In a thoughtful 3500-word piece from December, 2002, entitled The Reluctant Anarchist, Joe Sobran describes his conversion from libertarian-conservative to philosophical anarchist. Sobran, regarded by most establishment conservatives as too Catholic, too blunt, and too anti-semitic for prime time, is at least reliable for bringing up topics that hardly ever appear elsewhere. And, for that reason alone, his columns often make for interesting reading.

He is surely correct when he notes that

"[n]o constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution meant, steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power."

This, of course, refers to Lincoln's war, and the notion, defended by force, that the so-called free association of states somehow precluded any of those same free states from seceding. Apparently, it still "pains" him to admit that, for all practical purposes, the U.S. Constitution is a "dead letter." At least he admits it! What about everyone else? From Lincoln's dictatorial usurpation of power to FDR's massive expansion of the Federal Leviathan, to our more modern phenomenon of the Leftist courts misapplying the Constitution to establish an atheistic and libertine oligarchy, where is the outcry?

The outcry, such as it is, is still to be found mostly on the Internet and talk radio. But even if all the elite media suddenly became conservative, turning this mess around would still be very much in doubt. Blame it all on partisan politics.

Ultimately, there is no political reward for remaking the country. Rather, there is reward only in winning elections. But even this simple paradigm must now be tempered with political correctness, it would seem. Surely Karl Rove knows that had George W. Bush received a scant 3% more of the White vote in 2000, he would have won an electoral landslide. However, spending less time on the unattainable minority vote was simply not in the game plan, and he very nearly lost.

The closeness of the election demonstrated quite clearly, to anyone not in serious denial, that the constituencies of both major parties are tenuous, relying on appeals to emotion and little else. The Democrats can count on the mindless tribal votes of minorities who never knew that the Dems were the racist party before 1964, the Jews who continue to support the Dems because their grandfather liked FDR, the pro-abortion zealots, the homosexual lobby, and the anti-Christian crowd.

Meanwhile, even though the Republicans don't stand for anything, they can count on the nominal conservatives who must oppose the Dem agenda, those with some religion and vestiges of patriotism, and the dreamers among us who believe that heading for all-out socialism at 55 miles per hour is preferable to the same destination at a higher speed.

Just don't expect leadership. Read, if you care to, the recent 117-page mind-bogglingly outrageous decision by US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft, that upheld barbaric partial birth abortion, even as it has been overwhelmingly condemned by people of all political stripe. There are many items to mock in this incredibly poorly written decision, but this excerpt from page 36 will give you a taste, wherein the Fed's experts—all renowned physicians arguing against the procedure—are effectively disqualified.

"Accordingly, this court found that the government’s experts lacked the background, experience, and instruction to qualify as experts regarding the technique of the intact D&E procedure."

In other words, despite their august reputations, since none of them had actually performed this procedure, they could not comment on it. Too bad for Josef Mengele that Phyllis wasn't around to bail him out, since exactly the same argument could have been made about his thousands of "unique" medical procedures.

Did George W. say anything publicly about this decision? I must have missed it. Perhaps he is confident that the Supreme Court will overturn (as it often does) another 9th Circuit atrocity. Is he afraid of the Courts? When did the Executive become inferior to the Courts? For that matter, how many congressional voices did you hear besides Steve Chabot (R-OH)?

In the end, I have to disagree with Sobran and his mentors Murray Rothbard and Hans-Herman Hoppe, who posit a sort of ethereal anti-Statism, while enjoying the protections of the State. The problem is not that the State self-corrupts, but rather that the people get the government they deserve.

Have things changed much since ancient Rome? So long as panem et circenses (bread and circuses) are plentiful, it will be status quo.