This letter to the editor is an open letter to visitors at Freedom’s Phoenix.

It is also a shameless act of self-promotion.

Here goes:

The Republican Party was handily defeated in the 2008 presidential election.

It was handily defeated, in my opinion, because it had no clear message.

The Republican Party has no clear message today.  At least it has no message much different from the message of the "other" major party.  Maybe the problem isn't clarity after all - it's sameness.

To those already schooled in Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy and legitimate money, the strong resemblance of both major parties is clear.  Let’s face it – they’re paternal (going on identical) twins!

Following Paul’s strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, the pundits are currently discussing the concession of some significant time being devoted to a speech by Paul at the national convention.

That would be nice.  It would be very nice.

But even if Paul gains the nomination and even wins the office, the two parties, including the one under whose banner he ran, will continue to be paternal twins.

Within a month of the 2008 election, I wrote what turned out to be a 600-page open letter to the Republican Party outlining a message that would help them win in 2010 and 2012 and beyond.  It was a message revolving around my understanding of the federal constitution.  The gist of the message is that each person is primarily responsible for promoting their own welfare, with due consideration for the welfare of others and not interfering with that.  Except for when individuals fail at that, government’s proper role is one of non-interference.  I addressed the open letter to the Republican Party, not because I am particularly enamored of it, but because I hoped they (following such a brutal loss) might be open to a viable message.  The viable message in that open letter has not been heard.

If I were to write such a letter today, I would not address it to either major party.

I would address it to 300,000,000 (roughly the current population of the USoA) parties of one.

I view actual party status this way because neither major party actually seeks to promote the general welfare.  Instead, each party seeks to promote the welfare of 50.001% of the voters at the expense of the balance of voters.  A party that actually sought to promote the general welfare ought to do very well, if it can get its message across.

By the time I finished writing the first open letter, what I needed to be talking about had changed somewhat.  The same would be true if I undertook writing another such open letter today.  So I do not intend to write another such letter.  And that’s the bad news.

The good news is that I touched upon enough issues that are pertinent over time that the letter still stands.  It’s worth a read.  The message that was a viable message then is a viable message now.  And it is a message that is more viable at the 300,000,000-parties-of-one level than at the level of two major parties of 150,000,000 each.  It is such a message because it is a message about personal self-government – individual responsibility that is the foundation of actual government of the people, for the people, by the people.  Such government can never come out of Washington, D.C. or any state capitol or any county seat, or any city hall.  If such an idea ever infuses either major party, that infusion will come from the grassroots up, not from the upper echelons down.

And this is true of the Republican Party, too, even if Ron Paul gets the nomination and is elected as president.  He can’t change it from the top.  It has to be changed from the bottom.

My own personal lay study of the Constitution began in earnest in July 1989.  Three years later, in August 1992, just before Ruby Ridge happened, I had a breakthrough in understanding.  It was an exhilarating moment of personal liberation.  That personal liberation was a direct result of personal effort.  Not in any way I intended or foresaw – it was a complete surprise.  Absent the on-going effort, it would not have happened.

Can a horse or mule be driven over a cliff?  I don’t actually know, but I’m betting they won’t do it.  Human beings in society are different.  We’ve been led to a brink.  And we went!!!  Can we be led over that brink?  I might bet on the horse or mule first!

American society is a “tangled hierarchy” where each of us simultaneously rides in the wagon while we’re pulling it!  The guys holding the reigns are supposed to heed the Constitution.  The only way we can properly monitor and influence them is by knowing the Constitution ourselves.  And it really doesn’t matter if you view yourself more as a beast of burden pulling the wagon, a passenger in the wagon, or the driver – you really need to know the constitution.

By this, I do not propose to say the constitution is perfect in anywise.  It is not.  But it is good enough.  If those driving the wagon of state cannot be influenced by its provisions, then by what means can they be influenced?

Even though it seems the drivers are ignoring the calls from the passengers, my personal understanding of liberty and individual freedom allows me to breathe freely.  I can breathe freely in my liberty under such conditions because I place the foundations of government within myself and my fellow private citizens at large, not within the public institutions at the various state, federal, or local levels.

My understanding is based in a two-sentence assessment of human nature.  It assumes that the economy is driven by individual appetites.  The ultimate appetite is happiness.  My assessment of happiness is only slightly longer and equally vague as my assessment of human nature.   This allows – somewhat forces, actually - each reader to bring their own concepts to bear on the discussion.  To achieve happiness, the individual engages in commerce.  Once happiness is achieved, the individual continues to engage in commerce in order to maintain or further that state of happiness.  As the individual goes about their business, they are almost entirely responsible for their own immediate short term physical needs, long term physical needs, and social needs, as described in Maslowe’s Hierarchy.  Absent acts of murder, kidnap, property violations, peace violations, or treason, government officials should not “participate” directly in this.  If the individual can meet these needs in a suitable amount of time, other time is available to pursue the higher aims of life as described by the upper tiers of Maslowe’s Hierarchy.  The constitution supports intervention in the six acts listed previously.  It also supports non-interference with the upper tiers, which are synonymous with happiness or even religious pursuits.

The ideas just stated are the core of my understanding of the proper role of government which allows me to breathe freely in my liberty, despite the current deplorable state of politics.  Despite less-than-ideal conditions, people immediately surrounding me are doing well enough by me that I’m ok.  That’s pretty good in real life.  So far, any interference offered by “the government” in my personal affairs has not prevented my pursuit of happiness.  I see it as prudent to exert some effort to maintain that state of affairs, but so far, basically, so good.  Writing this letter is part of that effort.  Writing the book is another.

If the core ideas I listed above are of interest to you, one way to find out more is to monitor my comments on articles posted by others.  If such an article impinges on one of my core concepts, I’ll jump in and offer my two-bits worth.  Or if I find such an article while scouring the web, I’ll post it as a reporter with teasers in the article description.  Each of these articles poses an opportunity to “use my core concepts in a sentence”.  What good is a core concept that doesn’t apply to situations which crop up regularly?

But if you want to read my attempts to state explicit concise definitions of my core concepts and use them in LOTS of sentences, you should consider getting my book, The Constellation of Liberty, available in kindle format on amazon.com.  (I did mention this was a shameless act of self-promotion, didn’t I?!)

I am posting this letter now because in the upcoming months, concentration on the presidential election will become so shrill as to drown out any interest in these long term ideals.  “Get the votes, gain the office and damn the torpedoes” will be the order of the day.  Whatever Ron Paul’s fortune turns out to be, pursuit of these long term ideals of popular constitutionalism will be in everyone’s best interest.

Once that level of shrillness is reached, dispassionate discourse is suspended until after the election.  Two to six months after the election is probably the ripest time for that.

Whether or not you ever read another single word I write, I hope you will find a way to base your hope in a belief in yourself and your fellow citizens, not wholly relying on public institutions at any level.

Meanwhile, enjoy and keep up the good fight.

DC Treybil.