity”) their power and their rule. History has shown that the force of this “God-driven” minority will lead to the deaths of millions of people.

    If one views Man as but a part of Nature, then this “Man-made” self-destruction is, too, a part of Nature – seeking to restore balance to the imbalance brought about by Man’s overpopulation and dominance over the environment.

    It kind of sux to sit here and know that the U.S. will undergo the same kind of civil uprising that is going on in the Middle East, with the concomitant slaughter of civilians at the hands of our own military – but that is the path we are on, and I see nothing being done to change that. Indeed, the way the determined minority is acting, they are accelerating us towards that abyss.


    Another philosophy would say, fight fire with fire. The “evangelical” minority espouses killing to achieve their ends – witness the killing of doctors who performed legal abortions, the Oklahoma City Bombings – the recent Right-Wing driven attacks… They attack and kill their “enemies” – government officials (albeit Giffords survived), abortion doctors, etc. If I were to write a screenplay following this philosophy, the anti-hero would systematically eliminate the ruling class and their heirs… a Forbes, ‘misfortune’ 500, if you will.

    Note how the ruling class has made Robin Hood the villian in the latest Russel Crowe movie? Greed and selfishness are exaulted, altruism is the new evil.


    Ultimately, there are two paths: one of violence, and one of non-violence. Either path will ultimately succeed. The path of violence will lead to massive deaths on both sides. The path of non-violence will lead to massive deaths of the non-violent. Which, then, is the better path? Who can make such a judgment?

    In the end, the path chosen will be by happenstance or accident. Thus far, a new Ghandi has yet to arise to lead us down the path of non-violence. When he or she does, will he or she live long enough to make such an impact?

Comments are closed.