We’re Not Joe Biden, by Andrew Joppa

We’re Not Joe Biden

by Andy Joppa


As I continue to contemplate the human embarrassment that the Delaware denizen of the deep (basement) represents, I came to the realization that poor, old, decrepit Joe, is the stereotypical model of everyone on the Democrat/ Socialist/ Progressive Left.  “He is them and they are he.”


Extending this scientific inquiry even further, the question then arises, “Just what is it that makes The Left different, not just from the Right necessarily, but, rather, from all rational beings?”  After a moment’s contemplation, it all became perfectly clear…I had a “eureka” moment.  The Left, and all its fanatical adherents, have only one brain amongst them.


They’re somewhat like one of those giant funguses that expands to cover hundreds of acres in the forest. To consider that the intellectually compromised Joe Biden is the Democrat candidate for president, is all the indictment you need of this group of malignant, anti-American malcontents.  If Joe Biden is your answer…just what the “hell” was the question?


While not attributing to the Left the industrious of the carpenter ant, I can still find an obvious comparison, in so much as an ant mound, and all its millions of members, are but a single organism.  They are all dedicated to the same mindless purpose, with no collective or individual ability to deal with unexpected variables…like the sudden appearance of an “anteater,” a size twelve shoe heading in their direction, or somebody showing up with a can of Raid. No individual ant can go off on their own and look for sugar in California or start a business that sells a product to repel humans.  No, all ants are but reflections of all other ants and must respond, perform, and yield to the single concept of, “ant-ness.”  Joe, and everyone on the Left, are ants.  Every action they take must be met with the antenna clapping accolades of their fellow ants.  Joe’s past apology tour was to document to his fellow ants that he was an ant in good standing.  He certainly met that low-level threshold. While they do have some superficial differences…at the end of the day they are swept aside so that all are the same in every respect.


But, how are those of us that are not on the Left any different?  Specifically, if I explore those that are called conservatives, like myself, what is it that makes us individually superior to the entirety of the Left?  Building on the realization that if you’ve met one ant, you’ve met all ants, an opposing statement can be offered that explains the conservative’s inherent superiority,” When you’ve met one conservative…you’ve met, well, one conservative.”  We are all marginally, or dramatically different from each other.


While we maintain some commonalities, each conservative can be counted on in some way to be different than every other conservative. While it makes our meetings very rowdy, and makes reaching common agreement difficult, it is the essence of our glory.  If there are a million Conservatives thinking about an issue, there are a million different minds dedicated to the task at hand. We are not ants…we are each a universe of yet to be discovered potentialities.  We are each the essence of what it is to be human. We are not Joe Biden.


I know this is true of me…but, of course, you must consider your own viewpoint on yourself. In all modesty, which is not one of my better attributes, I know that intellectually and morally I am superior to the entirety of the 100,000,000 card carrying members of the Democrat Left. If you have a political, economic or ethical problem that needs resolution and your choice is to give it to me, or the entire 100,000,000 Leftists…give it to me…I offer at least the hope of creating a successful outcome. 


Since most of my readership is conservative, I will offer my unique variant of conservatism.  I will risk this with you…keeping in mind, that no Leftist could afford to take a comparable risk with their peers.  You may argue with me, reject some of my viewpoints or, even consider some of my thoughts to be Liberal…at least within classic Liberalism.  But, most of you, at this point, know me…it is my confidence in who we are that allows me to explore my unique take on some complicated ideas and issues facing America.


All my conservative philosophies deal primarily with the required legal actions of government and, as a corollary, the actions that are legally prohibited. An important secondary characteristic is what choices should be made by government when an action is legal but not required. This latter point will become clearer as I go forward.  Within these statements is the entirety of my conservative philosophy.


The thoughts in the paragraph above result in general attitudes about how I “think” about government and which of their actions I can support and which I must resist.


1) Government that functions least, functions best.  “Least” means fulfilling its legally obligated roles through legal means and nothing more. Any expansion of government that is not both legal and necessary weakens America. The powers of congress can only be exercised if they improve the general welfare.  In other words, the “general welfare clause” is not an expansion of power but a defining limitation.


2) Government should not be given, nor allowed to pursue, any power that is not necessary for its legally mandated functioning. Since this quest for more power is a defining element of government, it must be prevented at all cost.


3) The benefit of a government action is always subordinate to its legality.  Any action by government that is illegal, regardless of any theoretic benefit, always creates on balance, a net loss for our nation.


4) With some exceptions the government is not a moral institution; it is a legal institution.  Moral positions, taken without legal authority, are contaminants typically invoked on the road to despotism.  They are tools of manipulation.


5) The government is not my country.  It is a legally authorized transitional manager of our country…but it isn’t our country.  In fact, while I tolerate the existence of government, I love America; not because of my government, but often in spite of it.


At this point, many of you who have made it this far, are probably saying one of two things; either, “I agree” or “Who cares?”  Ahhh…the rub is in the details.  The details being the actual application of these ideas within a conservative philosophy.  I will try to delineate, through the presentation of specific governmental actions, the differences between philosophic conservatism…me, and political Conservatism; not me.  My intent is not to show you the error of your ways but, only, to point out the difference and let you decide on your own.


Capital punishment- I will give this some depth as it best illustrates the application of my general philosophies. There is no doubt that Capital punishment is constitutionally allowed.  There is also no doubt that it is not constitutionally required.  It is this type of decision that invokes the greatest need for wisdom within our political leaders. The question here is, “Should we, in this regard, do what we are allowed, but not required, to do?” Is this a power that government should choose to exercise; is it a power necessary for its essential functioning? A philosophic conservative would say, as I do, absolutely not.

I will not here enter a full discussion of the uselessness and dangers of allowing government the power to kill who it wants…that is, to perform the administrative murder called capital punishment.  I will merely conclude this point by saying it is obviously not a power that government needs to fulfill any of its legally required obligations.  I am frankly amazed when political Conservatives, who have little trust in the integrity of the government, are enthusiastic supporters of government’s right to kill someone who, at that moment poses no threat to the society.  I could suggest many models that would give us the same surety of outcome without the actual act of killing.  Keep in mind, I harbor no sympathy for heinous criminals. I do harbor a deep reluctance to put this irreversible power into the hands of “all too human” government officials. I am a philosophic conservative.


I believe my basic premise has been established above with the same philosophically conservative approaches being applicable across a wide myriad of issues that clearly separate them from political Conservatism. Without extended discussion, I will list some of other areas separating these two, all too frequently, disparate positions:


National security-

A philosophic conservative recognizes that the greatest threat to our freedom is our own government.  Political Conservatives tend to believe that our greatest risk is from outside enemies and, as a result, are generally willing to extend unlimited and illegal powers to the federal agencies.  Our founders clearly sided with the position of the philosophic conservatives.  If this nation is destroyed it will be from within and not from external enemies.


Presidential War Powers-

There are none, except during moments of national emergency.  Political Conservatives often advocate for these non-existent powers to be invoked. Our revolution was driven to a large extent to prevent the whims of a king from sending its nation to war.


Government Deadlock

Political Conservatives tend to regret and avoid this circumstance. A philosophic conservative recognizes deadlock as an essential design feature of our Constitution.


My general premise is that political Conservatives, as compared to philosophic conservatives, are actually “Big Government” advocates.  They are typically not resistive to expanding government powers…even if illegal, if that expansion is directed at issues and positions they favor.  This makes them undifferentiated from the Progressive/Leftists who pursue the same illegal expansions with but different destinations.  I believe that we philosophic conservatives can win the battle for America.  Political Conservatives, however, are just big government advocates in prettier clothing.


I doubt I have done much to persuade anyone to my point of view; nor was that my intent.  I would ask you to consider, however, that if someone says they are a conservative, ask the necessary question, “Are you a political or a philosophic conservative?”  That answer makes all the difference in the world.

There then, is our superiority in a “nutshell.” Anyone who has read my essays or been at any of public presentations would not classify me as anything other than a conservative and, yet, I know I just offered viewpoints on several issues that many of you will disagree with.


This is what makes us completely superior to anyone on the Left…we are all different…we all have ideas…we disagree…we argue…we get angry with each other…BUT…we’re not ants…we are independent, functioning, human beings. We are not Joe Biden. We don’t apologize for having built the modern world.

Check Also

C’mon Joe, It’s Time to Concede, by Andrew Joppa

C’mon Joe, It’s Time to Concede by Andy Joppa   Let us presume for a …