Dizzying the times may be, raucous and heavily bombarded by gutter materials from the Obama side of the presidential race, there’s still room to maintain sober commitment to promoting freedom, specifically, individual freedom. The latter is what the 2012 presidential election is all about.
Either we stick to real American tradition of "rugged individualism" or dissolve into a country of entitlements dovetailing European countries that have recently declared bankruptcy. Obama has failed to build a country that will last. But he’s done superbly well ruining the foundation of freedom so we come in last. His redistributive policy is very cynical and dangerous and more the reason to send "The One" packing this November.
No sir! I’m still a firm believer in the Tocqueville vision of our country being the "land of the free" and "home of the brave!" Must recapture her greatness for the sake of the political and socio-economic freedom of posterity.
It makes revisiting, learning, and understanding the basic premise inherent in the first principles in order to "defend, preserve and conserve those institutions represented by the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution." After all, freedom is the very foundation that led to the political and economic success of our country for over 236 years under the free enterprise system.
Reviewing basic document
Indeed, most folks across the country skip taking a glimpse at the essence of the law of the land-the U.S. Constitution. However, it’s good healthy reading the debate and papers written about them. But I suppose the same can be said about our ignoring the terms and conditions of the Covenant Agreement that gave birth to a dysfunctional relationship with the feds.
The defiant attitude doesn’t alter the fact that the agreement sets forth prerequisites that would foster synergy and a functional relationship with our national government. The adolescent use of our polished and dismissive mañana makes for good news copy but far removed from achieving progressive strides in the unified resolution of issues advantageous to the NMI. We must settle down to rebuilding bridges rather than poisoning wells.
Risking redundancy, I’ve sought understanding the pathology of the prevailing adolescent attitude. It seems rooted in the misperception of "sovereignty" versus "internal" self-government". It’s interpreted to mean a disposition as though the NMI is in fact a "sovereign" government endowed with the authority of exclusion. No! We gave it up under Section One of the agreement. It makes the NMI a political subserviency of the federal government.
In fits of frustration, we reveal the trashy bigoted sentiment wedging rather than uniting as a people though honest differences exist. Without stating the obvious, I can understand how such alienated sentiment has evolved into futile grandstanding. Governance has nothing to do with nasty jammed fingers by those who violated federal laws!
The open defiance would have to end sooner than later. Is DC adversely affected by your choice of defiance or is it this side of the Pacific that suffers exponentially from such adolescent attitude? Think and think hard. For DC, it really doesn’t matter.
As we struggle to sift through fact and fiction in what defines our relationship, key players must employ intellectual integrity in their discussion of their dissenting views and whether adolescency would get to proactively partaking in "E Pluribus Unum," meaning, "In Many, One."
Demagoguery isn’t leadership but politics; provincial partisanship isn’t leadership but low-level politics at its worse. The NMI needs solutions and elected officials must pony up and get to work forthwith! Governance pines for real leadership not stubborn obsolescence, the latter suffocating their livelihood consistently into the nether world of misery in abject poverty. We don’t want any part of your crown achievement in failure!
Resetting our conversation
The permanency of the agreement doesn’t leave much room for tired rhetoric about colonialism though there’s room to reset the agenda to jointly address how the prevailing dysfunctional relationship emerged and what could be done to rebuild it.
Let’s openly trump our cards in an effort to see with clarity what really went wrong in a once functional relationship. This is the time to seek real time conversation when the next president takes office in January of 2013, including preludes to reconnecting with sympathetic friends in the US Congress.
It all boils down to our ability to communicate with counterparts so we jointly extend the Olive Branch in order to begin anew. Indeed, there will always be a huge gulf between national and local issues, their magnitude and how easily our concerns may be trumped in the shuffle. That this is reality in DC makes it the more vital that we nurture synergistic working relationships with major key players. We’re way off course on this score to our detriment.
Reinvent wheels now
Understandably, there are honest differences of opinions on federal versus local policies. But have we in fact done something concrete to cement the pillars and foundation of self-government under a democratic republic? Have we come to terms with the supremacy of laws?
Yes, there’s political expression to revisit the agreement. But the permanency of the agreement makes this sentiment one lamed aspiration. The most that we could do is encourage Uncle Sam to re-establish the Commission on Federal Laws, a vehicle once provided to work out differences especially as it relates to serious differences on policies.
Confrontational attitude via lawsuits is fine if we’re all living in DC and could march up to Capitol Hill to show our disagreement openly. But we live some 8,000 miles from the seat of the most powerful capital in the world. Too, our issues are often dwarfed by larger national concerns, i.e., the prolonged drought season in mid-western states. Exploratory discussions must begin forthwith where we extend the Olive Branch so we begin anew.
* * *
John DelRosario Jr. is a former publisher of Saipan Tribune and a former secretary of Department of Public Lands.